This is the third installment of our “books that changed the world” series. Be sure to read the previous two so that you don’t think we have missed important books off the list. If you can think of books that are not on any of the three lists that deserve a mention in future, be sure to tell us about it in the comments. Here are the original two lists: Top 10 Books That Changed The World, and 10 More Books That Changed The World. These are in no particular order.
Why it changed the world: This book (though not the first dictionary) was the first to use literary quotations to illustrate the meanings of words. It set the stage for the scholarly study of language.
Published on 15 April 1755 and written by Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, sometimes published as Johnson’s Dictionary, is among the most influential dictionaries in the history of the English language. There was dissatisfaction with the dictionaries of the period, so in June 1746 a group of London booksellers contracted Johnson to write a dictionary for the sum of 1,500 guineas, equivalent to about £220,000 as of 2009.
Johnson took nearly nine years to complete the work, although he had claimed he could finish it in three. Remarkably, he did so single-handedly, with only clerical assistance to copy out the illustrative quotations that he had marked in books. Johnson wrote several revised editions during his life. Until the completion of the Oxford English Dictionary, 150 years later, Johnson’s was viewed as the pre-eminent English dictionary.
Why it changed the world: It virtually created modern economics – the free market and competition. In it, Smith proposes the invisible hand of the market: the pursuit of self-interest can be beneficial to society at large: for example, the Butcher, the Baker, and the Brewer provide goods and services to each other out of self-interest; the unplanned result of this division of labor is a better standard of living for all three.
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations is the magnum opus of the Scottish economist Adam Smith. It is a clearly written account of economics at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, as well as a rhetorical piece written for the generally educated individual of the 18th century – advocating a free market economy as more productive and more beneficial to society.
The work is credited as a watershed in history and economics due to its comprehensive, largely accurate characterization of economic mechanisms that survive in modern economics; and also for its effective use of rhetorical technique, including structuring the work to contrast real world examples of free and fettered markets.
Why it changed the world: This book on Levi’s time in Auschwitz changed man’s understanding for suffering and gave us an awareness of our unlimited ability to work for good or evil.
If This Is a Man (United States title: Survival in Auschwitz) is a work of witness by the Italian author Primo Levi. It was influenced by his experiences in the concentration camp at Auschwitz during the Second World War. It can be described as a memoir or a personal narrative, but it goes beyond mere recollection by seeking to consider the human condition in all its extremes through the narrative form.
The first manuscript for If This Is a Man was completed by Levi in December 1946. However, in January 1947, the manuscript was refused by Einaudi. Despite this, Levi managed to find another, smaller publisher who printed 2,500 copies of the book. 1,500 of these were sold, mostly in his home town, Turin. It was not until 1956 that Einaudi published the work in a revised form. On this occasion, the book had major worldwide success, being translated into English by Stuart Woolf in 1958, and into German by Heinz Reidt in 1959.
Why it changed the world: Achebe was the first African to writer to show the world that Africa had suffered brutally under colonialism. He finally gave a voice to the millions of oppressed and misunderstood Africans and for the first time, the world listened.
Things Fall Apart is a milestone in African literature. It has achieved the status of the archetypal modern African novel in English, and is read in Nigeria and throughout Africa. It is studied widely in Europe and North America, where it has spawned numerous tertiary analytical works. It has achieved similar repute in India and Australia. Considered Achebe’s magnum opus, it has sold more than 8 million copies worldwide. Time Magazine included the novel in its TIME 100 Best English-language Novels from 1923 to 2005.
Achebe’s writing about African society is intended to extinguish the misconception that African culture had been savage and primitive by telling the story of the colonization of the Igbo from an African point of view. In Things Fall Apart, western culture is portrayed as being “arrogant and ethnocentric,” insisting that the African culture needed a leader. As it had no kings or chiefs, Umofian culture was vulnerable to invasion by western civilization. It is felt that the repression of the Igbo language at the end of the novel contributes greatly to the destruction of the culture.
Why it changed the world: The historical hatred of the Jews in Europe was re-ignited by this anonymous book (believed to have been produced by the Russian Secret Police) and in time it formed the core of Hitler’s plan for their extermination.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a tract alleging a Jewish and Masonic plot to achieve world domination. Purportedly written by a secret group of Jews known as the Elders of Zion, the document underlies 24 protocols that are supposedly followed by the Jewish people. The Protocols has been proven to be a literary forgery and hoax as well as a clear case of plagiarism.
The Protocols became a part of the Nazi propaganda effort to justify persecution of the Jews. It was made required reading for German students. In The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933–1945, Nora Levin states that “Hitler used the Protocols as a manual in his war to exterminate the Jews”:
Despite conclusive proof that the Protocols were a gross forgery, they had sensational popularity and large sales in the 1920s and 1930s. They were translated into every language of Europe and sold widely in Arab lands, the United States, and England. But it was in Germany after World War I that they had their greatest success. There they were used to explain all of the disasters that had befallen the country: the defeat in the war, the hunger, the destructive inflation.
Why it changed the world: Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems was the book that sparked off the centuries-long debate of science versus religion. It was the cause of Galileo’s imprisonment and the end of his writing career (with the exception of his Discourses). It was not the science of this book which was problematic – it was Galileo’s mocking of the Pope which caused him to come before the Inquisition.
The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was a 1632 book by Galileo, comparing the Copernican system with the traditional Ptolemaic system. In the Copernican system the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun, while in the Ptolemaic system everything in the Universe circles around the Earth. The Dialogue was published in Florence under a formal license from the Inquisition.
In 1633, Galileo was convicted of “grave suspicion of heresy” based on the book, which was then placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, from which it was not removed until 1835 (after the theories it discussed had been permitted in print in 1822.) In an action that was not announced at the time, the publication of anything else he had written or ever might write was also banned.
Why it changed the world: There is no doubt that the invention of the telephone is one of the most significant and world changing inventions in the history of man. But without the telephone directory, it would never have succeeded. The popularity of the phone relied on the ability of subscribers to know who else was subscribed so they could telephone them.
The first telephone directory, consisting of a single page, was issued on February 21, 1878. It covered 50 subscribers in New Haven, Connecticut. The Reuben H. Donnelly company asserts that it published the first classified directory, or yellow pages, for Chicago, Illinois, in 1886. The first British telephone directory was published in 1880.
In the US, under current rules and practices, mobile phone and Voice over IP listings are not included in telephone directories. Efforts to create cellular directories have met stiff opposition from several fronts, including a significant percentage of subscribers who seek to avoid telemarketers.
Why it changed the world: The frequent calls for this book to be banned due to teenaged sexuality and vulgar language have kept the concept of censorship clearly in the public eye. This novel is the archetype of the teenage novel – now a very popular genre in literature.
The Catcher in the Rye is a 1951 novel by J. D. Salinger. Originally published for adults, the novel has become a common part of high school and college curricula throughout the English-speaking world; it has also been translated into almost all of the world’s major languages. Around 250,000 copies are sold each year, with total sales of more than sixty-five million. The novel’s antihero, Holden Caulfield, has become an icon for teenage rebellion and defiance.
The novel was chosen by Time among the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005, and by Modern Library and its readers as one of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century. It has been frequently challenged in the United States for its liberal use of profanity and portrayal of sexuality and teenage angst.
Why it changed the world: This landmark epic novel proved to the world that America had a unique voice in the world of literature – a voice worth hearing. There is no doubt that America now dominates the world of modern literature.
Moby-Dick is an 1851 novel by Herman Melville. The story tells the adventures of the wandering sailor Ishmael and his voyage on the whaleship Pequod, commanded by Captain Ahab. Ishmael soon learns that Ahab seeks one specific whale, Moby Dick, a white whale of tremendous size and ferocity. Comparatively few whaleships know of Moby Dick, and fewer yet have encountered him. In a previous encounter, the whale destroyed Ahab’s boat and bit off his leg. Ahab intends to take revenge.
In Moby-Dick, Melville employs stylized language, symbolism, and metaphor to explore numerous complex themes. Through the main character’s journey, the concepts of class and social status, good and evil, and the existence of gods are all examined as Ishmael speculates upon his personal beliefs and his place in the universe.
Why it changed the world: The first “Sherlock Holmes novel” created the detective genre which has enthralled readers and filmgoers for well over a century. It can be said that Holmes changed the face of entertainment.
A Study in Scarlet is a detective mystery novel written by British author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, which was first published in 1887. It is the first story to feature the character of Sherlock Holmes, who would later become one of the most famous and iconic literary detective characters, with long-lasting interest and appeal. The book’s title derives from a speech given by Holmes to his companion Doctor Watson on the nature of his work, in which he describes the story’s murder investigation as his “study in scarlet”: “There’s the scarlet thread of murder running through the colourless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it.”
The story, and its main character, attracted little public interest when it first appeared. Although Doyle wrote fifty-six short stories featuring Holmes, A Study in Scarlet is one of only four full-length novels in the original canon. The novel was followed by The Sign of Four, published in 1890.
This article is licensed under the GFDL because it contains quotations from Wikipedia.
Woohoo! Glad to see Sherlock Holmes’ name in the list
Gismo:
Come on now… a little healthy skepticism about claims one hears is a good thing. But you go overboard.
“In what way, if any, does American literature even have an impact on let alone dominate modern literature?”
This is just silly. The “dominance” part of this is arguable, but to say that American literature doesn’t even have an IMPACT on modern literature is ridiculous.
American literature’s impact has been astoundingly large, for a country whose literary tradition is only as old as itself–some two or three hundred years or so. One need only mention a handful of the giants of literature who have been American: Poe, Hawthorne, Melville, Twain, Thoreau, Emerson, Faulkner, Hammett, Chandler, Frost, Eliot, Dickinson, Moore, Pound, Henry Miller AND Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, Kerouac, Burroughs… and these are just the obvious ones. There are countless others that could be mentioned. And of course, it wasn’t just that these men and women wrote great books and poems—they wrote IMPORTANT books and poetry that had a huge impact on style, theme, and the philosophy of literature overall. This impact rippled the world over, also–not just in English speaking countries.
“It’s primary effect seems to be in the recycling of ideas, the reinforcement of stereotypes”
This is entirely without basis. Where is your support for a statement like that? Recylcing of ideas? Reinforcement of stereotypes?
“and imposing of certainty where doubt is more appropriate.”
And again—on what are you basing this? Are you not talking about a wholly different, underclass of literature? There are ALWAYS low and mid-cultish works that don’t do anything but add words to the air… but the high works of American literature have always employed irony and uncertainty and an eye on the reality of life.
“Kingsly Amis once said that ‘literature was the war on cliches’. If that be true then American literature has been of no use at all.”
Again, how so? What “cliches” were reinforced by TS Eliot, by Hawthorne, by Poe? By Henry Miller? By any of the other names I’ve mentioned?
I mean, this is absurd. You go on to express a preference for Cooper over Melville–based, apparently, on historical precedence (as if that actually matters when one gets down to it–if you were right in this then by that same logic the Venerable Bede is more important to English literature than Shakespeare or Chaucer, because he preceded them both) but even you acknowledge that Cooper is an inferior writer–which he was. Whereas Melville is, and is generally recognized to be, one of the most important voices in Anglo-American AND World literature… and yet in another breath, you’ve dismissed him and the others I’ve mentioned as being beneath your notice—to have merely “reinforced stereotypes” and “employed certainty where doubt would have been more appropriate.”
This is utterly absurd. You sound like someone trying to sound knowledgeable about a subject, but in opening your mouth too far, fell flat on your face.
Good job jfrater! My day isn’t complete without sneaking a peek in your site! It’s like dessert for me.. =)
I was a directory assistance (411) operator for 8 miserable years. I finally decided that I didn’t want to wast the rest of my 20s having to inform people that they are dumb. I WISH people still used a phone book.
“What city, please?”
“Wal Mart”
“Wal Mart is not a city. What city?”
“Texas”
I give up!
Primo Levi’s novel is amazing…but so, so sad and terrifying. I don’t know if I would say it changed the world but I can see how someone would go there. It left such a hell of an impression on me, that’s for such.
wow…that whole typing thing is really difficult for me today
Not sure about the “created the detective genre” part in regards to Sherlock. Many say Poe was the man to do that.
Great list! I always enjoy the literary ones.
About this quote:
“There is no doubt that America now dominates the world of modern literature.”
I have to disagree with that as well. I think America dominates the world of American literature, but across the pond we read far more home-grown talent. I believe this is the same for most European countries.
Randall, listing great American writers seems somewhat pointless as anyone wishing to disagree with you could compose a similar list of writers from any other countries in the world. And they could do it for the same period of time that America has existed.
To address the original claim: as it happens,there are many great writers from America and their legacy is not to be sniffed at, but claiming that they dominate the world of literature is both inaccurate and arrogant.
I read the phone book just last week…not much of a plot but what a cast!
What about “Dianetics” By. L. Ron Hubbard?
I have to disagree with Baxter and Gismo. Randall mentioned some of America’s most influential authors,who are beloved both here and abroad. The authers not from america(Dickens, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Austin, Stevenson, Kyd, Marlowe, Joyce, etc) absolutely have their place in literature, schools, and the home.
However, I do think MODERN lit is dominated by americans. Of course, it depends on your definition of “literature” because that, like “good tv” has changed. Steven King, John Grisham, Dean Koontz, Sidney Sheldon, Michael Crichton, and James Patterson are all WORLDWIDE bestselling authors. If you expand the umbrella of “literature” we’ll include Danielle Steel (whom I believe outsells Steven King) Nora Roberts, Jackie Collins, and Dr. Suess. Again, these aren’t exactly classics like the writers in the fisrt part of this comment, but the sentence causing the debate is “There is no doubt that America now dominates the world of modern literature.” Some of them might be writing crap, but American authors do dominate if you go by the numbers.
Baxter:
There’s two different things here. One, I was addressing Gismo’s claim that American literature hadn’t even IMPACTED the world, which was absurd… and so I raised the various names as proof that Americans HAD, in fact, impacted world literature.
But Two—that was only peripherally addressing the issue of “dominance.” And it depends on what we mean by “dominance.”
If we’re talking a kind of rooted cultural dominance that goes back to some of names I brought up, then I think you’re clearly wrong… important writers who were *actually* English fell far into the minority of overall “British-American” literature in the very late 19th and early 20th century. In fact it was pointed out by a critic at the time—I can’t recall if it was Eliot or Wilson, or someone else—but I know it was later brought up by either Orwell and/or Fussell—that the best literature being written in English was not being written at that time by any authors who WERE English, (with the exception of DH Lawrence and a few others) but by Irish and American authors. And today much more important literature written IN English is being produced by people from the so-called “third world,” as we know.
It isn’t “arrogance” to point out that America came to dominate the cultural/artistic aspect of this joint British-American identity; it’s simply a matter of fact. Today I’d say it’s receded quite a bit, but the dominance has hardly reverted to England—it’s gone more to the aforementioned writers from other countries and continents—Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America.
# 8 written by P. Leviz made good reading for me, scary and goose *****le stuff.
Its the type of story that lingers with you for a long time after you have read it.
Nice one Jamie
I just think you forgot … the Bible and the Koran and all other book written to fool poeple with some kind of belief.
I’m almost ashamed to admit that the only reason I read TCITR is after hearing that John Lennon’s assassin had it with him at the time of the shooting. A few years earlier in high school, like a typical slacker I’d avoided the assignment to read it, but now I had to see wtf this book was all about. It was ok, not one of my favorites, it did seem to ramble on a bit. But to this day, I do like to sprinkle a few of the main character’s colloquialisms into my conversations and all. I mean, who doesn’t appreciate a good Holden Caulfield quote? Nobody.
“There’s two different things here. One, I was addressing Gismo’s claim that American literature hadn’t even IMPACTED the world, which was absurd… and so I raised the various names as proof that Americans HAD, in fact, impacted world literature.”
That I certainly agree with.
“If we’re talking a kind of rooted cultural dominance that goes back to some of names I brought up, then I think you’re clearly wrong… important writers who were *actually* English fell far into the minority of overall “British-American” literature in the very late 19th and early 20th century. In fact it was pointed out by a critic at the time—I can’t recall if it was Eliot or Wilson, or someone else—but I know it was later brought up by either Orwell and/or Fussell—that the best literature being written in English was not being written at that time by any authors who WERE English, (with the exception of DH Lawrence and a few others) but by Irish and American authors. And today much more important literature written IN English is being produced by people from the so-called “third world,” as we know.”
I never said anything about English writers other than to say that in Britain, British writers are those most commonly read.
“It isn’t “arrogance” to point out that America came to dominate the cultural/artistic aspect of this joint British-American identity; it’s simply a matter of fact.”
It is true to say that America dominates Western culture, but it certainly doesn’t dominate Western literature. I read a lot, I go into bookshops once or twice a week, and the books on display are overwhelmingly by British authors. I would say that American authors are certainly the next most common to find, but I’d argue that in terms of what is on offer, their number is incomparable to that of British authors. I do think it is arrogance for you to presume to tell me what nationality dominates my nation’s literary diet, as what is true of America is most certainly not true here. And by here, I mean Europe as I know it. I would accept that modern American literature is more likely to be found over here in Britain than modern British literature is in America, but I feel that is to do more with market attitudes than any kind of dominance or pre-eminence.
“Today I’d say it’s receded quite a bit, but the dominance has hardly reverted to England—it’s gone more to the aforementioned writers from other countries and continents—Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America.”
I agree with this, I wasn’t disputing this and again I’m surprised by the mention of England.
“There is no doubt that America now dominates the world of modern literature.”
…
i can’t think of anything americans write nowadays that can be considered true ‘literature’. i doubt anything written nowadays will ever end up on the list with the other classics. would we say it ‘dominates’ because of the endless supply of danielle steel and nora roberts it pumps out? and with the cult following after that ‘twilight’ garbage it really shows what kind of country we live in.
Wonderful list, however, it is an error to state that “A Study in Scarlet” was the first of detective and mystery genre. My given cyber-namesake is taken from the very first literary detective found in Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Purloined Letter,” “The Murders in the Rue Morgue,” and “The Mystery of Marie Roget.” The Chevalier C. Auguste Dupin was actually the first literary detective.
Although Sir Arthur Conan Doyle drew much inspiration from Poe’s writings which prompted him to expand the literary genre, there is actually a moment in “Study in Scarlet” where Dr. Watson compares Holmes to Dupin.
America as some really good writers nowadays, like Roth and Pynchon but that is not the discussion here, but the statement that America dominates the world of modern literature . America isnt the country in the world that reads more per capita, or that publishes more books per capita, or with more international awards, so i dont understand. Really dont.
The English can still match the Americans when it comes to literature; the shelves of English bookstores have way more space for McEwan, Rushdie, Amis et al. than for Pynchon, McCarthy, Roth etc.
I am surprised to see that the bible is not any of the list. If it is, I am sorry for this comment.
The bible drastically changed our world for worse.
Good to know that our American authors (Paz, García Márquez, Rulfo, Borges, Gallegos, Neruda, Ruben Darío, Vargas Llosa, Carpentier, Sábato, Bioy Casares, etc, etc…) dominate the world and are such a big influence to you Jfrater, thanks for considering them!
John Steinbeck
I also found “Catcher in the Rye” kind of disappointing, “Ham on Rye” by Bukowski accomplished what the first didn´t.
Baxter:
“I never said anything about English writers other than to say that in Britain, British writers are those most commonly read.”
Oh for crying out loud. Let’s stop playing word games, shall we? You voiced indignance about this issue of Americans dominating world literature. I merely addressed the fact that for a time in the 20th century, most of the great literature IN English was being produced by Americans and Irish. American literature DID dominate for a time.
Why are you coming after me about this anyway? I didn’t make the original statement, Jaimie did.
But the simple logic is, as you say yourself—that America dominates Western Culture, and it hardly seems much of a stretch to think it also, therefore, dominates Western and perhaps world literature.
IN point of fact, I hadn’t wholly agreed with that statement—I DO think America HAD a good deal of dominance for a time, but I’m not so sure I’d say it continues today. I don’t know that I’d say any one nation or culture “dominates” world literature at this time, or even just literature written in English.
“It is true to say that America dominates Western culture, but it certainly doesn’t dominate Western literature.”
Perhaps not at present, no. But a case could be made for its dominance in the 20th century, certainly.
But again, what did Jaime mean by “dominance?” I’d have to look into who is doing the most publishing, etc… but even there I doubt very much that you could draw clear delineations to determine what it means.
“I read a lot, I go into bookshops once or twice a week, and the books on display are overwhelmingly by British authors.”
Well if you live in Britain, that only seems to be expected. I wouldn’t say that necessarily negates the premise.
If I went into a bookshop in Germany I’d expect to see mostly German authors. But literature IN English still dominates throughout most of the world, or at least the western world.
“I would say that American authors are certainly the next most common to find, but I’d argue that in terms of what is on offer, their number is incomparable to that of British authors.”
Again, on the basis of walking into a British bookstore. That’s hardly a representative sample to look at.
“I do think it is arrogance for you to presume to tell me what nationality dominates my nation’s literary diet,”
I’m growing very weary of Americans being called arrogant. It particularly rankles me to hear it from Brits, the champs for worldly arrogance if there ever was such a thing.
I spoke primarily of the period of the early to mid 20th century when, yes, Baxter, America did very much dominate at least western literature. I’m not telling you that it necessarily does now, or that you’re having hallucinations when you go into your corner bookshop.
For chrissakes, can we tone down the nationalistic sensitivies a bit? It’s becoming grating.
“but I feel that is to do more with market attitudes than any kind of dominance or pre-eminence.”
How do you know that isn’t precisely what Jaime was referring to? Market dominance? I don’t know. Ask him.
The people who didn’t like The Catcher in the Rye are probably the people the book is talking about.
Really Bobby? And what type of people is that?
Protocols of the Elders of Zion was only one the models Hitler applied to his Final Solution. Martin Luther and his thoughts could have been another. Don’t forget the Crusades.
How many Mayans and Aztecs are alive to tell that story?
It’s recorded that the “final solution” of the North American Indian was the model for Jewish holocaust and South African apartheid
It’s well documented that the killing of Indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere since the beginning of colonization has been estimated at 120 million.
The story of mans inhumanity to man is the saddest story of all. Bit that’s too many books to read in a lifetime!!
“Oh for crying out loud. Let’s stop playing word games, shall we?”
I was trying to be polite. I didn’t want to just come out and say “England has nothing to do with what we are talking about”.
“Why are you coming after me about this anyway? I didn’t make the original statement, Jaimie did.”
I’m not ‘coming after you’. What happened was I wrote two sentences disagreeing with the validity of a point of yours. In response to this you wrote several paragraphs back, and so we carried on. In light of that, I don’t see how I was “coming after you”.
“But the simple logic is, as you say yourself—that America dominates Western Culture, and it hardly seems much of a stretch to think it also, therefore, dominates Western and perhaps world literature.”
It wouldn’t be a stretch to think that, no. But that is merely a hypothesis, certainly not a fact.
“IN point of fact, I hadn’t wholly agreed with that statement—I DO think America HAD a good deal of dominance for a time, but I’m not so sure I’d say it continues today. I don’t know that I’d say any one nation or culture “dominates” world literature at this time, or even just literature written in English.”
That I completely agree with. If this is what we both believe then I think we’ve perhaps been discussing slightly seperate issues…
“Perhaps not at present, no. But a case could be made for its dominance in the 20th century, certainly.”
Again, I agree with that.
“Well if you live in Britain, that only seems to be expected. I wouldn’t say that necessarily negates the premise.”
I think it does negate the premise. The premise is that ‘There is no doubt that America now dominates the world of modern literature.’
If America is the only country in the world where American literature dominates then this is untrue. Hell, even if there is some doubt about it – which there clearly is – then the statement is untrue.
“Again, on the basis of walking into a British bookstore. That’s hardly a representative sample to look at.”
But what I’m saying is that in a British bookstore most of the books are likely to be by British authors, in an American bookstores most of the books are likely to be by American authors and in a French bookstore most of the books are likely to be by French authors. How then can one nation be declared to have dominance over the others?
“I’m growing very weary of Americans being called arrogant.”
I’m not calling Americans arrogant per se. I said it was arrogant of you.
“It particularly rankles me to hear it from Brits, the champs for worldly arrogance if there ever was such a thing.”
Oh really? I’d love to see that put to a vote. I’d also love to see on what grounds you are basing that claim?
“I spoke primarily of the period of the early to mid 20th century when, yes, Baxter, America did very much dominate at least western literature.”
That I don’t dispute. But it has little to do with the assertion that first started this discussion.
“For chrissakes, can we tone down the nationalistic sensitivies a bit? It’s becoming grating.”
I’m sorry, but it just sets my teeth on edge when I see a groundless claim like the one above being made, especially on a site like this. If this is due to the site’s previous tension over nationalism, or American nationalism specifically, then I apologise. I’m only in it for the truth, I’m not trying to score points for Britain here.
“How do you know that isn’t precisely what Jaime was referring to? Market dominance? I don’t know. Ask him.”
I wasn’t talking about market dominance, I was talking about market attitudes. I’m not saying that fewer European books will ever achieve popular success in America because American books sell better worldwide. I’m saying that European books won’t do as well because people in America are less likely to buy them in. I simply meant it as an economic issue.
SPOILER ALERT: if you have not read Cather in the Rye, the followimg comments expose plot elements and may ruin the book for you.
_______________________
I think you do Catcher in the Rye as great disservice by referring to it as “the archetype of the teenage novel” and claiming that the protagonist “has become an icon for teenage rebellion and defiance.”
The book is about a teenager collapsing under the weight of the grief over the loss of his older brother. He is acting out the depression he has no other outlet to express. Most teenage rebellions don’t have a nervous breakdown near the end of the novel!
To “ghetto-ize” the book by calling it “the archetype of the teenage novel” is like describing Romeo & Juliet as “chick lit” or referring to Macbeth as a murder “mystery.”
Found this on Wiki not sure how accurate it is or what the latest 2009 stats are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_published_per_country_per_year
Lord of the Rings made the fantasy genre “cool”. It paved the way for Dungeons and Dragons, and virtually every rpg in existence. While Harry Potter and JK Rowling are largely responsible for fantasy’s huge comeback, Prof. Tolkien was the first to bring about its widespread popularity. “Frodo Lives”.
Thats quite interesting actually blogball, as it seems to be from Reuters, and published in 2006…so reasonably reliable
But still, number of published books does not equate to number of QUALITY books published. For all we know, 50% of those are diet books
LOTR is actually a very difficult book to read, and that was not what made the fantasy genre cool. I would put it to you that the Hobbit would be more directly responisble for that. It has a less convoluted storyline, and is less concerned with creating a history and geography of a world and more concerned with telling a story (in this case in correspondence to his son during WWII)
Regardless, the books were written long before D&D was a twinkle in the eye.
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t inspored by it. Gary Gygax included halflings, orcs, and other races and monsters used exclusively in Lord of the Rings. Orcs were called Goblins in the earlier Hobbit. As for The Hobbit being responsible for the explosion in the fantasy genre in the late 60′s early 70′s I have to disagree. Dozens of artists at the time made fair amounts of money painting LotR scenes. “Frodo Lives”, and “Gandalf for President” became popular t-shirts and commonly seen graffiti during that era, Frodo not even being mentioned in The Hobbit.
Led Zeppelin, Styx, and Rush all had Lord of the Rings inspired songs.
BTW, Tolkien served in WWI not WWII.
Maureen: it seems you are implying that the crusades killed the mayans and Aztecs – they didn’t. The crusades were mostly battles against Muslims in the old world. Columbus personally is to blame for much of the bad that happened in the new world
Awesome list!!
Moby Dick is probably the best novel of all time, followed closely by Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment.
93. agreed. I read all of LOTR… damn Tolkein just had to make it so realistic, that even the menial things were added such as suddenly bursting into song!
However, I liked this about LOTR because it did add a realistic
this-is-another-world-but-it-is-still-a-world-with-normal-things-happening-in-it-unlike-other-stories-which-just-happen-to-be-all-about-an-interesting-set-of-occurrences-which-is-quite-unrealistic
feel to it.
Read TFA in 10th grade. Didn’t like it at the time (of course), but now that I think about, I’ve learned to appreciate it.
There’s a lot more books that could go on this list, but I’ll just have to look forward to more in the future.
Hi, this is my first post I’m kinda nervous, but I thought that The Jungle by Upton Sinclair should have been included although I agree with most of the previous books listed.
nice post plow22, welcome to posting.
Whats with all the Catcher in the Rye hate? It’s an incredible book but to appreciate it, you can’t take it at face value. Holden is such a complex character undergoing a resistance to grow up amidst deep depression. And some of the symbolism is amazing. Sure, the dialogue can be ranting at times but that’s to reflect his state of mind.
Great list. I’ll throw my two cents into this “American dominates modern literature” thing. I think it does dominate modern ENGLISH (including translations from English) literature. Other people have cited the fact that there are more British authors in bookstores in Britain, or American authors in America, but these are not good representative examples. I’ve been living in Rome for a while now, and I’m a regular in several bookstores, both big chain and independent mom-and-pop establishments.
There are obviously a lot of books originally written in Italian in Italian bookstores. However, the selection of American works translated into Italian is noticeably large. American works seem to come very close to outnumbering Italian literature in some smaller bookstores. Translations of modern British literature are also present, but the American works outnumber them by far.
This may wound British pride, but American literature dominates in terms of modern English-language works when it comes to Italy, and, I suspect, other non-English speaking countries.
Also, Catcher in the Rye… not my favorite book in the word. I can only take so much whining. And as for All Things Far Apart, I thought it was poorly written… probably better than what I could have done with the subject, but when compared with other literary works, it doesn’t really measure up. I won’t deny its influence though.
Also, as a self-professed Sherlockian (yeah, I’m a little bookish sometimes), I was IMMENSELY pleased to a part of the Sherlock Holmes canon make the list.
Plow22, I agree. The Jungle was the archetypal muckraking novel that directly exposed the dangers and corruption of the meat packing industry and the struggle of the working class. It’s also the reason Theodore Roosevelt passed the Pure Food and Drug Act and established the Food and Drug Administration.
And by “All Things Fall Apart”, I meant just “Things Fall Apart”.
Ooo. The Jungle. Good call. How has that not appeared on any of the three lists yet? Its absence is really apparent, considering how influential it has been.
i think Lord of the Flies by William Golding should be added, I just had to read it at school and although it wasn’t my cup of tea I thought the themes explored were very interesting and thought provoking (evil, natural state of man etc). The symbolism was also very effective, also maybe Harry Potter? I know that sounds weird but it caused a huge storm of people suddenly wanting to read and parents fighting about who could read it to their children. I also really enjoy it lol so…yeah.
Baxter:
“I’m not ‘coming after you’. What happened was I wrote two sentences disagreeing with the validity of a point of yours.”
The WRONG point—you obviously misunderstood what I was saying and apparently accepted that afterwards but failed to acknowledge the point. The point I made had to do with whether American literature had any IMPACT. I was NOT directly addressing the question of DOMINANCE.
You went after me for entirely the wrong reason and now we have this ridiculous and pointless bickering about ANOTHER point which was not even MINE in the first place, but Jaime’s.
And you call ME arrogant on the basis of… what? On a claim that *I DID NOT EVEN MAKE IN THE FIRST PLACE*? I merely offered some supporting opinions to bolster the point, but agreed that it was at best shakey.
Enough. If you have issues with this statement about America being dominant in world literature, take it up with the author of the list, Jaime Frater… the owner of the site. Who is a New Zealander.
Fer chrissakes.
*sigh*
We were supposed to read Catcher in the Rye in my English class, but my teacher wanted to be absolutely sure the fact that racism is bad was shoved down our throats, so we read Kindred, a novel no one else has ever heard of ever. Although not bad, it would have been better to read a book all our teachers next year assumed we read and will constant references to.
Baxter your dumb as hell. I would not argue with Randall, that dude is smart as *****. And JF you must be smart as ***** too with all this reading you have done haha
“is like describing Romeo & Juliet as “chick lit” or referring to Macbeth as a murder “mystery.””
Calling shakespeare’s PLAYS literature is wrong in itself. They were not written to be read but to be heard. Every 16year old English student knows that
95 – thanks for correcting my typo – I new he served in WWI! Cant imagine how I made such a basic mistake.
In any case, the hobbit is a better NOVEL than LOTR, although the latter is a better fictional enterprise.
who cares which country dominates the world of modern literature, just as long as they keep publishing good books.
i don’t think i’ve seen this on any of the other lists (and apologies if it has been), and this might be a bit of an odd suggestion: the football association’s rules of game, which codified the rules for playing football (soccer) for the first time. considering football is played all over the world and plays an important role in the cultures of most countries in europe, africa and south america, i’d say it definitely changed the world. for the better at that
There’s no need to resort to such rampant capitalisations, Randall. You’ll notice that my very first comment in the main was addressing Mr Frater, or at least as a general comment on the list. I apologise if I misunderstood the first comment of yours which I replied to, and I’m sure if you’d simply corrected me of that fact, rather than write a discourse in defence of the first claim, then this conversation would have gone no further. It certainly wouldn’t have descended into virtual shrieking. This whole thing has been a bloody mess and I’m sure neither of us has had any impact on the convictions of the other. In that respect, I apologise. This is a friendly site on the whole, and I fear we have lowered the tone somewhat…
Hopefully, the Iliad and/or the Odyssey will be appearing on the next “Books that changed the world” list – especially considering whats on the first three so far.
Like the Bible, both were written/translated by a group of authors many centuries after the events too place.
The Iliad is considered the greatest War novel, complete with political intrigue, heroism, tragedy, brotherhood and treachery and some great battle scenes. The shifting points-of-view, equal-time-for-both-sides and hand-to-hand combat descriptions are still being referenced in todays books/movies.
The Odyssey is considered the greatest Adventure novel, using many elements todays moviegoers think are new, such as flashbacks, one-against-all events, multiple storylines and so on.
General Tits Von Chodehoffen you are dumb as hell. Just because someone is more intelligent than you doesn’t mean you shouldn’t argue with them. That is the attitude of a defeatest and an idiot.
You can only improve by arguing and debating your betters. Only debating your inferiors is a sure fire way to inflate your ego and deflate your skills.
Just because someone has read a lot of books doesnt make them smart either. My sister has read more books than me, but I consider myself as more intelligent – as does she. Books are a small part of intelligence. Experience, practical skills, problem solving, spacial *****ysis, numerical skills are all integral parts of your IQ. Jfrater might suck at all of them! (Although running a website I do doubt it)
Now. Who cares if americans have more books published world wide than brits? Literature is not the next great nationalistic battle ground. People read what they like. One of my personal favourites is the Three Musketeers – but I honestly couldn’t care less about the state of french literature from any period. Gentlemen. IT DOESNT MATTER.
Honestly, looking around this site over the past few lists…it seems to have descended into pointless and futile ad hom. If you care soooo much what someone half way round the world on an internet site thinks then you have deeper problems. Just accept your adversary is not going to see things your way NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU SHOUT, ***** AND STAMP YOUR FEET. Surely by now people should know you can rarely change someone’s opinion on even the most trivial of things once they have made their minds up; how can you on polarised topics? (although I wouldnt normally class world literature as a particularly polarised topic but hey what do I know?)
Play nice children.
(PS My 112 is meant to read IMHO the hobbit is a better…just before I am accused once again of arrogance.)
115 “The Iliad is considered the greatest War novel”
“The Odyssey is considered the greatest Adventure novel”
Bold statements. Who considers them such? If you are going to make such sweeping statements then at least provide us with how you have made your conclusion…and in this case…who agrees with you?
Quick facetious question…have you read these ‘seminal’ works? I only ask because people often hail the greatness of War and Peace who have never set eyes on a copy.
“, using many elements todays moviegoers think are new, such as flashbacks, one-against-all events, multiple storylines and so on.”
Since when have they been considered NEW?
They have been a staple of literature for centuries…quite some claim to say the odyssey is the reason films employ these devices…can you back that up with solid facts? Or is it merely conjecture on your part
Your posts make your points sound as if they are written in stone, but closer inspection reveals not just a little supposition.
It’s interesting to note that Adam Smith did not discover the invisible hand. 11 years before Adam Smith, in 1765, a Swedish/Finnish priest discovered it. The reason I write “Swedish/Finnish” is that he was born in Northern Finland, but was of Swedish descent and part of the Swedish parliament. Finland was of course then a part of Sweden. He himself would have considered himself a Swede and a Finn.
His name was Anders Chydenius and wrote this in “Den Nationnale Winsten”. It is translated by me, but I am sure you can find another translation somewhere.
“… each seeks by his own will the place and venture where he best increases the National Profit, if the legislation won’t stop him.
Each and everyone seeks the best for himself. The work which is payed the best, which have the highest value, and it is most wanted, which is best payed.”
“… hwar enskildt söker sjelfmant up det stället och den näring där han bäst ökar den Nationnale winsten, om författningarna intet stänga honom därifrån.
Hwar och en söker sitt bästa. … Det arbete betalas altid bäst, som hafwer högsta wärdet, och det sökes hälst, som bäst betalas.”
Of course he is not as important as Adam Smith, but he deserves some credit.
Why is the Holy Bible not included? I believe it changed the world.