Can we talk about the elephant in the room? The traditional canon was overwhelmingly male and white. Contemporary critics are actively, and rightly, working to correct that. So the 'how' now involves a conscious ethical component: whose voices have been excluded, and which of those excluded works are of equal or greater merit?
This isn't about quotas; it's about expanding the scope of judgment beyond a narrow tradition. When a critic today includes Zora Neale Hurston or Tsitsi Dangarembga on a 'best of all time' list, they're arguing for a broader, richer definition of literary excellence.
Let's not forget the commercial and publishing machinery behind it. When a big publication runs a '100 Best Novels' list, it drives sales for those specific editions and authors. Publishers lobby for their prestige authors to be included.
It's not a conspiracy, but it's not a pure meritocracy either. Established literary brands have an advantage. A debut genius from a small press might have a harder time breaking onto that list, regardless of quality. The critic's job is to see through that noise, but they're human and influenced by the buzz the industry creates.
I always imagine a room of very serious people arguing over very long books. But in reality, a lot of it is about legacy and academic staying power. Books that become staples on university syllabi have a huge leg up.
A critic making a 'best of all time' list isn't just judging the text in isolation; they're judging its place in the ongoing conversation about literature. Has it generated decades of scholarly papers? Has it inspired countless adaptations and references? If yes, it's a strong contender. It's as much about the ecosystem around the book as the book itself.
Ultimately, they're building a museum of the human imagination. Which stories, which worlds, which ways of seeing are so vital that we must preserve them and pass them on? It's a curatorial act, deeply subjective but also deeply caring.
Each critic is trying to answer: 'If someone could only read 100 novels to understand what humanity is capable of in fiction, which 100 would I give them?' That's an impossible, beautiful question. Their list is their heartfelt, flawed, argumentative attempt at an answer. And we get to make our own lists in response, which is the whole point of the exercise.
There's an element of cultural moment, too. A book that speaks directly to a current crisis or movement might shoot up in critical esteem. Its 'greatness' is tied to its urgent relevance.
Will that relevance last? Maybe, maybe not. Critics have to weigh immediate impact against likely longevity. It's a gamble. Including a very recent, politically potent novel is a statement: 'This matters now, and we believe it will matter later.' It's one of the most interesting and difficult parts of making these timeless lists in a very timely world.
2026-07-20 21:19:44
11
Tingnan ang Lahat ng Sagot
I-scan ang code upang i-download ang App
Kaugnay na Mga Aklat
Fall in love inside a novel!
Shana
9.9
16.7K
We love reading novels, fall in love with the characters, sometimes envy the main girl for getting the perfect male lead... but what happens when you get inside your own novel and get to meet your perfect main lead and bonus...get treated like the female lead?! As the clock struck 12, Arielle Taylor is pulled inside her own novel. This cinderella is over the moon as her Prince Charming showers her with his attention but what would happen when she finds herself falling for her fairy godmother instead?
Please read my interview with Goodnovel at: https://tinyurl.com/y5zb3tug
Cover pic: pixabay
Her name was Cathedra. Leave her last name blank, if you will.
Where normal people would read, "And they lived happily ever after," at the end of every fairy tale story, she could see something else. Three different things.
Three words: Lies, lies, lies.
A picture that moves.
And a plea: Please tell them the truth.
All her life she dedicated herself to becoming a writer and telling the world what was being shown in that moving picture. To expose the lies in the fairy tales everyone in the world has come to know.
No one believed her. No one ever did.
She was branded as a liar, a freak with too much imagination, and an orphan who only told tall tales to get attention. She was shunned away by society. Loveless. Friendless.
As she wrote "The End" to her novels that contained all she knew about the truth inside the fairy tale novels she wrote, she also decided to end her pathetic life and be free from all the burdens she had to bear alone.
Instead of dying, she found herself blessed with a second life inside the fairy tale novels she wrote, and living the life she wished she had with the characters she considered as the only friends she had in the world she left behind.
Cathedra was happy until she realized that an ominous presence lurks within her stories. One that wanted to kill her to silence the only one who knew the truth.
The novel is mainly about the forgotten British poet/writer named C. J Richards who lived in Burma/Myanmar in colonial times and he believed himself as a Burmophile. He served as I.C.S (Indian Civil Servant) and when he retired from I.C.S service, he was a D.C (District Commissioner) and he left for England a year before Burma gained its independence in 1948. He came to Burma in 1920 to work in civil service after passing the hardest I.C.S examination. He wrote several books on Burma and contributed many monthly articles to Guardian Magazine published in Burma from 1953 to 1974 or 1975. Though he wrote several books which had much literary merit to both communities, Britain and Burma (Myanmar), people failed to recognize him.
The story has two parts: one part is set in the contemporary Yangon (then called Rangoon) in 2016 context and a young literary enthusiast named “Lin” found out unexpectedly the forgotten writer’s poetry book and there is surely a good deal of time gap that led him into a quest to know more about the author’s life. The setting is quite different comparing to colonial Burma and independence Myanmar (Burma), early twentieth century and 2016 which is a transitional period in Myanmar.
The writer’s life is fictionalized in the novel and most of the facts are taken from his personal stories and other reference books. It is a kind of historical novel with a twist and it has comparatively constructed the two different periods in Myanmar history to convince readers, locally and abroad more about history, authorship, humanity, colonialism, and transitional development in Myanmar today.
He is the most terrifying man in the Empire—Hadrian, the Lord Protector. Cold, ruthless, and dictatorial, he rules the chaotic world with an iron fist, crushing rebellions without mercy. To the world, he is a monster devoid of human emotion; a tyrant who bathes in blood.
She is a rose growing in the mire—an ordinary, low-born girl struggling to survive in the slums. She possesses nothing but her pride and a fragile life.
Their worlds should never have collided. But in a twist of fate amidst the smoke of revolution, the lofty Dictator set his eyes on the humble commoner.
He didn't know how to love, so he used the only method he knew: Conquest. He clipped her wings, trapped her in his gilded cage, and forced her to bloom only for him.
"You fear me," Hadrian whispered, his fingers tracing her trembling lips. "Good. Because in this lifetime, you will never escape me."
In a game of power and submission, can a tyrant learn to kneel for love? And can a bird in a cage tame the beast?
"Are you still afraid of me Medusa?" His deep voice send shivers down my spine like always. He's too close for me to ignore. Why is he doing this? He's not supposed to act this way. What the hell?
Better to be straight forward Med! I gulped down the lump formed in my throat and spoke with my stern voice trying to be confident.
"Yes, I'm scared of you, more than you can even imagine." All my confidence faded away within an instant as his soft chuckle replaced the silence.
Jerking me forward into his arms he leaned forward to whisper into my ear.
"I will kiss you, hug you and bang you so hard that you will only remember my name to sa-, moan. You will see me around a lot baby, get ready your therapy session to get rid off your fear starts now." He whispered in his deep husky voice and winked before leaving me alone dumbfounded.
Is this how your death flirts with you to Fuck your life!? There's only one thing running through my mind. Lifting my head up in a swift motion and glaring at the sky, I yelled with all my strength.
"FUC* YOU AUTHOR!"
~~~~~~~~~
What if you wished for transmigating into a Novel just for fun, and it turns out to be true. You transimigated but as a Villaness who died in the end. A death which is lonely, despicable and pathetic.
Join the journey of Kiara who Mistakenly transmigates into a Novel. Will she succeed in surviving or will she die as per her fate in the book.
This story is a pure fiction and is based on my own imagination.
I get suspicious when the word 'universal' gets thrown around. Critics often praise 'universal themes,' but that can be code for themes that resonate with a dominant, often Western, perspective. The push now is to expand what's considered 'universal' to include a far wider range of human experience. So the criteria are actively being contested. Is a book about a very specific cultural experience less 'great' than one about, say, a midlife crisis? Modern critics are rightly challenging that assumption.
They decide by arguing forever and never agreeing. That's the whole point! The conversation is the outcome. The minute we all agree on the single best book, literature is dead. The ongoing debate is what keeps these books alive and relevant.
I like to think critics look for the book that best answers the question, 'What can a novel do?' Each contender showcases a different potential. One shows the depth of psychological portraiture, another the breadth of social panorama, another the limits of language itself. The 'best of all time' might be the one that, in the critic's view, answers that question most fully or most beautifully.
It's a defense of the art form itself. By holding up a particular novel, a critic is saying, 'This is what this medium is capable of at its highest peak.' That's a profound statement. It's not just judging a story; it's making an argument for the power and importance of novels as a human endeavor.
There's a huge element of storytelling about storytelling. Novels that are about something big—time, memory, identity, love, death—get points. But also, novels that are self-aware about the act of writing, that play with form and narrative itself, often get critical adoration. Think of 'If on a winter's night a traveler' or 'House of Leaves.' Critics, being deep into narrative theory, love books that dissect the very medium they're made from. It's like a chef getting excited about molecular gastronomy.