I've only read 33 of those, guess I better get busy!

Quite a few; I would guess about 75% of the list. It’s quite the diverse list and I think some are questionable as “great”...for example, I cannot understand how Twilight series and Fifty Shades series made the list. I found these not well written at all. Having said that, they did get people to read....

I’ve been telling people about Swan’s Song for years! It’s a great book; long and complex but a wonderful read!

I'm surprised that I've read 53 of the books on the list. While I love to read, I tend to stay within one genre for a long time. I have no desire to read the Fifty Shades books...blech!

I've read 50, would have been 52 but Moby Dick and Confederacy of Dunces were too tedious for words and I quit on them halfway through.

I also wonder about some of the selections...

I have read about half of them. Some are not a genre I prefer and a few I consider awful. But it is a list of those that sold the best and we all have different tastes.

It is interesting to see what others are reading and give something new a look, isn't it?

In case anyone didn't dig into the series background, HERE IS A LINK to how the books were selected and how we can participate in the voting towards choosing the top book.

Many of these books wouldn't be on my personal list, either, but I'm intrigued enough to try a couple that I haven't read. I don't think of myself as much of a fiction reader, but over the years since childhood, I've managed to read a majority of those on this list.

I've read a lot more of those than I had expected.......probably at least 75%. But most were read a very long time ago......... :-) Gone Girl and the Harry Potter series might be the most recent.

It's a very weird list...I've read 32. When does/did the tv program start? It would be interesting to watch.

Going to check it out...thank you. Interesting "weird" list. Some on the list, are

about 3-grade level in imagination, "really...the Shades Books? But, I feel

the same way about "Catcher in the Rye". But, as long as "A Tree Grows in

Brooklyn", and "To Kill a Mockingbird" on there...I'm fine. ;)

rhizo....thanks for the list. I book marked it!

Dee beat me to it. How are some of those on this list? Fifty shades of gray, really? Popular writing can still be good writing (for me, Rowling).

36, have to read some of the others listed.

If you check out rhizo's link, it says the list came from:

PBS and the producers worked with the public opinion polling service “YouGov” to conduct a demographically and statistically representative survey asking Americans to name their most-loved novel. Approximately 7,200 people participated.

And then the producers trimmed it down from there: only fiction, only one book per author, etc. So it's not the best or the classic, or the most literary or award winning, or American authors only...it was the most loved by the average American.

About 39 ... some it's been so long I can't count them, and did I ever read GWTW or just see the movie?

I'll watch the program. "It
investigates how and why writers create their fictional worlds, how we
as readers are affected by these stories, and what these 100 different
books have to say about our diverse nation and our shared human
experience."

Came back to add that one great book missing (doesn't meet the criteria, I know). "Winnie the Pooh & Piglet". ;) Teaches "Kindness" better than

anything ever written or ever will be written.

35. I will never read some of them like Fifty Shades or Dune. I am not a sci-fi fan, even though I did read and devour the HP books and loved the movie The Martian. Many of them I read in high school or college as they were required reading, but I still remember them and am glad I read them.

I've read 45 of them. I like that it's a little different than the typical "great American novel" compilation. These days many, many more people have read the Twilight series than anything by Hemingway.

I don't look down on any books unless they condone messages of hate, and not in a thematic sense. I think that there are many ways to enjoy reading. I definitely read my share of lighthearted, fluffy, "brainless" novels and I can enjoy them along with the classics when I'm in that sort of mood.

These are the books that sold the most copies. That's why it is so mixed. I certainly would not call it a reading list :-(

I read 35. Some as a child or teen.

Edited to add. I am not interested in reading most of the books listed. Not interested in the Twilight Series, for example. But I will tune in to the show out of curiosity. Maybe watching will change my mind.

These look more like "bestsellers" (most popular), not most-mentioned favorites obtained by poling. I see a lot of 'formula fiction' authors.

Agatha Christie is far from being the only non-American author, there are many. The list is Best-Loved Books, and the page said the prereq was that the book be published in English.

Even the starting point is subjective, necessarily so. It's interesting how the list ranges from popular and light titles to other books in the nature of more serious "literature".

Paul Coelho,, author of The Alchemist, isn't American either. He was born in Brazil and now lives in Switzerland. Interesting man with an interesting background.

ETA - I've only read 29 of them. I haven't read Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Hunger Games, or the Outlander series and won't be. They really don't interest me.

More than I expected. Speaking of tedious, I found reading Dune to be torture, but I stuck it out til the end. I'm not much for fantasy or most science fiction, which probably explains why I had such a tough time with Dune.

23 of those particular books, for me. At least one of them makes me regret having spent the minutes/hours required to finish it (Gatsby). Some of them I've *tried* to read, but hated them, so I quit.

Just because a book is on some random list of "best books ever" doesn't mean everyone (anyone?) should read them. lol

I read 50 books on this list. I love lists like this because I'm always looking for new reading material, although I know I wouldn't enjoy "50 shades" or a few others. I look forward to the TV series and hope it's shown here in Canada.

Confederacy of Dunces is brilliant! And so tragic about the author. His only work, and he committed suicide. What a loss.

38 for sure...some others I'm pretty sure I read but can't remember for sure.

There's a lot of modern stuff on here. I wonder what the list would look like if it were done in the 70s or the 40s. There are so many movies I like from the 30s and 40s and often look to see who the author was if it was based on a book. But a lot of them are very hard to find today if at all. I'm sure they were big deals in their day.

Hmmm.....I'd have to say that the modern selections - something published within the last 20 years - are in the minority. A great many of the selections are what I would consider 'classics' and have been around for decades or longer - Tom Sawyer, Atlas Shrugged, Call of the Wild, Crime and Punishment, Don Quixote, Great Expectations, Frankenstein, Gulliver's Travels, etc.. I have to say that I am pleased to see a lot of these older publications on a listing of 'America's best loved novels', as they are seldom encouraged reading now in schools, in favor of things like the Hunger Games or the Twilight series, which I have a hard time accepting as great (or even good) literature.

OK, so instead of "a lot" I should've said "a number". My point was that the contemporary publications on the list would be different for each decade the question was asked, and that not all of the popular ones of their day would make the list today, just as many of the 'most loved' today probably wouldn't be on the list in 20 years such as gone girl or hunger games or twilight series.

And the literary quality certainly varies. I would hardly call Flowers in the Attic great literature in the traditional sense. But it certainly appealed to its teenage audience at that time, and as a genre it worked to definitely get the reader interested. Hunger Games is actually interesting, as it works with some archetypes, and I actually refer to it in one of my literature classes as an entryway into theories about scapegoating.

This list really doesn't mean much.. Show me one person who says they read them all...and most of all, loved them all. I'll show you a liar.

The missus says that she has read 51 and I claim only 36. I don't believe that those 'series' books belong on a list like this.

I will admit to trying to read Hitchhiker's Guide but never got past the first 20 pages. Yuck. Not for me. I did complete Dorian Gray, but hated it (it was for our book group - I felt obligated).

Dune's author blurb intrigues me: "He worked a wide variety of jobs—including TV cameraman, radio commentator, oyster diver, jungle survival
instructor, lay analyst, creative writing teacher, reporter and editor
of several West Coast newspapers—before becoming a full-time writer." Really? If so-interesting

Several people mentioned Dune...I found that, having read Dune, I was the only one in the room who could explain what was going on in the movie version. So there's that;-)

Elmer. We are total opposites as I suspected and not denigrating you in any way . I intuitively get at symbolism and imagery and allegory et al. That's why I majored in English and obtained my first grad degree in English literature. I teach many students because every student there has to take writing to whom I always despairingly and dramatically mourn, oh you are so literal. Many off them are more math and science oriented. I think it is brain side related.

I thought the same thing as Scott. For me, elmer, it explains why you and I have friction. I always sort of knew you were a literal kind of person ;) I don't think in concrete terms. Actually, you saying you know you are endears you to me.

I read, a LOT! Always have. I scanned through the list, and was surprised to find I haven't read all that many of them. I didn't count, but pretty sure it's less than half. Lots of genres there I don't care for at all. But there's a couple books there that I've read and enjoyed several times.

I pretty much agree with Elmer's views on this. I enjoy reading, for reading's sake. I don't want to have to try to figure out a "real meaning'. Or why a character did 'this' instead of 'that'.

Rusty

I'm with Elmer on this one as well. Theme of a book - what the heck does that even mean. I couldn't find the theme of a story if my life depended on it. Oh and at this stage of my life I don't care.

I'm not offended at all, Scott but I don't believe describing this as "taking things literally" is an accurate label. In my own case, I've always been good with (and my career relied on) philosophical, theoretical, original and abstract thinking. Nothing about that is literal at all and people comfortable only with a WYSIWYG existence can't do that either. Nor can some who understand allegory in literature.

The kid of a friend is a late 20-something who graduated cum laude with an English degree from a Top-20 university and law review and honors from a different Top-20 law school. Smart kid, to say the least. At a get together, we started talking and I shared my gaping blind spot about symbolism in literature. After laughing, the response was "You know what, it's all BS. If you see something you can develop into a well written and well-reasoned argument and analysis, that works. There's usually no one answer and often answers given are contrived. It takes imagination, not perception".

The key word here is imagination. Mine is boundless. My students tend to experience difficulty with abstraction and connecting ideas. Thus my complaint they are too literal. They also really have a hard time connecting the specific with the general and vice versa. And I also find it interesting that sone claim they would rather do creative writing. When I rarely let them do it, and rarely, what emerges lacks imagination. But also there is a difference between applying a theory to build a bridge or solve an accounting problem than applying one to analyze a poem or even a theological issue.

Creativity comes in many forms. Don't presume to understand what my own job entailed, Scott, because your example misses the target by a lot. No harm no foul.

Some people need/like to have the many layers of a person, relationship, or history peeled back for them. Such knowledge allows us to feel deep empathy and sympathy with characters, or sometimes gain a deeper insight of a character's psyche, a better understanding of why a person is so empty or evil.

Most people that I know have a much deeper appreciation about almost anything when they understand the "why" behind the surface. This is true for characters in a novel, a riveting figure in history, a war, murder, anything.

It's the same with science. Some people aren't at all interested in why a flower is deeply fragrant, but only at night, or why a tree begins to die, or why they get a sunburn on a cloudy day.

The list is pretty much composed of books that can be enjoyed on a very superficial level, with very few exceptions. But even Alice in Wonderland has deeper meanings......or does it? ;-)

I presumed nothing. There is a difference between creative writing and humanities-related activities and how one uses the brain in said activities and in science and math and engineering activities. There are similarities, depending on how one interprets the word create or creative. That is why I do what I do. I cannot understand numbers or specs or computer language. And no my example does not miss the target. Our targets are different even though functionally the means by which we attain them are similar they are ontologically different. As ontologically different as you and I. Chalk and cheese. Oil and water.

Engineers have vast imaginations - you just have to look at some of the buildings and bridges, etc that have been built around the world. I would call it pushing boundaries but there might be a more appropriate phrase.

Scott, I'll give you a hint, I'm not that good with numbers either. Another - the nature of the "science and math...." side of the dichotomy you want to think I belong in does not describe at all what I did.

Is there a difference between "literal" thinking, and "concrete" thinking? I used to work with a mix of architects and engineers. They were always kidding each other how architects could use their crayons to draw anything (imaginative) vs engineers who were constrained to "real world" solutions. But they both appreciated my beautiful, imaginative, creative financial spreadsheets and graphs that told their stories!

rhizo, interesting insights you made there ... I like it.

rhizo, there are indeed many people who see personalities, individuals, relationships, actions, as layers of an onion or often chapters of intrigue and who are curious to know more. And in my experience (as an extremely non-sexist promoter of equal rights for all and most especially for women), this describes women far more frequently than men.

And some think that engineers have no imagination. Is this a scientific feat, sure, but it probably started from a scientist who was infatuated with transformers when she/he was a kid.

Japanese engineers built a 12' transformer that morphs into a working car. This is so cool, but then I loved playing with my kids transformers. My DH was sure I bought them for myself.