Talk:Modern Library

Recent changes

Mention of the Modern Library rankings/ lists (except the reader's lists) has been removed for the reasons outlined here and also at User talk:Gamaliel (notably that it was mostly commercial, disapproved by voting board members themselves, and does not deserve more attention than other lists). The category will be retained however, and everyone is welcome to add the nearly 400 titles on the 4 lists to the category, without mentioning the publisher in the main body of the article. Thank you for your co-operation.

If editors want to convey a sense of the importance of the work or the writer, it is recommended that they insert comments by notable peers or critics, which is the more encyclopedia-like. Please remember that the ML list was made in retrospect and was not a contemporaneous award, which means that sufficient recognition already existed for the works before their selection.

Why not eliminate mentions of the reader's lists too? It's just some web poll made even more ridiculious by mass voting by Scientologists and Randites. Gamaliel 02:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess, but they occur on few pages and they are, after all "reader's lists" - so they clearly tell us more about the readers rather than the books, while the other list tries to do otherwise, IMO. -- Simonides 03:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Advertising

I'm tired of seeing the Modern Library's "100 Best Novels/ Non-fiction titles" mentioned on every article related to the list. The list was a marketing gimmick and is not an award or a critical evaluation - members of the board were themselves not aware of the ranking system and Random House themselves stated (sourced at article) that the list was partly meant to boost sales of their own stocklist (further it's ethnocentric and sexist and only lists novels in English): please stop mentioning it as if it were a literary standard - it isn't. If this doesn't sound annoying to you, consider mentioning a list of Best Films Of All Time drawn up by, say, Walt Disney corp., that mostly lists Walt Disney-funded films, admittedly ones that may have been popular all around the world, on every article related to the list and other film related articles as if it were an achievement - I think we can agree such lists are somewhat irrelevant. -- Simonides 22:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've been working on the Modern Library categories. Perhaps it is merely a marketing gimmick, but it's the most famous and important marketing gimmick of its type, one that is frequently referred to. And I don't think it's anymore ethnocentric than, say, the Booker Prize. Gamaliel 06:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually the Booker has already addressed charges that is too narrow, see [1] --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod ......TALKQuietly)]] 07:08, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, Bodnotbod, you have a lot of code after your name.

Gamaliel, I am the easiest person to convince that the Booker Prize has only incidental merit as a literary award. However, an award is what it is: it comes with clauses or a history of rigid formulaic nominations (ex. Oscars) or does not have pretensions of universal significance. The Modern Library ranking though, is an arbitrary, one-off list that does have such pretensions (while clearly failing to meet them), and yet proclaims itself a transparently commercial tactic. The voters themselves have expressed disappointment and confusion over the list. Random House isn't an institute or critical body after all, it's a business, and businesses restrict themselves to activities that ensure profit one way or another. Random House is welcome to creating and publicizing such lists, but I think we as encyclopedia editors should be cautious about slimming the line between a methodical and genuine if weak attempt to recognize achievement - ex. the AFI 100, Sight & Sound Poll, etc. - and what is essentially product placement. -- Simonides 08:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are there problems with the list? No doubt. Is it a marketing gimmick? Yes, but so are the Oscars (Titanic? Please.) and the Grammys, and in their own way, the Modern Library lists are a more sincere and accurate way or recognizing genuine achievement. Have other people done it better? Sure. The AFI lists (which I have also been categorizing here) are perhaps one example, though I have plenty of problems with them too. But the core issue is: Is the list significant enough to mention on wikipedia? Given the attention and popularity of it, I say yes. The Modern Library covers the controversies and issues many people have had with these lists, as it should. Gamaliel 14:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most of the awards mentioned are at least recognized internationally; the same cannot be said of the Modern Library - it may be well known in the US, and perhaps Canada, but not really in the UK, Australia and other places where their titles are not even that widely available. While the Oscars are a Hollywood promotion event, they are at least industry- or nation-wide; the Modern Library is a single publisher publicizing mostly its own list - akin to Criterion publishing a list of best movies based on its own backlist (a better example than the Walt Disney one above.) So I really don't think the list should be mentioned at all; but since you are keen to have it, let's adopt one of the suggestions mentioned on your user page. -- Simonides 06:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I hear a lot of people blasting the ML list. But it's really quite a good one. I took it upon myself to read the whole thing and did, except for the Henry James and Finnegan's. Kim, the Moviegoer, To the Lighthouse, the Secret Agent I didn't like much. Dashiell Hammett I didn't like. USA I thought should be #1. People just make generalizations about the list, like: no Australians? (what Australian books should be on the list?). More women! (there ARE quite a few good ones up there, and its the VERY TOP weren't talking about.) Nobody should knock the list if they haven't read at least half of it, and I really doubt all these critics have. 67.160.174.24 (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposition

It's a well-known list, and I looked it over again this afternoon and I think it's a pretty damn good list, all things considered. I'm gonna stick back the reference to it in the John O'Hara article, and I'll thank you to leave it alone. Hayford Peirce 04:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course it's a great list. So are the stocklists of the Penguin Classics, the Vintage Classics, the Harvill Press, Flamingo Classics, the Vintage International series, Quartet Books, the Oxford World's Classics, the Routledge Classics, the Eridanos Library, Harvest Books, the Everyman Library, and so on. The writers and the books in question, however, have enough merit not to need corporate backing; to imply otherwise is actually quite demeaning; and if we have to mention the Modern Library there's no reason why we should stop there and not name all the other great series - would you be willing to add it all? -- Simonides 05:22, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By all means, replace them with references on more authoritative or more NPOV lists. They are there as objective evidence of a book's importance. If they can be improved--e.g. if a book as won a Pulitzer or a National Book Award there's no need to mention the Modern Library list as well--but they shouldn't just be removed. That's silly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not objective at all. Read Modern Library and the above. -- Simonides 18:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Modern Library's list is not objective. The determination of whether a book is on Modern Library's list is quite objective. See Npov#Characterizing_opinions_of_people.27s_work:

"What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view." --Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder.

Presence on the Modern Library list is objective evidence of the beliefs held by Modern Library's editors, who, I would maintain, are people knowledgeable about books.

"it is important indeed how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts."

Again, Modern Library editors are surely "experts"

Before I begin, it should be pointed out that literature is not a competition - all lists that indicate otherwise should be avoided, and personal lists in my opinion pose no such threat. Now your objections - if you read the links in the article, you will see that books were picked from a pre-selected pool. Secondly, most of the members are likely voracious readers and some are famous writers, but I doubt any of them can be called "experts" in the way a biologist can be an expert - a literary expert is merely someone who has surveyed a vast body of literature and is familiar with the details, and has authoritative opinions on specific questions, but does not have any more say on the importance of specific works of literature than your average well-read person. S/he is very likely, in fact, to have opinions coloured by specific, even objectionable, cultural, political, etc. beliefs. For instance Bloom, that popularising self-important git, whose arguments are easily countered by contrary criticism. Finally, if the Modern Library editors are indeed so knowledgeable about books - speaking in terms of qualitative analysis, not quantitative, which any diligent fool is capable of - one wonders why they would even bother with such trivialities. The first thing a person interested in literature or in the arts knows is that any attempt at quantitative reduction is futile, misses the point of actually experiencing and thinking about a work, and is fun and whimsical at best, idiotic at worst. This list is so puerile in its estimation of literature it verges on the idiotic - in my opinion, of course. -- Simonides 04:14, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stubborn Error

Here's an edit that needs to be made, and I don't know how to do it. In the list, under the "M" novels, it lists Modern Library. Whether or not this list is a vulgar marketing ploy or a useful reading list (probably a little of both), we can agree that Modern Library is not the name of one of the greatest novels of the 20th century. But when I click "Edit This Page," the list doesn't come up for me to make this simple deletion. Bds yahoo 04:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I put it the Modern Library article in the category because I thought it was relevant to the category. If you think it's important to remove it, I'm not going to quibble, but that's my reasoning. Gamaliel 05:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Request for Vote

Proposal: "With regard to citation of the Modern Library lists in articles about books, for the purpose of indicating notability or worth, in cases where the editor agrees that the book actually is notable or worthy:

• The Modern Library's "Best" lists are not perfectly neutral, nor are other lists, nor are prizes and awards.
• Nevertheless, presence on such lists or reception of such prizes, while not proof of notability or worth, is evidence of notability or worth.
• Because of its association with a single commercial enterprise, the Modern Library lists present a unique problem which the National Book Awards, Pulitzer prizes, Booker prizes, Newbery and Caldecott medals, presence on New York Times bestseller lists, etc. do not.
• Therefore, as an indication of merit, citation of other lists or prizes, or use of other forms of evidence, is preferable.
• When appropriate, editors may replace citation of a Modern Library list with other evidence bearing on merit or notability.
• Editors should not simply remove such a citation, leaving nothing in its place, because citation of the Modern Library list is better than an unsubstantiated assertion of the book's merit. Such a citation should only be removed when the editor who is removing them can replace them with superior evidence.

Please indicate your vote below. Add comments as necessary. Add choices other than "Agree" or "Disagree" as necessary. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree

1. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:24, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Hayford Peirce 23:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. This seems like a reasonable compromise. Gamaliel 02:52, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Yes, this seems basically OK. I don't think anybody would claim that the ML list is vastly authoritative or prestigious. But it's a moderately interesting factoid and I don't think it hurts any article to include it. RivGuySC 04:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disagree

1. I agree entirely with Simonides. Whether Ullysses has been recommended by some publisher's marketing department is not among the thousand most notable things about the novel. It's fine to have an article about the list, but it is not Wikipedia's job to do a publisher's marketing for them. Gdr 08:49, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Further comments

Polls are not the best way to resolve disagreements, especially when there is still plenty of room for discussion. Like the lists, they suggest an issue is best reduced to black and white.

Now, I do not think the Modern Library lists belong at all in the articles, any more than the Norwegian Book Club's top 100 books of all time - a very broad list compiled by 100 writers from 54 countries which is far more inclusive and interesting, or Sybervision's list of 100 greatest (ie a list of its audio books on CD) or Queneau's Bibliothèque idéale, or the lists drawn up by others he requested, or the list of 100 books that influenced Henry Miller most, or Bernard Pivot's list (Pivot was a very famous TV host in France who read widely and presented a highly respected weekly/or so show for 28 years that discussed politics, literature and culture; he often had Solzhenitsyn, Woody Allen, and other famous personalities as guests) or the BBC Big Read or maybe Waterstone's list (Waterstone's is the biggest bookstore chain in the UK); but if you want to stick to "knowledgeable publishers", why stop with the Modern Library - how about The Franklin Library, which claimed to published the 100 Greatest Books Of All Time, or all the titles in the Great Books of the Western World series, a series suggested by a "philosopher"?

All of which ignores the main point. Which is that we can do without these lists, and we probably do more credit to literature and to writers as a whole, and also to the likes of Borges or Proust, who neither won Nobels nor appear on the Modern Library rankings, by discussing them on their own grounds rather than trivialising their works to some arbitrary signs of recognition. And some of the ML works are far less important than the thousands of great historical or non-Anglo works that don't have similar awards or lists to recommend them, and are not even known to the average English-speaking reader, because they are too difficult or not popular enough and don't appear in the usual bookstores - mostly works for which "unsubstantiated assertion" is indeed the best one can offer. If you are desperate for "evidence", quote specific peers - ex. Burgess said "Everyone knows Ulysses is the greatest novel...etc."; if you can't find any, wait till you do. Don't insert misleading material that smacks of parochialism, merely for the saking of adding something. No information is indeed better than unsatisfactory information. -- Simonides 05:10, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Replies

I agree with many of your points, but I also think that many of those points are irrelevant. Most especially irrelevant is your contention that the list snubbed Proust and Borges, as the list is clearly a list of 20th century novels written in English. Gamaliel 05:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood the points - especially the unstated but implied one about why one should favour 20th century English language writers at all, instead of (say) all the valuable 20th century Czech, Russian or Japanese literature out there (Biely's Petersburg prefigures, in many ways, Joyce's Ulysses to use only one example; I would gladly sacrifice several Bellows for one Kawabata, and so on.). -- Simonides 05:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You could just as easly say the list snubbed Charles Dickens, Homer, or Mickey Mouse, as none of them fall within the scope of the list either. In the end, I personally think the lists are harmless fun which do nothing to trivalize literature and may prompt people to read things on the list, as it prompted me to recently read Tobacco Road. Gamaliel 05:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great - that's why the (Americentric) category has been retained. We could do with more such categories though. -- Simonides 05:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And certainly the ML list is more useful and accurate than those nonsensical reader polls which inevitably list Tolkien, Ayn Rand, and L. Ron Hubbard near the top. Gamaliel 05:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, no. Both lists reflect the interests and background of the voters; the nature of a "reader's poll" itself suggests that a larger number of Americans are more likely to be sympathetic to the latter list than the former - meaning that in defining a canon one frequently chooses a minority consensus over a majority consensus for personal, not objective, reasons. -- Simonides 05:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is most relevant to our discussion here is our mission on Wikipedia, and whatever our opinion on lists of these types, it isn’t relevant to determining whether or not the lists deserve mentioning in particular articles.

Really? Why choose the Modern Library list over the other, equally useful, lists I mentioned then - who exactly decides what deserves mention, publisher's advertisers? Our "mission" is to write as accurate and sensitive (ie NPOV) articles as possible; mention of the ML list sort of goes against that. -- Simonides 05:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My personal judgement is that ideally, in a complete article of decent length, enough information about a novel’s or author’s critical reception and literary importance will be available to render mentioning the list irrelevant. Gamaliel 05:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be the default case anyway. -- Simonides 05:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

However, I also feel that mentioning the list can provide a useful shorthand for stubs and shorter articles which lack that necessary information, which is why I replaced it in the Elizabeth Bowen stub. So that’s why I favor the compromise offered above. Gamaliel 05:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase: believing the Earth is flat because it's the best I can establish from my available perspective and resources and sticking to the belief by citing my lack of resources is just not good enough; it's preferable to wait until I have more reliable information, even something I can't always test myself. Until that time it's also better not to spread what I believe is true. In this case, mention of peer criticism, or anything as specific, is still preferable - there are tons of stubs on Wikipedia, many about writers or books that are immensely important but which do not have the above publicity (see the embarrassing article on Gustave Flaubert), and there is no real reason to mention it when the ML category has been retained, which imo is an adequate compromise. -- Simonides 05:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, I agree that citing the Modern Library list is a) lazy and b) problematical, and that there should usually be better alternatives and that editors should try to find them.

Are you willing to agree that when a book actually is notable, and when an editor cites the Modern Library list as evidence of notability, that

• that's better than saying nothing in regard to the book being notable?
• that's better than using an true but unsubstantiated POV remark about the book's notability?

If so, removing such a citation without replacing it with something better makes the article worse, not better.

If you don't agree, are you at least willing to acknowledge that others do, and that among those editors who have bothered to respond to my request for voting, there is a rough working consensus? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:42, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A resounding no to all three points. 1) & 2) As I explained above, saying nothing is better than saying something misleading. And are you really saying that when a major writer is "significant" enough to appear on the ML list, that you simply can't say anything about the writer without falling back on the list?

No, I am not saying that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:25, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aren't you begging the question there? Wouldn't it improve the article not to just plug in some ranking but look up some critic's mention of the work?

Of course it would. If you were replacing mentions that some book has appeared on some list with critical citations or quotations from contemporary reviews, I'd applaud. But that's not what you're doing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:25, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Smith, I removed all the ML mentions at one stretch, rather mechanically, but it was tedious and took me well over an hour (you can check my contributions page.) That's why I didn't think to replace them, but I thought the main article contributors would simply plump in and add something else instead - of course that hasn't happened yet. Note however that I agreed to let Gamaliel keep mention of the list on the Bowen article because she is an important writer and the article doesn't sufficiently indicate that; but I am against systematically reverting the articles again, which is what my argument is about. Almost all my edit remarks referred editors to this page so hopefully they will read it and replace ML mention with something better. I can also modify the top announcement to request this. But simply re-inserting the ML phrases is, for all the reasons above, unsatisfactory. -- Simonides 18:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Systematic reversion or reinsertion of the old notices would be dumb. That's in my humble opinion. I certainly don't plan to do anything like that. For the record, I wasn't the anon who originally inserted the overly-long and overly-deferential notices. From what you say about the Elizabeth Bowen article, can I take it that you are not completely opposed to the selective mention of the Modern Library List in a few articles by specific authors? As for "plumping and adding something else instead," I sort of thought that's what I had done on the Jack London page when I inserted a mention of two different lists to replace the mention of the Modern Library list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And why do you keep evading the point I make above with reference to historical writers who have no such commercial promotion behind them? Ex. Vogelweide, Grimmelshausen, Chrétien de Troyes, etc etc all far more remarkable in the history of literature than some of the people mentioned above - or if you want to stick to the 20th century, writers like Antal Szerb or Bohumil Hrabal about whom there is very little info in English, but are much more important to their language & culture than some of the above writers. How does one convey a sense of proportion? Obviously, one falls back on generalisations. Even unsubstantiated ones. The bigger picture, as I said before, is that there can be no objective reductions of the worth of literature AND that literature is not a competition; but if you want to make it appear like one, you have to be able to justify all the contradictions I am pointing out, which of course no one can (unless you resort to reactionary comments.) 3) Wikipedia is not a democracy. If you're editing an article on a politician written by a group of supporters, you are likely to come up against majority consensus which has little regard for NPOV - going by consensus is clearly not a satisfactory process there.

What I'm asking you to do is step out of your own shoes for a sec and think from the viewpoint of a non-American reading the site. They don't much care for or know about the Modern Library, their libraries don't advertise it to promote better literacy, their bookstores don't carry many of the ML imprints, they probably wouln't buy those often overpriced dinosaurs anyway (Helene Hanff - American writer - had something amusingly condescending to say about ML, and that was back in the 50s or so), and they might even be pissed to see such a skewed selection; and if they take an interest in the list they'll realise it's just another typical feel good marketing campaign, and snicker at the "encyclopedia editors" who fall for this stuff - so how does that "improve" the article, or the image of Wikipedia? -- Simonides 04:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quite honestly, if I were reading an article about, say, Miles Franklin, and it happened to say that My Brilliant Career had been chosen by the marketing department of Angus and Robertson as one of the fifty greatest Australian novels of all time, it would mean something to me. Maybe I'd want the article to briefly Angus and Robertson as a commercial bookstore chain, though. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Authors versus books

I entered this discussion by way of having references to the Modern Library list deleted from two pages about authors, namely Jack London and John O'Hara. Do I take it that the outcome of previous discussions was a general consensus that in articles about individual books, inclusion of the Modern Library 100 Best Novels category is generally acceptable to everyone, as a replacement for mentioning the list within the text of the article itself?

Yes. -- Simonides 13:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

lists

Is it just me, or does it seem like far too much of this article concerns itself with the lists? Modern Library is a publishing imprint, not a list. Most of the list material ought to go into its own article. john k 19:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

According to whom?

The article says

The list was compiled...by...asking each member to place a check beside novels they wished to choose. Then the works with the most votes were ranked the highest... This explains surprising results like the No. 5 placement of Brave New World (1932), which most of the judges agreed belonged somewhere on the list, but much lower than the very top.

1. Exactly who was surprised by Brave New World being ranked so high?
2. Since the checklists did not rank the books chosen, then there are two problems with the statement "most of the judges agreed [Brave New World] belonged somewhere on the list, but much lower".
   1. None of the judges' choices were ranked, so the same thing can be said for every book on the list (each judge had decided that each book they had chosen should belong "somewhere on the list");
   2. Since the judges' lists were not ranked, the voting results do not prove that "most judges agreed" the book should have been ranked "much lower"; unless some reliable source has this information, it ought to be removed from the body of this article.

At the moment, I am working on another article, and I have not the time to address this problem. —catsmoke ^talk 01:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)