Score

Not at all a list of best 100 of century, but an OK list to find books to read or remember, especially if you're French. Pretty disappointing for Le Monde, odd/wierd, and not at all a substantial representation of literature, but entertaining.

I think this list wants a bit of pruning -- it's crept beyond 100 entries.

It would be useful to have a link to the original list, too.

I think we can safely assume that if Mythack did not vote for it, it is probably not supposed to be there.

In that case, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (#80), The Age of Reason (#81), Ham on Rye (#48), and The Book of Disquiet (#61) would look suspect.

Agreed.

I added the Wikipedia link to the complete list to the list description.

What the hell, people?! Please, read the info above before posting any ridiculous comments. Especially that part in the beginning of it that says "Feel free to vote, grading of the books is not so important, but please don't add new titles to the list in order to keep its original integrity". And NO, Susanna, I haven't voted for any other book except the original list of 100 compiled by Le Monde in that particular order you see in Wikipedia. May I send you a screenshot of the right side of my monitor right now if you desperately need that evidence in order to believe me?[<--sarcasm] And NO, Ben, you've added nothing to the list description, you liar! That link was there from the very first time I posted the list, I always cite my sources.

P.S: Susanna, thank you for noticing the four books that indeed do not belong in that list. Although I intend to remove them from the list sooner I shall keep them here for now just to present you with the evidence that reveals the mystery behind the person who voted for them. That is a man, I assume by his nickname, reasonably called, Misterdumb. Here is the link: http://www.goodreads.com/list/user_vo....

And next time, the three of you , I politely ask you not to spit *merde* over my name.

PS2: Misterdumb, I agree that the books chosen by you deserve a positive appraisal, but I'm not quite sure here is the right place for that. "...please don't add new titles to the list in order to keep its original integrity", as I've said before and is written above for your convenience. If you don't respect my wishes, I will not respect yours. Why? Because I was first here and I have the power to do so.

No offense was intended; I was merely attempting to use deductive reasoning.

If you would prefer me not to clean your list, you have only to say so. I was offering it as a favor, as I know how much it annoys me when people add weird books to lists I start.

I was attempting to be helpful.

Also, most list creators don't have three GR librarians offering to help them tend their lists. Some would have considered themselves lucky.

Mythack, I think you misunderstand our intentions. We were simply attempting to be helpful in cleaning up the list. There was definitely no intent to criticize you. As for the link, the list descrpition did say "source: Wikipedia" but there was no link. You may have added it when you first started the list, but it definitely wasn't there when I checked today--- which is when I added it. You can see for yourself if you check the Librarian change log. I assure you I have no interest in stealing credit for something so trivial.

Goodreads librarians? Whoa! Should I feel privileged for having a conversation with you?

However, I do think I owe you an apology, guys... Guess I overreacted a bit and completely misunderstood what you were saying the first time and now when I give it a second read I even feel a bit ashamed for my reaction. Anyway, I'm grateful for your help.

But still, according to my humble opinion of an ordinary librarian, I think all the comments above are useless and unnecessary, in another word - SPAM. In these comments I don't see any tangible regard for the contents of the literature compiled in the list, the literature because of which we are supposed to be gathered here. If you need to coordanate your efforts for completing the job of editing the list so that it would be more useful and correct for all goodreads users, you could do that through personal massages or with the help of an instant massaging program as well. Also, having written just "Source: Wikipedia" does enough justice in the case, I think. Stressing on the importance of adding a link means nothing but underestimating the intelligence of other users who according to that are not able to search for "the title of the list + Wikipedia" for themselves if they need to check the legitimacy of the list. Overall, if you think you've got any job to do here, just do it. No need to say what you are about to do or what should be done. Imagine real-life editors scratching their personal thoughts at the bottom of every page they edit. It's annoying.

Well, bless your heart.

GREAT to see Agatha Christie listed here along with such authors as Proust and Rushdie. "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" IS a literary masterpiece.

Themis-Athena (Lioness at Large) wrote: "I think this list wants a bit of pruning -- it's crept beyond 100 entries." Are you unable to count? It's at exactly 100.

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DB%B1%...