ILX BOOKS OF THE 00s: THE RESULTS! (or: Ismael compiles his reading list, 2010-2019)

I forgot about David Mitchell, was Cloud Atlas nominated?

Black Swan Green is in some ways my favourite David Mitchell but I very much hope Cloud Atlas places higher.

I was pretty exhausted last night and missed that Rabbit Remembered actually did pick up three votes, not two - meaning that it's been unfairly bumped down a handful of places. However, there's no room for third umpires in this poll, so Updike will just have to make do with universal acclaim instead.

78. Engleby - Sebastian Faulks (2007)
(31 points, two votes)

http://www.paramuspost.com/mediagallery/mediaobjects/tn/d/d_engleby2.jpg

Red Raymaker:
Beautifully written and fascinating to gain an insight into the mind of a dangerous loner.  Thought it was a much more successful attempt at examining the dark recesses of the human mind than his "Human Traces"

and

I'm probably being too scathing about Faulks, a writer I've read with some pleasure in the past. I didn't on the whole like "Birdsong", presumably still his most highly rated, although there were certainly good things in it. I've also read Engleby, Charlotte Grey, On Green Dolphin Street, The Girl at the Lion D'Or and The Fatal Englishman (this last non-fiction). Engleby and and OGDS in particular were enjoyable reads, although I'd be reluctant to make any claims for them beyond that.
Faulks has nothing to be ashamed of but if you compare A Week in December with, say, Hollinghurt's The Line of Beauty (there are some similarities, like a set piece dinner parties held by Tory MPs) there's a substantial gulf in class. I get the impression Faulks is bitter because he's not taken as seriously as the likes of Hollinghurst, Zadie Smith and Ian McEwan but the truth is he's just not as good as they are.
― frankiemachine, Monday, October 26, 2009 2:32 PM (2 months ago)

That quote was part of a discussion where I was lamenting Faulks' buffoonery in a recent interview. It was singularly depressing because I'd been so impressed by On Green Dolphin Street, forming a view of him as a man happy to be superb at his craft without the need to pontificate on things he knows nothing about. It's true that he can't match up to The Line of Beauty, though to be fair very few books can. But (from what I've read) as a storyteller he's far above most of McEwan's work, which is after all his job, even if McEwan does a better job of looking clever.

The tragedy is that I suspect Faulks' greatest ambition really is to be taken as seriously as Martin Amis.

77. An Episode In The Life Of A Landscape Painter - Cesar Aira (2006)
(31 points, three votes)

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:sNBvRcNdFw0KxM:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_66iHOBlQisQ/RY9AWeJWbZI/AAAAAAAAABI/d_qDDWl417A/s200/Landscape.jpg

wmlynch:
Aira's writing can often feel tossed-off and unserious, but at his core he is a master at storytelling. I found the opening to this (very) short book off-putting and somewhat boring, but when lightning strikes (literally) the book becomes impossible to close.

Hm, that's maybe a bit too small. Here's Mr Aira looking quite pleased about whatever it is he's holding, possibly surrounded by books on landscape painting:

http://flip2007.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/cesar_aira.jpg

76. Memories of Ice - Steven Erikson (2005)
(31 points, two votes)

http://i46.tinypic.com/vdlv2q.jpg

Lamp:
this book is why the word "epic" became a thing

Every successful fantasy writer needs a better editor, which I think is the great distinction between Memories Of Ice and Toll The Hounds. I think the latter's writing and story may be just as good - if not better - than the former's, but Memories is a lean machine and Toll is plumper than Kruppe.
― EZ Snappin, Friday, December 25, 2009 12:24 AM (3 weeks ago)

We used to stop off at Ashburton during long car trips, I have fond memories of ice cream.
― Livvie (Livvie), Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:53 AM (5 years ago)

still struggling through book 2 of these. only ilx recommendations keeping me at it.

My first reaction to that was o_0 but I guess I'm totally not a fantasy person - do you guys who are into it actually think these books are up there with the best literature, or is it more a case of giving props to your own corner of the book world? This is meant to be an honest question, not a leading or snidey one, by the way. Although I do realise we may end up in a book version of popism vs rockism...

could ask the same question about a lot of the picks so far- lots of books by hip earnest young authors of the moment here that i couldn't see myself ever having any interest in.

or, alternatively, there are other things to look for than 'literature' when picking up a book, i suppose?

as is apparent by the shockingly constructed sentence above sorry for rural irish

^ bizarre coupling of cultural cringe with aggressive defence of fantasy lit

oh, sorry if that came across as aggressive, wasn't meant to be! i thought emily phrased the question as nicely as she could.

there are other things to look for than 'literature' when picking up a book, i suppose?

Yeah, I think it's this that made me think of the rockist argument... but then, I'm not sure what there could be that I wouldn't think was an aspect of 'great literature' that would make me pick up a book... Surely plot would come under that, even if it is not the same as deft word construction (the latter of which I appear to be seriously lacking this afternoon). So if it is great plotting that makes fantasy appealing, then is the answer 'yeah! of course it's as good as Updike/Faulks/etc'?

though i take your point that great 'writing' without a story is probably a lot better than a great story told by a terrible writer- if that's your point!

but to answer your actual question the fantasy books so far are mainly in it for the story/plotting, while being a lot better than the vast majority of the genre in terms of the writing quality to get you through those plots.

While inquiring minds are inquiring then, does the best new Fantasy stuff tend to be have more depth or nuance in the kinds of worlds it takes place in than ye olde sub-Tolkein guys? I mean is it goodies yay vs baddies boo or is there the kind of moral ambiguity going on that you'd expect to find in good espionage or detective fiction?

It's true that he can't match up to The Line of Beauty, though to be fair very few books can.

on the basis of this line I have made my first purchase based on this thread, as I had seen The Line of Beauty (hardcover) hanging around in Poundland for months and continually forgot to find out anything about it, but that there is quite enough to sell me. Maybe not the greatest leap into the beyond at £1, but heyyy it's something.

Even in my geeky teens I had no taste for fantasy (despite the SHROVES of awful sci-fi I read), so I'm guessing by this point I'm destined to never be a fan.

huh I had no idea it won the Booker Prize. I truly don't know shit about shit.

xp is there the kind of moral ambiguity going on that you'd expect to find in good espionage or detective fiction?

certainly, it's there if you want it. but there's another thread that lists the best out there for this kind of thing, "fantasy is my favourite genre why is it so bad and hated" or something like.

heh i've dallied with reading other genres but tbh since i was 8 i read hardly anything but fantasy.

I had never heard of this writer. A glance at Amazon turns up this review. It made me laugh.

(worth noting that i don't actually rep that hard for erikson as i'm only halfway through bk 2 of 35 atm)

but (again) the prince of nothing series by r scott bakker (if the name doesn't put you off) is something i've been trying to get people to read.

I'm not sure what there could be that I wouldn't think was an aspect of 'great literature' that would make me pick up a book

Dunno, I think 'literary' & 'great literature' are tangled, but tend to be used more narrowly than this implies - in the modern novel, a few of the following tend to be there: psychological sophistication, irony, moral ambiguity, individual connected to large-scale historical events/zeitgeist, self-conscious style. That kind of thing.

Pedal-to-metal can't-put-it-down narrative & narrative immersion aren't really on that list; a writer who specialises in that usually takes years/decades to be accepted as actually ok, and even then there's a bit of sniffiness (thinking of Stephen King). Fantasy's also disadvantaged because pure invention isn't admired; the 'literary' tends to adhere a bit more closely to this world.

The 'literary' category is maybe shifting a bit, so SF has an easier time slipping through than it did 20 years ago; but I think bookshops, newspapers, publishers are all quite tied to it.

Just trying to describe this by the way, rather than judge; literary realism bores me rigid, & I tend to like fiction that pumps up style or invention or formal fun or ideas or whatever (so I fell for Black Swan Green partly because it was playing strange Romantic tricks - gypsies, doubles, poets - beneath the surface of conventional psychologically rounded realism).

Fantasy's also disadvantaged because pure invention isn't admired; the 'literary' tends to adhere a bit more closely to this world

conversely, gimmickery or characters acting unrealistically bothers me much more in a supposed 'real world' setting where i'm trying to imagine it as something that could happen- in fantasy, i don't mind dudes wrestling dragons because the whole world is a suspension of disbelief, so i can't be jarred out of it by false notes.

I'm on the popist* side, as you may have picked up from my unsuccessful attempts to get The Kite Runner and Angels and Demons nominated. Plot, with character, is definitely the most important part of any book. Of course it's nice if all the other stuff you mention is there too - but if it's not then I'm not going to lionise McEwan, say, for his themes or style if the stories are rubbish. Give me Faulks or whoever any day**

The basic problem which I have with SciFi/fantasy is that, cut loose from the real world, it's easy to let the characters drift away from being real people with real (by which I mean my) concerns. Which then in turn stops the plots making sense to me. That's why it's interesting to me to hear the comments above on Banks or Towers (that viking story is fantasy, right?) - it makes it sound like they have made the much greater effort to create a reality to ground their stories in.

*at least I think I am, but often I think I've misunderstood this debate entirely
** I say that, but I suspect my real reading list is probably pretty pseudish

tell you what though, i've changed my mind and decided my vote would have been for the fantastic "Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell" which is an amazing mix austen, historical fiction, fantasy and fairytale, told brilliantly. note perfect.

My first reaction to that was o_0 but I guess I'm totally not a fantasy person - do you guys who are into it actually think these books are up there with the best literature, or is it more a case of giving props to your own corner of the book world?

this is hard to answer but tbh im probably the 1 resp for most of the fantasy shit placing so ill give it a shot.

a) fantasy (and sci fi) have had a lot to do w/how i discovered reading and with how i view lit in general. the stuff that got me into reading (tolkein, jordan, eddings) had a lot to do with forming the things i value in a book and thats stayed w/ me

b) i read a lot of fantasy and i think, in making a list like this, that that deserves acknowledging

c) fantasy generally feels like its ~important~ in the larger context - like its values and tropes have really effectively permeated others books and movies and tv this decade and i guess i rate authors who have been at the vanguard (lol) of defining and redefining those values and tropes

d) i think if your judging fantasy - partic epic fantasy - u have to judge the work on its own terms which are largely different from the way u wld read and understand modern "literary" fiction. erikson has an mfa from a p prestigious program - presumably he can write better sentences then he does - but epic fantasy isnt really abt "good writing". realize im not really explicating these "terms" but generally certain aspects of plot and "world-building" are impt in ways they will never be in any other genre

e) have a whole thing abt cognition and the reader but basic i dont think losing yrself in books abt magics and dragons is automatically less interesting and worthwhile than immersing yourself in the solipsism and faggy neuroses of brainy english majors.

cliffs: i "actually" think sum of these books rank amongst the best books of the decade because i value the things they do well and can forgive or dont care abt the things they do poorly

this is interesting, but what I really want to know now is if there are any books about the solipsism and faggy neuroses of dragons.

lamp = hero

richard morgans "the steel remains" is (kinda) abt the solipsism and faggy neuroses of magic elves

peter jackson's LOTR movies are all about faggy elves tbh, watch them instead

fwiw i read scifi 'cause i love the idea of spaceships and the future n shit

sheesh, at least dragons were real once

The dragon in Grendel is all that

75. The Whole Equation - David Thomson (2005)
(31 points, two votes)

http://www.hankstuever.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/thomsoncover-205x300.jpg

David Thomson: Classic or Well-dressed?

I'm around 100 pages into his new book, The Whole Equation, and it's way denser than it has any right to be. I guess it might be good? But I don't think I'm ever going to find out, due to the ease of finding a much higher return on my time for both information and entertainment elsewhere.
― andrew s (andrew s), Saturday, March 5, 2005 2:38 AM (4 years ago)

I got David Thomson's 'The Whole Equation'. Finish it tonight and its amazing but also getting prepared for its annoying conclusion, as I imagine it - its the end of cinema as the movies can't give him that communal feel that he had with others when he started going to the movies (just after WWII ended) anymore. Its a gd ol' follow the money history but plenty of judgement, biographical sketches, experiences and so on.
― xyzzzz__, Tuesday, June 19, 2007 5:48 PM (2 years ago)

Much prefer Thomson in bite size chunks. I tried reading 'The Whole Equation' but gave up after about 40 pages, his style's a bit too dense and rich for me in a tome that size. If I'd been able to nominate more I would have nominated 'Have You Seen' and his 'New Biographical Dictionary of Film' which says what he wants to more succintly and more effectively.

It's quite a bold cover. But whenever I buy things that look like The Face, I always mentally file them under 'not really for reading'.

speaking of bold covers...

74. What's Left? - Nick Cohen (2007)
(31 points, three votes)

http://www.document.no/2007/01/26/nickcohen.jpg

Ismael Klata:
Study of how (certain parts of) the left keeps getting itself in trouble. It sees what it likes, works it into an ideology to cheer for - then does stupider and stupider things trying to support that ideology, until eventually it ends up supporting the opposite of what it liked in the first place. This decade being a good leftist turned into supporting fascism, dictatorship and theocracy. It's a great read, and would've been funny if it weren't so serious and sad.

Red Raymaker:
A very much needed critical apprisal of what's gone wrong with left wing politics in recent years and its flirtation with the politics of the extreme right. The fact it was written by a man of the left makes it all the more interesting and persuasive. A fascinating read, articulating what has been self evident for quite some time.

Come back fantasy genre fiction all is forgiven.

Is no liberal pundit free from ilx ire? So what are Cohen's problems then.

Apart from enthusiastically banging the drum for the invasion of Iraq and comparing opponents on the left to appeasers of the Nazis, you mean?

Fair enough. I don't keep up with this stuff very much tbh.

I had a quick search for him in the archives, couldn't find a single positive quote.

And I'm a fan, obviously. I'd've put one up for humour value, but they tend to be, uh, punchy.

My first reaction to that was o_0 but I guess I'm totally not a fantasy person - do you guys who are into it actually think these books are up there with the best literature, or is it more a case of giving props to your own corner of the book world?

eh well the list isn't called ILX MOST BESTEST LITERATUREST BOOKS OF THE 00s y'know? more of my ballot is for neuroses-of-young-iowa-grads stuff than was for genre picks i guess, but i didn't vote for the on-average 'best' 8000 pages of writing i read from this decade, it's kind of a mix of 'i think this is objectively good' 'i really enjoyed this' 'i think this is culturally relevant'

& i think you can pick standards by which you can talk about erikson and martin being 'objectively good'. i mean, i'm sure that redraymaker's diving guide is a pretty good diving guide. i'm never going to read it because it sounds terrifying, mind.

of course you can define 'up there with the best' and 'objectively good' a whole bunch of ways, and i could kind of cosign most of lamp's points. i mean, i guess my question is "in what sense 'up with the best'"

want to know who the other voter for memories of ice is though.

erikson has an mfa from a p prestigious program - presumably he can write better sentences then he does

^ this is pretty fascinating! actually otoh there was this whole internet thing not long ago lately about how apparently david foster wallace and dan brown went to the same mfa, so er y'know

I'm on the popist* side, as you may have picked up from my unsuccessful attempts to get The Kite Runner and Angels and Demons nominated. Plot, with character, is definitely the most important part of any book. Of course it's nice if all the other stuff you mention is there too - but if it's not then I'm not going to lionise McEwan, say, for his themes or style if the stories are rubbish. Give me Faulks or whoever any day**

The basic problem which I have with SciFi/fantasy is that, cut loose from the real world, it's easy to let the characters drift away from being real people with real (by which I mean my) concerns. Which then in turn stops the plots making sense to me. That's why it's interesting to me to hear the comments above on Banks or Towers (that viking story is fantasy, right?) - it makes it sound like they have made the much greater effort to create a reality to ground their stories in.

otoh i don't really care about characters being 'real people with real concerns' so much as i care about them being, er, generative of interesting sentences and of interesting shapes for plots? -- but 'creating a reality to ground their stories in' is a massive part of what people who care about fantasy novels care about in what they read - qv. 'world-building' 'subcreation' etc.