Austen wins hands down, in my opinion. Followed by some combination of Eliot and James. Golding should be up there for top 20, though. Plus Wodehouse, and Le Carré. Defoe - no - still too proto. Conrad I’ve just started re-reading and am happy to see. Scott I downloaded to Kindle in advance of sole Cairngorm camping this coming weekend, so updates to come.
PS - on a global list I still think Austen is in with a shout for #1, even against Tolstoy…
Golding yes... but who do we bump? And does he get on the list *ahead* of Bowen? Wodehouse and Le Carre are both excellent but I can't see them next to Dickens and Austen... Agree about her. Still SO under rated for her actual novelistic ability.
Oh I LOVE Pym. She is a new discovery for me. It's a shame that with these best of the best votes, lighter / comedic writing is generally treated as second tier. (Probably for the same reason that comedic films never win best film Oscars.) I'm outside the UK so might have a skewed perspective, but when I think of British writers I love, I think of Pym, Spark, Mitford, Iris Murdoch. I also really like Ford Madox Ford and Jean Rhys.
I love Pym too, but I can't see that something like Jane and Prudence (perhaps my favourite) comes close to being on a list with Austen. Murdoch is on my list, of course. (Mitford isn't really very accomplished imo.) Spark is very splendid indeed, but does she make a top twenty cut against some of these authors? Perhaps we would swap her out for Waugh? I haven't, I don't think, treated comic writing as second tier---Fielding, Dickens, Waugh, Trollope are all hugely comic. Though I agree, it is often seen as less serious, doesn't win prizes, etc.
I suppose I should re-read Austen. I read her when I was fairly young when so much went over my head. Recently I re-read Persuasion and had one of those Oh-I-see-now, penny-dropping moments. And yes, you're right, you did include some comic writers - sorry. Though I maintain my wider point, which you appear to agree with.
I was very pleased to see Murdoch on your list. And Eliot. And I'll forgive you for calling Woolf irritating sometimes. Please marvel at my restraint as I refrain from launching into a ten page disquisition on her literary brilliance. Haha.
George Eliot is my nominee even it only for Middlemarch and Daniel Deronda, but I must say that Elizabeth Gaskell I like better than Trollope or Thackeray, mainly because of the exacting Cousin Phillis which is up there with The Dead and Spoils of Poynton in my pantheon of shorter fiction. I would lobby for Penelope Fitzgerald in the modern list. Was James fully British for The Portrait of a Lady? If so, he would be my second choice. And i like the Mantel selection. In think she is underrated as a prose stylist because of the genre.
I nominate Arthur Conan Doyle. Maybe not for inventiveness, but for clout of cultural influence including procedural crime fiction and the brilliant, solitary detective working outside traditional law enforcement. Did he not also write across genres? Impressive. ACD <> GOAT
On Samuel Richardson: yes, Clarissa really is wonderful & I’d love to have a session on it. I read it a couple of years ago & wrote about it. I started because I’m following the devt of the novel in my reading. But it’s incredibly readable & Clarissa herself is marvellous. She never gives up her agency, demands it & asserts it & will not stop. (Well, not till the dying of the last 500 pages, wh is the least fun part). And the psych. understanding in the writing - just wow. You really should read it.
I'm afraid I've voted for more than one. I just couldn't for a single one. Maybe there should be categories?? Not that I want to give you work or anything...
(I agree he is a slow starter. But The Moonstone and The Woman in White gripped me even as a 15 year old. However, I'm still struggling to get on well with Dickens. I wonder if this is a common phenomenon -- that most readers strongly prefer one to the other.)
I need to try again. I do love detective fiction. Some people think Dickens was not so far from the "sensation fiction" of Collins and others: https://victorianweb.org/genre/sensation.html
I think perhaps that's right, although I suspect it would be a disservice to both of them to categorise them purely as sensation fiction (both were interested in social reform, and Collins was a good, sensitive character writer, with enough realism in his books to ground the sensational aspects; I have less to say about Dickens for obvious reasons but that's on me). Thank you for the link!
I hope you enjoy Collins whenever you go back to him; The Moonstone was my first Collins book and converted me for life, so perhaps that's a good starting place? Is there a Dickens novel you'd recommend beginning with? (I have, sadly, made attempts here and there but not finished a Dickens novel yet.)
Oh, difficult... I think rambling may not be the best place to start, but otherwise I'm open to all possibilities. I'd be interested to hear your recommendations across all these categories. If that's unhelpfully vague, I'll opt for long/plotted/dark. (But I'm very much hoping to fall for Dickens altogether and go onto more of his work. I'm sure I'm missing out.)
Nooo I loved it: plot, structure, characters, humour and all. The overlapping epistolatory structure was an influence on Dracula, which I also enjoy greatly.
That’s exactly right. I might even say there’s epistolary and then there’s Clarissa, where the form is not merely used to vary the perspective and add a documentary flavor but is integral to the story and its significance. The sending and receiving of letters is a primary source of conflict from the start, and their misdirecting, purloining, and even forging drive the plot. Finally, the whole corpus is crucial to establishing the moral truth of the affair, which depends on a minute record of a young woman’s state of mind.
It’s a marvellous book. I started it intrigued, but was completely captured. Incredibly vivid & intense, real battles for souls, went to extraordinary depths & lengths. I couldn’t put it down.
Clarissa is incredibly modern & appealing in just not being willing to give up her own agency.
(I know I previously recommended The Moonstone as a "first Collins" but actually I hate recommending starting places so if you really couldn't stand it maybe ignore me and try TWIW. That said, by way of counter-example, I found Gormenghast impenetrable on first and second try and now I'm a fan, so who knows how these things work.)
Me too, on Gormenghast. And The Secret Agent & Portrait of the Artist too, actually. In fact I think youngs just shouldn’t read certain books as there is no chance they will be able to relate to them, try again in thirty years.
Probably, but it's hard to know which those are when you're young and harebrained and there are books just lying around, you know? And there are some you can read as a child but appreciate more as an adult (The Lord of the Rings is in this category for me). I'm often reminded of Charles Causley's maxim that "while there are some good poems which are only for adults ... there are no good poems which are only for children". I try to revisit books I disliked when I was younger in case I'm now better placed to understand them.
If Henry James is eligible why not Raymond Chandler?
I would have put Mantel on right after reading Wolf Hall, but the next two didn't bowl me over to the same degree.
RC was Californian no? Agree about Mantel tbh. Third volume wasn’t the same at all.
Lived in London age 12-24, naturalized British citizen. Took civil service exam!
!
He was at Dulwich College at the same time as Wodehouse. Once you know that, I think you can't unsee the similarities.
OMG
I voted for Wodehouse because weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning.
WHERE'S EM FORSTER HENRY
JK i think it's tolkein which is also why i wont yell your ear off about hilary mantel
hey I'm open to it but who do we bump...... (also EMF sure not??)
I added him as 'Other ' on the voting paper!
Susanna Clarke only has two novels out, but she's is a contender for me on the strength of Piranesi and Jonathan Strange alone.
Austen wins hands down, in my opinion. Followed by some combination of Eliot and James. Golding should be up there for top 20, though. Plus Wodehouse, and Le Carré. Defoe - no - still too proto. Conrad I’ve just started re-reading and am happy to see. Scott I downloaded to Kindle in advance of sole Cairngorm camping this coming weekend, so updates to come.
PS - on a global list I still think Austen is in with a shout for #1, even against Tolstoy…
Oh, and Ann Radcliffe is really good.
Golding yes... but who do we bump? And does he get on the list *ahead* of Bowen? Wodehouse and Le Carre are both excellent but I can't see them next to Dickens and Austen... Agree about her. Still SO under rated for her actual novelistic ability.
Yes both generally & specifically to Golding.
Making a case for three of my favourites...Eliot, Trollope and Dickens:
https://open.substack.com/pub/harkness/p/melmotte-merdle-and-bulstrode-victorian?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=gqpmg
Margaret Kennedy. Elizabeth Bowen, Elizabeth Taylor and the dissolvingly astute Barbara Pym make the list.
Oh I LOVE Pym. She is a new discovery for me. It's a shame that with these best of the best votes, lighter / comedic writing is generally treated as second tier. (Probably for the same reason that comedic films never win best film Oscars.) I'm outside the UK so might have a skewed perspective, but when I think of British writers I love, I think of Pym, Spark, Mitford, Iris Murdoch. I also really like Ford Madox Ford and Jean Rhys.
I love Pym too, but I can't see that something like Jane and Prudence (perhaps my favourite) comes close to being on a list with Austen. Murdoch is on my list, of course. (Mitford isn't really very accomplished imo.) Spark is very splendid indeed, but does she make a top twenty cut against some of these authors? Perhaps we would swap her out for Waugh? I haven't, I don't think, treated comic writing as second tier---Fielding, Dickens, Waugh, Trollope are all hugely comic. Though I agree, it is often seen as less serious, doesn't win prizes, etc.
I suppose I should re-read Austen. I read her when I was fairly young when so much went over my head. Recently I re-read Persuasion and had one of those Oh-I-see-now, penny-dropping moments. And yes, you're right, you did include some comic writers - sorry. Though I maintain my wider point, which you appear to agree with.
I was very pleased to see Murdoch on your list. And Eliot. And I'll forgive you for calling Woolf irritating sometimes. Please marvel at my restraint as I refrain from launching into a ten page disquisition on her literary brilliance. Haha.
I nearly put Bowen on instead of Waugh. Maybe that would have been the right choice in fact...
George Eliot is my nominee even it only for Middlemarch and Daniel Deronda, but I must say that Elizabeth Gaskell I like better than Trollope or Thackeray, mainly because of the exacting Cousin Phillis which is up there with The Dead and Spoils of Poynton in my pantheon of shorter fiction. I would lobby for Penelope Fitzgerald in the modern list. Was James fully British for The Portrait of a Lady? If so, he would be my second choice. And i like the Mantel selection. In think she is underrated as a prose stylist because of the genre.
I LOVE PF
I nominate Arthur Conan Doyle. Maybe not for inventiveness, but for clout of cultural influence including procedural crime fiction and the brilliant, solitary detective working outside traditional law enforcement. Did he not also write across genres? Impressive. ACD <> GOAT
True, he did a lot, and he did it very very well. But who are you taking off this list to include him? Does he get a place ahead of E Bowen?
On Samuel Richardson: yes, Clarissa really is wonderful & I’d love to have a session on it. I read it a couple of years ago & wrote about it. I started because I’m following the devt of the novel in my reading. But it’s incredibly readable & Clarissa herself is marvellous. She never gives up her agency, demands it & asserts it & will not stop. (Well, not till the dying of the last 500 pages, wh is the least fun part). And the psych. understanding in the writing - just wow. You really should read it.
I'm afraid I've voted for more than one. I just couldn't for a single one. Maybe there should be categories?? Not that I want to give you work or anything...
No that’s the idea vote for several
Oh good!
Oh, and yes, Hilary Mantel. A Place of Greater Safety.
You found Wilkie Collins boring? Oh no!
(I agree he is a slow starter. But The Moonstone and The Woman in White gripped me even as a 15 year old. However, I'm still struggling to get on well with Dickens. I wonder if this is a common phenomenon -- that most readers strongly prefer one to the other.)
I need to try again. I do love detective fiction. Some people think Dickens was not so far from the "sensation fiction" of Collins and others: https://victorianweb.org/genre/sensation.html
I think perhaps that's right, although I suspect it would be a disservice to both of them to categorise them purely as sensation fiction (both were interested in social reform, and Collins was a good, sensitive character writer, with enough realism in his books to ground the sensational aspects; I have less to say about Dickens for obvious reasons but that's on me). Thank you for the link!
I hope you enjoy Collins whenever you go back to him; The Moonstone was my first Collins book and converted me for life, so perhaps that's a good starting place? Is there a Dickens novel you'd recommend beginning with? (I have, sadly, made attempts here and there but not finished a Dickens novel yet.)
For Dickens, tell me if you want short or long, plotted or rambling, funny or dark?
Oh, difficult... I think rambling may not be the best place to start, but otherwise I'm open to all possibilities. I'd be interested to hear your recommendations across all these categories. If that's unhelpfully vague, I'll opt for long/plotted/dark. (But I'm very much hoping to fall for Dickens altogether and go onto more of his work. I'm sure I'm missing out.)
you want Bleak House or Our Mutual Friend
The Woman in White isn’t at all boring. Got me at age 23. The Moonstone OTOH I found tough. Structure too twisty & slow.
Nooo I loved it: plot, structure, characters, humour and all. The overlapping epistolatory structure was an influence on Dracula, which I also enjoy greatly.
But there’s epistolary & epistolary. See Clarissa.
That’s exactly right. I might even say there’s epistolary and then there’s Clarissa, where the form is not merely used to vary the perspective and add a documentary flavor but is integral to the story and its significance. The sending and receiving of letters is a primary source of conflict from the start, and their misdirecting, purloining, and even forging drive the plot. Finally, the whole corpus is crucial to establishing the moral truth of the affair, which depends on a minute record of a young woman’s state of mind.
So happy to find another Clarissa-lover, Alan!
It’s a marvellous book. I started it intrigued, but was completely captured. Incredibly vivid & intense, real battles for souls, went to extraordinary depths & lengths. I couldn’t put it down.
Clarissa is incredibly modern & appealing in just not being willing to give up her own agency.
I tried the moonstone… nearly screamed in agony
TRY AGAIN HENRY
(I know I previously recommended The Moonstone as a "first Collins" but actually I hate recommending starting places so if you really couldn't stand it maybe ignore me and try TWIW. That said, by way of counter-example, I found Gormenghast impenetrable on first and second try and now I'm a fan, so who knows how these things work.)
Me too, on Gormenghast. And The Secret Agent & Portrait of the Artist too, actually. In fact I think youngs just shouldn’t read certain books as there is no chance they will be able to relate to them, try again in thirty years.
Probably, but it's hard to know which those are when you're young and harebrained and there are books just lying around, you know? And there are some you can read as a child but appreciate more as an adult (The Lord of the Rings is in this category for me). I'm often reminded of Charles Causley's maxim that "while there are some good poems which are only for adults ... there are no good poems which are only for children". I try to revisit books I disliked when I was younger in case I'm now better placed to understand them.
I was between Dickens and Austen, and I see they are evenly tied. It was a damn close run thing for me!
Lewis Carroll beats Daniel Defoe. Kenneth Graham beats wilkie collins.
My kids are now too old for the Wind in the Willows :(
And Jude ahead of Tess by a nose,