I think this list is a bit biased. There are so many great books and authors – it seems weird, that in a list limited to 100 places Dostoyevsky is named 4 times and Kafka 3 times.Moreover, most of the books are either heavy or dull (in some cases both) and I honestly doubt that any person employed at the Guardian ever read Ulysses.
Dostoyevskys books are not heavy nor dull.They are rich and brillant.I have no formal education. I didn’t seek out “Great Literature” I happened upon his books by accident in my small hometown library, in the deep south. His books were a bit difficult, with the long proper Russian names, of that period, but like so many things that take time, the reward was that a world opened up for me,and I have now read so many books I would not of even tried to read before. I to don’t like people teling me what is better to read.I can’t now, having read most of the “Greats” know really whats the greatest but please don’t dismiss his and many others on this list,you will be depriving yourself.
“Dostoyevskys books are not heavy nor dull. […] I have no formal education.”
If you have no formal education, then how qualified are you to evaluate Dostoevsky’s books (not to mention that you can’t even spell his name properly)?
If you had looked it up beforehand, you would have noticed that both are right in English. It is also spelled differently in French, German, etc. That’s the thing with Russian names – due to different alphabet- , but English speakers don’t often toy with other languages do they? Instead they pick on people who have no formal learning and presume they cannot, or are not entitled to, critique or appreciate books by themselves. Thick you say?
I don’t care whether they would spell it Dostoevsky or Dostoyevsky or Dostojewski (like I would) or whatever. And I never wanted to say that his works are dull – though there are a lot of books I would prefer.What I was saying is, that however great his works are, there is no reason to list him four times! Not with thousand of other great books out there, that are not mentioned. The Guardian could have limited it one one or two works.