The list contains a lot of classic literature novels with a science fiction element that were published prior to the establishment of the genre in the late 1920s, as well as some later novels by non-genre writers like George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. (Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm" are books #1 and #2 on the list, and Huxley's "Brave New World" is #4.) Several of these novels are assigned reading in high school and college classes.
Out of curiosity, I took the trouble to write down the years published of the SF novels in this Top 100 list and arrange them chronologically. (The point of all this will be revealed momentarily.) The publication year of each novel is shown below, along with the placement of each novel for that year.
1818 - #7
1869 - #36
1895 - #19
1897 - #47
1898 - #28
1932 - #4
1938 - #79
1945 - #2
1949 - #1, #35
1950 - #25
1951- #20, #67, #74
1953 - #3, #51
1959 - #38, #55, #65
1961 - #24, #80
1962- #16, #40
1963 - #21
1965 - #13
1966 - #17, #56
1968 - #22, #27
1969 - #8, #32, #54
1970 - #57
1973 - #49
1974 - #48, #64, #71
1977 - #68
1978 - #15
1979 - #6, #53
1984 - #26
1985 - #5, #9, #52
1986 - #77
1987 - #61, #78
1989 - #39
1990 - #12
1991 - #81
1992 - #30, #75, #86
1993 - #60
1995 - #37
1996 - #62
1999 - #58
2002 - #69, #82
2003 - #33
2004 - #34
2005 - #18, #44
2006 - #14, #50
2010 - #59
2011 - #10, #42
2012 - #11, #43, #70, #89
2013 - #88
2014 - #23, #31, #45, #63, #73, #87
2015 - #66, #76, #84
2016 - #29, #46, #85, #90, #95
2017 - #41, #83, #97, #98, #100
2018 - #91, #92, #99
2019 - #72, #93, #94, #96
So, as can be seen above, the list contains 5 novels published in the 19th century (long before the genre was formed or its name coined); 53 novels published in the 20th century; and 42 novels published in the 21st century (i.e., within the past 20 years).
Looking at these numbers, this appears to be a relatively balanced list when it comes to representing various eras of the genre. The list is understandably heavily leaned towards "newer" (21st century) releases (nearly half the list), but not at the expense of ignoring the previous century (which comprises a little more than the other half of the list). Emphasis on recent books is only to be expected given that the site is geared towards reader-reviewers and given the importance that authors today put on promoting their new books (and encouraging positive reviews) on Goodreads.
One may quibble or differ with individual choices, but one cannot say that the list has ignored the past since there are more 20th century novels on the list than there are 21st century novels. This is a genre that appears to recognize and respect its own past.
Now then: Let us turn to the genre of romantic fiction. Back in February, a similar list titled "Top 100 Romance Novels on Goodreads" appeared on the Goodreads site's blog. This list was compiled by excluding YA (Young Adult) novels and limited to "books with at least a 3.9 average rating" (which explains why Fifty Shades of Grey, currently rated 3.6 stars, is not on the list despite its popularity). Unlike the SF list, this one doesn't have numbers next to each book (#1, #2, etc.) although in my chronological version of the list below, I have given each book a number based on the order in which they are shown on the list. So, here's how the romance novel list looks when arranged chronologically; I have provided the author and title for all books on the list that were published prior to the year 2000.
1811 - #82 (Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen)
1813 - #73 (Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen)
1847 - #43 (Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte)
1855 - #63 (North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell)
1936 - #36 (Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell)
1954 - #44 (Katherine by Anya Seton)
1977 - #90 (The Thorn Birds by Colleen McCullough)
1979 - #50 (Love Comes Softly by Janette Oke)
1987 - #64 (Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami)
1989 - #13 (The Bride by Julie Garwood)
- #45 (A Kingdom of Dreams by Judith McNaught)
- #47 (A Knight in Shining Armor by Jude Deveraux)
1991 - #69 (Outlander by Diana Gabaldon)
- #77 (Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers)
1994 - #12 (Born in Fire by Nora Roberts)
- #41 (It Had to Be You by Susan Elizabeth Phillips)
1995 - #61 (Naked in Death by J. D. Robb [Nora Roberts])
1996 - #65 (The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks)
1997 - #54 (Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden)
1998 - #1 (Addicted by Zane)
- #40 (Into the Winderness by Sara Donati)
1999 - #11 (Beyond the Highland Mist by Karen Marie Moning)
- #21 (Dark Prince by Christine Feehan)
- #96 (A Walk to Remember by Nicholas Sparks)
2000 - #14, #28, #46, #57
2002 - #24, #33, #87
2005 - #20
2006 - #42, #84, #98
2007 - #3, #56, #85
2008 - #19, #23, #38, #72, #100
2009 - #4, #91, #94
2010 - #6, #22, #25, #51, #62, #74, #99
2011 - #2, #9, #16, #27, #34, #35, #37, #48, #59, #67, #71
2012 - #7, #17, #26, #29, #30, #31, #39, #53, #55, #58, #60, #66, #68, #70, #75, #80, #81, #83, #88, #89, #93, #97
2013 - #8, #10, #18, #32, #49, #76, #78, #79, #86, #92, #95
2014 - #5, #15, #52
Like the SF list, the romance novel Top 100 list contains some pre-genre (Jane Austen) and outside-the-genre (Nicholas Sparks) works. One can see at a glance, however, that the most notable difference is how heavily weighted the romance list is towards more "recent" (21st century) releases.
The romance novel list contains 4 novels published in the 19th century (the SF list had 5 novels); 20 novels published in the 20th century (the SF list had 53); and 76 novels published in the 21st century (the SF list had 42). Moreover, only five of the twenty 20th century romance novels on the list were published prior to 1989. (In comparison, forty-three of the fifty-three 20th century SF novels were published prior to 1989.)
This list indicates that older romance novels are not well-regarded by romance readers today. In the 1960s, the 1970s, and the 1980s, romance novels were derided by critics (when they bothered to think of them at all) as poorly-written junk, and it appears that today's romance readers agree with that damning verdict. Because there is no body of criticism supporting old romance novels as worthy literature (as literature, not just for its potential cultural or historical interest), they are easier to dismiss and deride since there is almost no positive critical consensus surrounding them.
Okay, so perhaps that Goodreads Top 100 romance list is a fluke and doesn't really represent what the majority of romance readers think about the merit of 20th century romance novels.
And yet, when lists of the greatest romance novels of all time are put together by fans (i.e., people knowledgeable about the genre) the entries often slant heavily towards more recent releases. For example, in the most recent AAR Top 100 list in 2018, there were only a few books on it published before 1990. Whereas when science fiction fans have compiled lists of their favorite SF and fantasy books, the lists are usually dominated by "classics" by long-dead authors.
The existence of a body of criticism that takes the genre seriously means that even people who have not read certain novels will still hold them in some regard based on their reputation, despite the book's age. Therefore one needn't have read Frank Herbert's "Dune" (1965) or Ray Bradbury's "The Martian Chronicles" (1950) or Robert A. Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" (1961) to recognize and understand their importance. They aren't swept away and forgotten simply because they are old. In the case of romance novels, the older books were widely considered to be "trash" by the critics back then and are still thought to be "trash" today. Older romance novels are left undefended, even by the genre's fans.
There may be another explanation, other than lack of critical appreciation, for the disregard of old romance novels and that may be the changing times. Romance novels are dependent on the establishment of fulfilled relationships among their protagonists, and as societal norms change about what is fulfilling or acceptable behavior, one's judgement of older attitudes is necessarily revised, resulting perhaps in a diminished regard for work that reflects those less enlightened times. In other words, what may have been thought highly of in 1975 may be hard to enjoy or defend today.
Of course, other genres were written back then, too, as were old movies and TV shows, many of which are still unapologetically enjoyed today, many decades after their release. Entire TV channels are devoted to old TV shows from the 1960s and 1970s, some old programs even revived in new versions for today's viewers despite the inherently problematic content reflecting the times in which they were made.
There is good and bad about the lack of regard for a genre's past works. It suggests that the romance genre today is not "stuck in the past" or a genre in decline, with its better days long behind. The lack of an exalted "canon" of older romance works (aside from a few early giants like Jane Austen, who was pre-genre like H. G. Wells was to science fiction, and Georgette Heyer who gave the Regency romance novel much of its language) means that romance has fortunately avoided the oppressive lionizing of dead white authors at the expense of living diverse authors. The old "canon" that was built up in other genres was largely built up by white men and can be seen as another form of oppression of diverse voices. The romance genre is not burdened by the past's prejudice in the same way those genres are, if its own past's prejudiced works are more easily ignored or avoided. Romance has the chance to remain forever new.
On the other hand, it becomes complicated when the lack of celebration of older authors means the lack of celebration and acknowledgement of women, who wrote the bulk of 20th century romance novels. It also raises the question as to whether today's authors will be subject to the same treatment as their predecessors in another generation or two, as societal trends continue to change.
This focus on the present at the expense of the past reinforces the idea that romance novels are ephemeral, merely "beach reads" that are momentary diversions, soon forgotten after falling out of fashion. Perhaps today's romance novels will have no more lasting worth than 20th century romance novels have had. Today's favorites -- the 21st century novels which score so high today on these lists -- will eventually be forgotten as well, if history is any guide.
However, if romance novels are appreciated for their literary value, for their significance to the evolution of the form and the enduring pleasure that they give to readers (and not just high sales), then perhaps they will be able to resist the tide that threatens to sweep them aside. Hopefully a future Top 100 romance list won't treat so many books and authors as if they never happened.
