My Photo
Blog powered by TypePad

Search my library


Library Thing


Useful Links

Victorian Studies

Authors

Fine Arts

Sitemeter

TTLB Ecosystem

Technorati

Amazon

« I feel a sudden urge to redecorate | Main | God bless us, every one »

November 28, 2004

Victorians in the OCLC Top 1000

I went looking for Victorians in the list's top 100 spots. In terms of rank, pride of place goes to Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland at #9. Charles Dickens occupies the #25 spot with A Christmas Carol, with Robert Louis Stevenson and Treasure Island following closely on his heels in #26. Dickens next pops up on the list with A Tale of Two Cities at #42, followed by Great Expectations at #53, Oliver Twist at #67, and David Copperfield at #71; Stevenson, meanwhile, reappears with Kidnapped (#83). Just behind them: Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights (#29) and Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre (#30). Rudyard Kipling finally pops up with the Jungle Book (#72), no doubt running frantically from Bram Stoker's Dracula (#78). And Anna Sewell sits in #82 with Black Beauty.

Six of these thirteen novels/short story collections could be comfortably classed as children's stories. Except for David Copperfield, they are all relatively short--relative, that is, to the Victorian triple-decker, although a number of them are just short, period. With five novels in the top 100, Dickens clearly runs the Victorian roost.

Where are the other heavy-hitters of Victorian fiction, then? Thomas Hardy first appears with Tess of the D'Urbervilles (#112); George Eliot with Silas Marner--which, I've got to say, is absolutely deadly if you're trying to introduce anyone to Eliot's work (#159); Oscar Wilde with The Picture of Dorian Gray (#172). Poor W. M. Thackeray finally gets his say in with Vanity Fair, which is at #373. But he's doing better than Anthony Trollope, stuck in #500 with Barchester Towers.

Is anybody reading Victorian poetry these days? Lord Tennyson's Idylls of the King squeaks by (#584). Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Sonnets from the Portuguese appears much further down (#854)--but at least she's on the list, which is more than her husband can say. No Arnold, no Swinburne, no Rossetti (either one).

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451aed169e200d83456918969e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Victorians in the OCLC Top 1000:

» How C18th texts are rated from scribblingwoman
In a recent post, the other Miriam looked at how Victorian texts rate with librarians. Looking at the same list,... [Read More]

Comments

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment