What Criteria Define The Best Novel Of All Time By Critics?

I get why people ask that, but honestly, the whole 'best novel ever' framework is kind of exhausting. It’s a list that never changes: 'Ulysses,' 'In Search of Lost Time,' 'Moby-Dick.' The critics’ definition usually hinges on formal innovation, thematic weight, and influence on what came after. They’ll praise a book’s structural complexity or its commentary on the human condition. But that checklist often sidelines books that are just astonishing to read. I loved 'Anna Karenina,' but I found 'Middlemarch' a bit of a slog, and I’ll admit it—does that make my reading less valid? Probably not. The canon feels like a clubhouse, and the rules for entry were written a long time ago. Lately, I see more pushback against that, which is good. A novel’s greatness might be in how it makes a single reader feel seen, not just in how many dissertations it spawned. I’m more interested in what 'best' means to someone trying to escape their own life for a few hundred pages. For instance, a critic might laud 'Blood Meridian' for its mythic prose and philosophical bleakness, and they’re not wrong. But someone else might define the best novel as one with characters that feel like friends, which is a completely different metric. The official definition often ignores that visceral, personal connection in favor of academic reverence. My own 'best' list includes books critics respect, like 'Beloved,' but also has stuff they’d call genre fiction. The gap between critical acclaim and reader love is where the interesting conversations happen.

I notice critics pulling in two directions lately. One camp treats 'best novel ever' like an engineering problem—durability across decades, influence mapped through academic citation, technical innovation in prose. They'll list 'Ulysses' or 'Infinite Jest' and write paragraphs about structural ambition. The other group talks almost entirely about emotional resonance and cultural moment, which explains why lists now include recent genre works next to nineteenth-century classics. The criteria aren't stable. What's interesting is how few critics defend pure aesthetic pleasure as the main metric anymore. They'll hint at it, but then pivot to historical importance or how a book 'speaks to the current age.' Makes me wonder if that's a professional blind spot—overthinking why something sticks with you, and underrating the simple, magnetic pull of a story you can't put down. My own favorites rarely match the critical consensus, and I've stopped worrying about it.

I'd argue critics are, perhaps unconsciously, looking for novels that justify their own profession. A book that is straightforward and easily understood by all doesn't generate much critical analysis. A book that is layered, ambiguous, and rich with intertextuality provides endless material for essays, theses, and careers. So the 'best' novel is, in part, the one that best functions as a source of employment for English majors.

Does anyone else find that the 'critically acclaimed' ones can sometimes be a bit of a slog? Like, I appreciate the craft, but I also want to be gripped, not just impressed.