Is There Reader Zest for Lists of Best?

Posted by

126

Lists of the best books ever, the best books from a certain time period, etc., can be many things — including fun, annoying, puzzling, interesting, and valuable for nudging us to read or reread certain novels. (Though I prefer the great recommendations I get via the comments under this weekly blog. 🙂 )

So, I had the usual mixed emotions about the list I most recently saw: “The 100 Best Books of the 21st Century,” re-highlighted on The New York Times website a week or so ago. (The link is here. If you end up hitting a paywall, the list also appears in two screen shots I placed below.)

The NYT’s methodology? “As voted on by 503 novelists, nonfiction writers, poets, critics, and other book lovers — with a little help from the staff of The New York Times Book Review.”

There are many excellent titles on the Times list, of course, and it turned out that I’ve read 24 of them. But, as with other rankings I’ve seen over the years, I thought there were a number of books that shouldn’t have been there but were or should have been there but weren’t. Not surprising given that we all have different opinions — one reason why “best” lists can be fascinating.

Among the novels I was happy to see — even as I might have put them higher or lower on the Times list — were Jonathan Franzen’s The Corrections (5th), Michael Chabon’s The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay (16th), Richard Powers’ The Overstory (24th), Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Americanah (27th), Zadie Smith’s White Teeth (31st), Donna Tartt’s The Goldfinch (46th), Jeffrey Eugenides’ Middlesex (59th), Barbara Kingsolver’s Demon Copperhead (61st), Viet Thanh Nguyen’s The Sympathizer (90th), and Ann Patchett’s Bel Canto (98th).

Among the novels I thought were ranked too high were Marilynne Robinson’s Gilead (10th), George Saunders’ Lincoln in the Bardo (18th), Ian McEwan’s Atonement (26th), and Kate Atkinson’s Life After Life (51st). Why? I found the first book boring, the second highly original but at times tedious, the third marred by what I thought was an awful ending, and the fourth rather confusing. Other readers might feel differently. 🙂

Then there are authors and novels I felt should have been on the Times list. Where was Kristin Hannah? (The Great Alone would have been one possibility). Liane Moriarty? (Perhaps with Big Little Lies.) Amor Towles? (A Gentleman in Moscow.) Richard Russo? (Empire Falls.) Lionel Shriver? (So Much for That.) Lisa Genova? (Still Alice.) Margaret Atwood? (The Blind Assassin and/or Oryx and Crake.) J.K. Rowling? (Maybe one of her Harry Potter novels published post-2000, though it can be hard to choose one book from a series. And if you wanted to name the whole Potter series, the first three books were pre-2000, in the latter 1990s.)

Also, at least one other Barbara Kingsolver novel — I’d pick Unsheltered — deserved to be on the Times list.

Any 21st-century novels you’d like to mention/discuss? Thoughts on the Times top-100? General thoughts on “best” book lists?

Misty the cat says: “Fannie Flagg wrote ‘A Redbird Christmas,’ meaning this redbird is months late.”

My comedic 2024 book — the part-factual/part-fictional/not-a-children’s-work Misty the Cat…Unleashed — is described and can be purchased on Amazon in paperback or on Kindle. It’s feline-narrated! (And Misty says Amazon reviews are welcome. 🙂 )

This 90-second promo video for my book features a talking cat: 🙂

I’m also the author of a 2017 literary-trivia book…

…and a 2012 memoir that focuses on cartooning and more.

In addition to this weekly blog, I write the 2003-started/award-winning “Montclairvoyant” topical-humor column every Thursday for Montclair Local. The latest piece — which names many famous songs — is here.

126 thoughts on “Is There Reader Zest for Lists of Best?”

  3. I’ve been reading mostly non-fiction and indie authors in the 21st century, Dave, so no thoughts about this list (other than it’s too early) and nothing to add.

    As for lists in general, I don’t pay much attention to them, and the media’s fascination with them drives me crazy. I appreciate your take on this more than the collective the Times gathered.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  4. Well, that was interesting, when I managed to see the 100 books on my laptop eventually (oops). And then I realised that I haven’t even heard of more than half of them. I guess it’s because I read very widely, and often from books from around the world. Also, once I was in the club (meaning, in WP), I usually read Indie people’s books, since I know them… properly!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Thank you, Chris! I hadn’t heard of a number of the books on the Times list, either, so you were not alone. 🙂 And, yes, the list was too U.S.-centric, though thankfully not 100% so. And it’s a shame that lists like that don’t include indie books, many of which are better and more interesting than books released by the big publishers.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  5. Hi Dave,

    I must be one of the few people here who actually likes lists! Although I agree with most of the problems that have been posted here, mostly I just want to see which ones I’ve read and if I think it’s a good list then tick off any that I’m missing. When Facebook was first a thing I stumbled on the best 100 books according to the BBC. No doubt the list would look very different now, but I went on to read 98.5 books that were mostly quite good, some were very good, and a few were absolutely amazing.

    Having said all that, I’ve read very little literature from this century and so I’ve only read 3 books on this list with another 4 on the TBR. I did however stumble on a list of “20 weird books that you should read this year” which I looked through and they all seem to be books published this century, written by women, maybe targeted at a female audience. I went into the first book on the list with some trepidation however Mona Awad’s “Bunny” is delightfully weird and kind of dark and I’m having a lot of fun with it. I’m hoping to get to all twenty books in the next two years which will definitely give me some exposure to literature from this century.

    I’ve seen lots of lists of books to read before you die. Sadly, there doesn’t seem to be the same guidance available for after you die 🙂

    Sue

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Thank you, Sue, for the comment — including the hilarity at the end. 😂 Probably Ebooks after death, as in Eternity…

      Given that I have both positive and negative feelings about best-books lists, I definitely see your points about why they can be useful and appealing. And that 20-weird-books list sounds fabulous; I just put Mona Awad’s “Bunny” on my own to-read list (hope my local library has it).

      I’m VERY impressed that you read 98.5 of the 100 books on that BBC list! Wow!

      Like

      Reply

  6. Hi Dave,

    Nice to stumbled across your blog!

    I spent some quality time on this post, nipping over to the local library website now and then to reserve books 🙂

    I agree that it would have been nice to see Amor Towles (A Gentleman in Moscow) on the list.

    As for Harry Potter – book 7 (the Deathly Hallows) is the best one, in my opinion!

    Cheers!

    James

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Thank you, James! Glad you stumbled across this blog. 🙂

      Yes, “A Gentleman in Moscow” is a terrific novel that deserved to be on the Times list. And I agree that the final “Harry Potter” book was excellent, though I thought it did drag a bit in spots and had that clunky epilogue. But the rest of it — VERY page-turning.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  7. Thank for the intertesting list, Dave.

    If you’ve read 24, then I’ve read 1.

    Yes! I did read one. In fact it is the #1 book on the list, My Brilliant Friend.

    It’s difficult to have an opinion if I think books are missing, or should not be there, without reading at least 24. (Just being cheeky 🤭)

    However, if I go by #1, then there is little to compare.

    Honestly, I enjoyed and got a lot more out of A Ghost and His Gold (Roberta Eaton Cheadle).

    Yes, My Brilliant Friend is special, but for me a yawn at times.

    Also, it didn’t say fiction. I guess the NYT’s list is all fiction all the time?

    I ask that because I read non-fiction a lot, and would put some of those on the list, for sure!

    Okay, Misha sends a slew of meows to Misty. Boy, can she ever chat up a storm! AND she loves to argue in cat, so I am at a huge disadvantage!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  8. I find I enjoy these lists for getting ideas of what to read next off of them, even if I don’t always agree with what’s there and what’s not. I make my own “top ten” list every year too, which is fun for passing along the passion I felt for particular books 🙂 I’m always interested to see Lincoln in the Bardo pop up on these lists. Even all these years after reading it, I’m still not sure what I think about it haha!! Although if I’m still thinking about it, that must mean it left an impact! I have the Goldfinch in my current check-out stack from the library! I’m well overdue to get to that one.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • Thank you, M.B.! Nice that you make your own “best” lists!

      Yes, “Lincoln in the Bardo” is one of those love it or hate it books, though I’m in the mixed-feelings spectrum regarding that “experimentary” novel. Sounds like you are, too. 🙂

      “The Goldfinch” is long, but I found it pretty riveting the whole way through. I think it’s the best by far of Donna Tartt’s three novels, and the first two aren’t bad.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  11. Your post about the best books of the 21st century makes me think, Dave and I thank you very much.
    I love to read about other countries and times but I am somewhat surprised that on the New York Times’ booking list there are so few writers listed from other countries. I also have to admit that I much prefer when a person convinces me to read a book by giving me good points.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    • Thank you, Martina! Terrific point that The New York Times list unfortunately skewed to a lot of American novels. Perhaps inevitable for a U.S.-based newspaper, but they should have done better.

      In the link (which might be behind a paywall), there are some reasons given for why each book was liked, so that was good. 🙂

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

  12. A very interesting post as ever Dave! I often wonder how these lists are composed! Are they based on book sales, personal opinion or whatever! I often find the real gems are lesser known books that knock my socks off, so to speak. Having said that, one of my favourite novels; The Horse Whisperer by Nicholas Evans (1995) was actually a bestseller. An unforgettable novel.

    Thanks Dave, have a great week!

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

    • Thank you! It IS interesting how lists are compiled — including the criteria, how many “voters” are involved, etc. I assume it’s mostly personal opinion, but who knows?

      And I totally agree that there are many lesser-known gems, even as some best-sellers are gems as well.

      Have a great week, too!

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply

  13. A wonderful topic and the follow-up discussion was stellar as usual, Dave. I am a “list person” – always have been since I was a child so for me, book lists have a place. Given that so many are published, someone must be reading them. For me, book lists mirror societal trends, highlighting the evolution of our reading preferences. They showcase the themes that resonate with us at various points in time, offering a curated insight into the collective consciousness and interests of diverse groups. Personally, I find joy in crafting my own lists, as they inspire me to delve into new perspectives and ideas influenced by the reading habits of others. As you and I have already discussed many times, reading is not a competition, but a meaningful path to learning and personal development. The quantity of books read is not my focus, but on the profound understanding and insights the books that I do read provide regarding the human experience. One other thought that comes to mind is that book lists can foster a sense of community among readers, encouraging discussions and exchanges of thoughts that enrich our literary pursuits. Your brilliant blog is a testament to this idea.

    As Dr. Seuss wrote so eloquently, “The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.”

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

  15. Thanks for sharing the list, Dave. I’m not surprised that I’ve only read eleven books on the list. I have two others I’ve bought but haven’t read yet. I think that bestseller books can be overrated. What truly counts is when a book can have a great impact on our lives when we most need it.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  16. Thank you for the 100 book list from The NYT. Also Jack,Redbird Christmas,the Northern Cardinal who is very glad Misty is on a leash!

    Michele

    E & P, way back

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    • Thank you, Michele! That bird is definitely glad Misty has on a leash that I would grab if the bird were in danger. Fortunately, Misty seemed to have other things on his mind, such as having munched some newly grown grass just before I shot this video. 🙂

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  17. While I might like book reviews (re knowing what I’m buying), I don’t like book lists. Actually, whoever makes a list of books from 1-100 re the best vs the best, is, what I might argue, primarily based on their tastes. Even more so when ridiculous theories such as book sales, or trends and/or personal opinions of the muckety mucks deem a book to be worthy of said list, etc. In addition, if what the markets consider the best, personally I’d say forget it. I’ve completely gotten over what corporate America thinks, feels or believes concerning art, music or literature. I’m sure a lot of people would scratch off a good majority of those books. For instance I don’t think Lincoln In The Bardo was that great since I’ve read better ghost stories and tales of individuals who couldn’t move past their grief even though other book sellers/readers thought it was very experimental and contemporary, it doesn’t make it better, as you noted earlier. But that’s just my opinion. My list would be wilder and funkier. Ha. Just sayin. Susi

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    • Thank you, Susi! You’re right that the books that get big publishers and are marketed a lot and have a lot of sales are not necessarily the best books. Some might be the best books, but others might be just the most mainstream and/or kind of formulaic and/or…

      A wilder and funkier list? 🙂 Sign me up!

      I agree that unusually structured “Lincoln in the Bardo,” while compelling at times, is overrated.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  18. “Best Books Lists” tend to annoy me because they make too big a logical leap. “503 novelists, nonfiction writers, poets, critics, and other book lovers — with a little help from the staff of The New York Times Book Review” is too small a sample size to be statistically valid, and it smacks of confirmation bias. It also doesn’t account for other variables such as size of the publisher and amount of money spent on marketing and promotion. Aside from that, you can’t make a list of the best books of the 21st century when the 21st century isn’t over yet! [Deep breaths, breathe in, breathe out.] As far as I’m concerned, literature per se isn’t a competition with winners and losers.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

    • Thank you, Liz! You make several excellent points. Even though 503 participants sounds like a lot, it is indeed a relatively small sample size in the scheme of things. And, yes, books from big publishers that get marketed at least somewhat have a leg up. And the winners/losers thing doesn’t evoke the nicest feelings.

      I hear you about the 21st century not being over yet (though with Trump in office I sort of wish it was. Even if he shreds the Constitution to serve multiple terms, I don’t think he would quite make it to the year 2100 🙂 ).

      “Best books lists” are certainly “clickbait” for some people — including me. 🙂 I can’t resist looking at them, even though I have mixed feelings about them.

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply

  19. There’s a difference between the books I’d call “best” (and I’d really have to think about what criteria I’d use to judge “best”–it’s not easy) and the books I enjoyed the most.

    For example, right now I’d say I consider Demon Copperhead Barbara Kingsolver’s “best” book, in terms of literary and sociopolitical significance (and I enjoyed reading a lot), but my favorite of her books–the one I LOVED–remains Animal Dreams.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  20. Yes, your replies to Laura pretty much cover the points I was making. I read quite some contemporary books (can’t resist anything novel, let alone novels). It’s just that the farther back in time you start when choosing your literature, the better your perspective will be. Particularly, that, in essence, as far as the human mind goes, and ethics, and politics, and cynicism, very little changes over many centuries. Just one example (which I’ve probably cited before on these pages): Illusions perdues, by Honoré de Balzac).

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • “…the farther back in time you start when choosing your literature, the better your perspective will be” — there’s a lot of truth to that. And yes, human emotions and such are not that different when comparing now to a long time ago, though of course things like social norms and tech change.

      I’m a big fan of Balzac’s work; I’ve read five of his novels: “Eugenie Grandet,” “Old Goriot,” “The Magic Skin,” “The Black Sheep,” and “Cesar Birotteau.” Heck, the 19th century was a great time for French literature — also Zola, Dumas, Hugo, Flaubert, Sand, Stendhal, de Maupassant…

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

  22. Such lists, even from the NYT, are never good. Why would I need a top-100 list of 21st century books? One could spend a dozen lives reading everything worth reading written before 2000, including thousands of books that would end ex aequo on first position on any best-ever list. Already as a young girl, I read scores of books written long before I saw the light of day, centuries before, even. Age has nothing to do with it. That being said, I think The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Eugenides ought to be on the 21st century list and top Middlesex. Middlesex is good, but fundamentally a traditional novel. The Virgin Suicides is mind-blowing, daring, and unparalleled in quirkiness. But, hey, isn’t that a 90s novel? QED!

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

    • Thank you, Dingenom! Very true that there are so many older novels a person couldn’t read all of them if one did nothing else. 🙂 As I also mentioned to Laura in this comments section, I used to almost exclusively read older novels until I felt I had gotten to many of the ones I wanted to get to. Plus I became fans of some more-contemporary authors, and would spend a lot of my reading time reading a number of books by each of them.

      I haven’t read “The Virgin Suicides”; just put it on my list after seeing your enthusiastic take on it. 🙂

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

  23. An interesting post as usual Dave – my regular Sunday brain-tease! I’m not big on lists, and this one I fear is rather ‘The Gospel According to the NYT’. I have to say that I haven’t read a single book on it, although there are a couple that are on my list. ‘Olive Kitteredge’ for one. I’ll admit that I tend to be behind the times – when I published my first book and was querying agents and publishers I wanted to follow the received advice that it’s a good idea to find authors already represented by that agent/publishers and mention them as people you admire and read in your query letter. I couldn’t though, as I knew few if any of the authors mentioned. All were contemporary – of course – and I do tend to like the Classics from the first half of the 20th century backwards, although with a few exceptions, Salman Rushdie, Lionel Shriver to name but a few – and they’re noticeable by their absence on the list you give above. When I was at university I had a lecturer who became a friend when I began working as a teacher with him – and he freely confessed that his tastes in books, music etc ended at the end of the 19th century – he didn’t like Modernism or most of what followed it. I fear that I may be turning into him – either that or we became friends because our tastes were similar. Whatever, I’m not sure what purpose such lists serve, apart from helping those authors favoured by the NYT in this case – and I can’t take seriously any list which doesn’t include Shriver or Rushdie. So there. 🙂 🙂 🙂 Thanks, Dave.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

    • Thank you, Laura! I hear you — there was also a time when I read a lot more older fiction than contemporary fiction. At a certain point, I finally had gotten to a lot of the older fiction I wanted to read, so I gradually switched to more recent fiction and contemporary fiction — which of course always has many new offerings every year whereas the amount of older fiction becomes finite when authors die.

      I assume The New York Times did a best novels of all time list at some point (not just focusing on the 21st century) but I haven’t seen it.

      “Olive Kitteridge” is pretty good — short-stories-as-novel format — though the flinty title character is not the most likable of people.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      • Fair points, Dave, and if it didn’t do much more, publishing my own books pushed me into more 20th and 21st-century books – although with some of it the best I got from it was that I didn’t want to read any more by those authors! Some I’ve found are great though, so I’m glad of that. As to ‘Olive Kitteridge’, I’d heard that she’s – shall we say ‘feisty’? Which is probably why I want to read her, lol. Have a good week and thanks again for the thought-provoking post. 🙂 🙂

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        • Yes, Laura, writing one’s own books can do that. 🙂 A person is more likely to become a fan of 21st-century books if she or he is writing some of them…and wants to see what other contemporary authors are coming up with.

          Olive is indeed feisty! One can be feisty and likable or feisty and not-so-likable, and Olive leaned toward the latter in my mind. But just one person’s opinion. And unlikable characters can be fascinating!

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

Leave a reply to shehannemoore Cancel reply