Great post! I honestly feel like “best” is a weak/overgeneralized/left to individual description word for describing books at this point. It’s great for SEO, grabbing attention, etc. but I’m more struck by other ways of describing books. “Books that made me think” “books that exceeded my expectations” etc etc.
I don't disagree! I think its an ineffective term for helping other readers find great books that they may enjoy but I think it's the best term for generating discussion. I'm on vacation with my family this week and soooo many people have asked me about this list. So I think it goes well beyond SEO and viral quality and into real, quality conversations about books! For that reason alone I hope best-of lists never die.
As I put together my "best" books list I was surprised by how much it differed from my "favorite books" list. I found myself evaluating "best" on different criteria from favorite, as though any of us are capable of fully objective view of what would make something so personal as a story be universally "best." It's a fascinating question and it made me want to make a whole BUNCH of new lists (best books that changed me, books with the most compelling protagonists, books with the best sentences, books with the most successful structure, best unreliable narrators, and of course, personal favorites for reasons I can't explain). Anyway, always here to cheer on a great book discussion!
The NYT list made me think even more on this same topic of "best". When I saw The Vegetarian on the list, it gave me pause. I tell people all the time that this book is WILD, and I didn't like, BUT, I read it over 15 years ago (kind of by accident) and *I still think about it*! I could even tell you about specific sections and phrases. I would have to stop and think about where I was living 15 years ago! But, I remember The Vegetarian. Seeing it on this list made me really wonder if this book hadn't done what it set out to do - haunt me (lol). Clearly, the author was very successful in a lot of ways, and I think now, as a more mature reader, I might reread and recognize even more of its merits on the face. All of this is to say, sometimes "best" (particularly by your definition) can allude us! I'm sure there were books I read in the same time frame that I told everyone were fantastic, but I couldn't name any of them now. You would think that would drive me crazy, but I actually think it's pretty cool. Time and reflection are big factors!
Love the reference to Calvino and his view on classic books. That's incidentally the quote I often refer to when I want to discuss why a given book is a favourite of mine and I think others may enjoy reading it too and I fully agree with you that it may be a better way to offer guidance in terms of what we mean by 'best' when it comes to literature. As a side note, as a non-native English speaker, I tend to ignore any of these rankings by an English language medium as they're very flawed and English-language centric. I was delighted and surprised Roberto Bolaño was included in here but Michel Houellebecq's Soumission or Emmanuel Carrère's Limonov weren't, for instance. But I realise that there can't never be universal consensus when it comes to personal taste.
Loved this newsletter. Wonder whether Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow benefited from being a more recently published books than the others you mentioned. Also I was surprised and confused about My Brilliant Friend being first. I enjoyed it, but I do not think it has the importance of other books on the list.
I first want to say that my absolute favorite assignment i had in English 101 was writing a definition paper. I got 100%+ on what means to be visually impaired. It coincides with what best means to me. Like my best assignment being a definition paper that i personaly connected so are my best books. My best books are also books that stay with me forever and either alter or expand my perspective. Enjoyable read today and agree with your ideas.
I want all my reading to be this: A best book is “a book that has never finished saying what it has to say.”!❤️
Right?! It's the most perfect description of books I love!
Great post! I honestly feel like “best” is a weak/overgeneralized/left to individual description word for describing books at this point. It’s great for SEO, grabbing attention, etc. but I’m more struck by other ways of describing books. “Books that made me think” “books that exceeded my expectations” etc etc.
I don't disagree! I think its an ineffective term for helping other readers find great books that they may enjoy but I think it's the best term for generating discussion. I'm on vacation with my family this week and soooo many people have asked me about this list. So I think it goes well beyond SEO and viral quality and into real, quality conversations about books! For that reason alone I hope best-of lists never die.
As I put together my "best" books list I was surprised by how much it differed from my "favorite books" list. I found myself evaluating "best" on different criteria from favorite, as though any of us are capable of fully objective view of what would make something so personal as a story be universally "best." It's a fascinating question and it made me want to make a whole BUNCH of new lists (best books that changed me, books with the most compelling protagonists, books with the best sentences, books with the most successful structure, best unreliable narrators, and of course, personal favorites for reasons I can't explain). Anyway, always here to cheer on a great book discussion!
The NYT list made me think even more on this same topic of "best". When I saw The Vegetarian on the list, it gave me pause. I tell people all the time that this book is WILD, and I didn't like, BUT, I read it over 15 years ago (kind of by accident) and *I still think about it*! I could even tell you about specific sections and phrases. I would have to stop and think about where I was living 15 years ago! But, I remember The Vegetarian. Seeing it on this list made me really wonder if this book hadn't done what it set out to do - haunt me (lol). Clearly, the author was very successful in a lot of ways, and I think now, as a more mature reader, I might reread and recognize even more of its merits on the face. All of this is to say, sometimes "best" (particularly by your definition) can allude us! I'm sure there were books I read in the same time frame that I told everyone were fantastic, but I couldn't name any of them now. You would think that would drive me crazy, but I actually think it's pretty cool. Time and reflection are big factors!
Love the reference to Calvino and his view on classic books. That's incidentally the quote I often refer to when I want to discuss why a given book is a favourite of mine and I think others may enjoy reading it too and I fully agree with you that it may be a better way to offer guidance in terms of what we mean by 'best' when it comes to literature. As a side note, as a non-native English speaker, I tend to ignore any of these rankings by an English language medium as they're very flawed and English-language centric. I was delighted and surprised Roberto Bolaño was included in here but Michel Houellebecq's Soumission or Emmanuel Carrère's Limonov weren't, for instance. But I realise that there can't never be universal consensus when it comes to personal taste.
Loved this newsletter. Wonder whether Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow benefited from being a more recently published books than the others you mentioned. Also I was surprised and confused about My Brilliant Friend being first. I enjoyed it, but I do not think it has the importance of other books on the list.
I first want to say that my absolute favorite assignment i had in English 101 was writing a definition paper. I got 100%+ on what means to be visually impaired. It coincides with what best means to me. Like my best assignment being a definition paper that i personaly connected so are my best books. My best books are also books that stay with me forever and either alter or expand my perspective. Enjoyable read today and agree with your ideas.