I don’t usually look at the Post list but really prefer it this year!
I like the 10 book list but wish they would do 10 fiction & 10 nonfiction. Five doesn’t feel like enough. But that might be because I wasn’t super-excited by the NYT list. I get why James is on every list but at the same time, taking up 20% of the space for something already so extraordinarily discussed is underwhelming to me.
Totally agree that I wish both would do 10 fiction and 10 nonfiction, although for individuals who share I like a straight up 10 with whatever mix they see fit. The JAMES question is tough for me because it is so obviously the book of the year. I think it would be wild for these publications not to include it, but when you have one book that is so widely agreed upon to be the best there is something of a let down to not get another book that feels like a surprise.
I think James is unique because it is regarded as an important and very special book by so many. I think book critics believe it will be a classic and should be included as a “best.” There are probably many people who do not follow book news closely, who will read it or gift it because it is on these lists.
I prefer the NPR books we love list. Because there are so many books and you can narrow them down by your own reading preferences, it feels more approachable. I agree that 100 BEST books is entirely too many.
I agree that it's the most helpful resource! I go back and use the ones from past years to selection book club books sometimes and I can't say I do the same with any of the other lists. At the same time, I just don't think it's a best of list! It frustrates me to hear it compared to the others because it's a completely different thing with no curation, editorial board, or numerical limit. It's quite literally just books the NPR staff from all sections of the publication loved and submitted. Which is so fun!! But not at all comparable.
I appreciate this commentary, Sara! For me, these lists are all about discovering new books so I tend to lean more into lists from Substackers, Bookstagrammers whose taste I admire.
I love best books of the year lists and I appreciate this thoughtful post about them.
While I enjoyed delving into the NPR list, it is pretty random. I thought it was particularly weak at reflecting the standout children’s books of the year.
Since I try to find books I might not read on my own, I love short lists. Since I am an NY Times subscriber, reading their ten best books over time is one of my goals. The nonfiction books are always winners, although some of the biographies are very lengthy and I read them in small bits. Most of them I would not choose from a list of 100 as something I would be interested in. I am mixed on the fiction selections, which tend to be very literary, but are always thought provoking and often not on the radar of the book podcasts I listen to. Most of my other reading comes from books I know I will like and for my book clubs.
I don’t usually look at the Post list but really prefer it this year!
I like the 10 book list but wish they would do 10 fiction & 10 nonfiction. Five doesn’t feel like enough. But that might be because I wasn’t super-excited by the NYT list. I get why James is on every list but at the same time, taking up 20% of the space for something already so extraordinarily discussed is underwhelming to me.
Totally agree that I wish both would do 10 fiction and 10 nonfiction, although for individuals who share I like a straight up 10 with whatever mix they see fit. The JAMES question is tough for me because it is so obviously the book of the year. I think it would be wild for these publications not to include it, but when you have one book that is so widely agreed upon to be the best there is something of a let down to not get another book that feels like a surprise.
I think James is unique because it is regarded as an important and very special book by so many. I think book critics believe it will be a classic and should be included as a “best.” There are probably many people who do not follow book news closely, who will read it or gift it because it is on these lists.
This was so fun to read! I completely agree that ten is the just right number. I sure do love this time of year!
Yes! It's so fun!
I prefer the NPR books we love list. Because there are so many books and you can narrow them down by your own reading preferences, it feels more approachable. I agree that 100 BEST books is entirely too many.
I agree that it's the most helpful resource! I go back and use the ones from past years to selection book club books sometimes and I can't say I do the same with any of the other lists. At the same time, I just don't think it's a best of list! It frustrates me to hear it compared to the others because it's a completely different thing with no curation, editorial board, or numerical limit. It's quite literally just books the NPR staff from all sections of the publication loved and submitted. Which is so fun!! But not at all comparable.
I appreciate this commentary, Sara! For me, these lists are all about discovering new books so I tend to lean more into lists from Substackers, Bookstagrammers whose taste I admire.
I love best books of the year lists and I appreciate this thoughtful post about them.
While I enjoyed delving into the NPR list, it is pretty random. I thought it was particularly weak at reflecting the standout children’s books of the year.
Since I try to find books I might not read on my own, I love short lists. Since I am an NY Times subscriber, reading their ten best books over time is one of my goals. The nonfiction books are always winners, although some of the biographies are very lengthy and I read them in small bits. Most of them I would not choose from a list of 100 as something I would be interested in. I am mixed on the fiction selections, which tend to be very literary, but are always thought provoking and often not on the radar of the book podcasts I listen to. Most of my other reading comes from books I know I will like and for my book clubs.