I appreciate any list of books and I think it’s interesting how The Times put this together. I always like learning about new authors and books too. 😊💙
Been loving the reactions and discussion this list generated. Much like yourself, I enjoyed finding potential new reads on it and many of the “luminaries’” choices don’t actually interest me and I wasn’t surprised. The discussions around the list fascinate me!
On a serious note, I appreciate the video. I find that inevitably when lists like these come out people are inevitably disappointed with them. I admit some embarrassment that I haven’t read a lot of books on there, though there are a good few on there I want to read. Great video as always!
@@someokiedude9549 Thank you. I enjoyed your video. I don’t think anyone need feel embarrassed by what they have or haven’t read. You can’t read everything so there will always be books you missed.
I've enjoyed all the Booktube discussions and some that I've had with friends of this list and the readers' choice follow up. It is good, nerdy fun. And yay! It's going to start up again in a couple of days when the Booker longlist drops. I can't wait!
Pretty much my thoughts. We all love the fun of lists, and we also all love complaining (The Booker longlist next week will be fun). I'm not from an anglophone country, but I was actually surprised to see quite a number of translated books on that list given that the list was compiled from the NYT, and then I was even more surprised about everybody complaining that there were too few translated books on there. I think I saw one video on BookTube which, while talking about Ferrante, was even complaining that no foreign works at all were on that list.
Thanks for the thoughtful video. My reaction to the list was not to have one because I quickly realized I could easily count the books I’ve read from this century on one hand, so how could I judge? That didn’t stop some booktubers though. So for the best conversation around this list has easily been the NYT’s own podcast as well as Book Riot’s podcast. In both they discuss how the list was made, who contributed, things that surprised them, and what it says about the lit and reading world. They are both reasoned and dispassionate discussions.
I listened to the NYT podcast, but thanks for making me aware of the Bookriot one. I have read a good bit of 21st century fiction over the last five years, but still didn’t feel like I could come up with enough different books to contribute.
@@BookishTexan Yes, BookRiot is often painfully smug and self-serving but their interview with one of the NYT editors who compiled the list is one of the best episodes they've done.
Daniel from the channel @guiltyfeat has videos in which he compares both lists and I forgot to include his in the show notes. I will correct that now so if you check back links to his channel and video should be there.
My main issue with the list or all lists like this is the multiple mentions of authors. IMO they could just put an author with their highest rated book on the list and mention the other liked books instead of giving multiple spots to one author. Another thing that stood out to me was how most of the 11 books I read I didn't really like and how few of the others I'm interested in. It was a list of literary fiction that didn't speak to me at all, highlighting how detached I feel from the bookish conversation lately.
@@1book1review I don’t have a problem with multiple books from a single author because I think it shows the Times didn’t place restrictions on the list and instead just complied the data they got from the surveys. The list is, surprisingly I think, dominated by literary fiction and excludes so much that is popular.
I feel like a tightwad because I don't subscribe to the NY Times, so I couldn't access the list. I thought the voting was done by authors, so I'm disappointed that it was a different group of submitters. I love lists in general, but have no problem disagreeing with them, too. I suspect the list is on Goodreads by now, so I'll have to go have a look.
It has certainly got us talking about books (not that we need an excuse!). And I think it has persuaded me that I finally need to read My Brilliant Friend - spent too long being put off by the unappealing cover - how shallow is that!
From the original list I’d only read 18. When the readers list came out that number went up to 36. The original list should have separated nonfiction & fiction. Writers should have had one place with their most popular book. I’d love the Guardian or the Irish Times to create a list to compare.
I don't have a problem with mixing fiction and non-fiction or with authors appearing multiple times. I think the list is interesting because it is, for the most part, just a compilation of survey data without rules and restrictions. I think it would be great if other Newspapers in other places did the same.
It may not be the NYT's list but they chose who to ask. There is a dearth of books in certain genres: SF, thrillers/crime/mysteries, westerns, romance etc. Were illuminaries in these genres asked? If you ask 100 Trump supporters who are the leading politicians in the land it's going to be light on Democrats,right?
They chose public figures associated with books and authors. I haven’t seen the entire list but here are some names they made public:Stephen King, Bonnie Garmus, Claudia Rankine, James Patterson, Sarah Jessica Parker, Karl Ove Knausgaard, Elin Hilderbrand, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Roxane Gay, Marlon James, Sarah MacLean, Min Jin Lee, Jonathan Lethem and Jenna Bush Hager. Unlike surveying only Trump voters about politics the Times had no way of knowing what these people would say so I don’t think your analogy is accurate. Additionally the Times then opened the process up to everyone, compiled the data and published the “readers” list as well. There is a dearth of genre fiction, but it’s n both cases they published the data they received.
When they opened it up to all readers there was very little genre fiction, so it seems like they knew exactly who they were asking first time around in order to match the demographic of their readers.
OK. The NYT obviously could't know which exact book they would vote for but I suspect they would have an idea of the likely bias that might result from their mailing list. You say we should celebrate the list. Even when, as you agree, there is such a dearth of genre fiction? I suppose it just depends on how seriously you take the list. I should say I haven't seen the readers list, perhaps it is more inclusive.
I think we should celebrate the list for sparking interest and conversation about books including the conversation about how exclusive of genre fiction it is.
I have an extremely minor quibble withe the NYT list while acknowledging that it’s a list of books, not a list of authors so that it’s legitimate that a single author, such as Roth, showed up more than once.
While the NYT did not choose the books on the list, they are responsible for choosing the people who chose the books on the list. Should we ignore the biases of the NYT in choosing the people who submit lists? No. Imagine if they did a list of non-fiction and chose most of the people who would choose the books from a particular ideological position. The resulting bias would be similar. Do the people chosen add something, or is the result the same as if half a dozen NYT editors got together and went through the NYT best sellers and picked their favorites? I think that the purpose of these lists should be less about creating a hagiography, than about encouraging exploration of books we might not otherwise read. A quarter of the way through this century and we seem to be repeating most of the mistakes of the previous centuries. .
I believe they sent to survey to authors and celebrities with a bookish presence and there purpose was to generate discussion which they certainly did. Additionally they also opened the process up to readers in general who self selected and then published that result as well. I can't think of a way they could have made the process any more open than they did. I found books on both lists that I had not read and I'm sure many others did as well, which is I think one of the great things about lists like these.
The only thing that I was slightly miffed by (but completely, and sadly, used to happening when lists like this are compiled) is the almost complete absence of genre fiction. Again, in most "artistic" circles (I'm even including TV and film in this) is that for the large part, science fiction, fantasy, and horror are "popular" but not considered worthy of mention, unless it's a work like the LOTR films, or Game of Thrones for TV, or the Fifth Season in books, that are absolutely extraordinary that to not include them would be utter ridiculousness. However, there are books that aren't just merely speculative literary fiction (think Station Eleven) that are worthy of attention. Where's Neil Gaiman, China Mieville, Cixin Liu, or any number of Hugo or Nebula winners? I guess I'm just getting tired of my tastes considered banal and not worthy of enshrinement.
@BookishTexan I would agree with you if the reader's survey list was incorporated with the 'experts' choice list. But the NYT wrote two separate lists. One with the 'Experts,' the other for the reader's choice, which kind of states that the readers don’t have the same caliber of taste that the 'experts' do.
My opinion might upset some people, oh well: I think, only Americans and English would come up with a list of best books that feature about 75% of books from their own country😅! There are almost 200 countries in the world and nowadays, especially in the US and Europe, it's super easy to get translated books! Plus there are many countries beside the US that have English as an official language.I have lived in Australia and am living in South Africa now. People there and here read books from all over the world. I can understand that readers might be a bit lazy and gravitate towards their national authors, but bookish luminaries?!? I am puzzled and a bit shocked...
I think you have put your finger on the reason for the anglophone nature of the list: cultural arrogance. Excellent works in translation are available but unfortunately few Americans read them.
Just checked the 100 best books of all time list in the German newspaper Die Zeit last year: 29 were German-language. And the 100 best books from the 20th century list from Le Monde (the list was from 1999): 44 were French-language.
@@azu_rikka You are definitely right, but the question is more if this is surprising or if it's something we should be particularly worried about. I have seen many US/UK lists that were far less international, and while it's true that translations in English are available, there is just not this big culture of reading translations. I don't know if anybody compared this to the reader's list. I would imagine it may even be less foreign. I just don't expect every list to be perfectly balanced.
Every list is also different in how it is assembled. The list from Le Monde for example. It's not only that it contains 44 French books, it also contains books that tend to be difficult and which no way represent the average reading taste even with bookish people, so you have also things like more academic/high-brow lists, literary mainstream lists etc.
I’ve read two books: Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, Trust. I will be reading one later this year: Demon Copperhead. All three books were chosen by my local library’s book club. I will have to wait and see if they pick anything from this list for next year’s book club discussions. Personally I don’t use lists like this to fill my TBR.
Your local library's book club sounds great. I wouldn't say I fill my TBR with books from lists, but I have had good luck in choosing books that come from lists like these and award longlists.
It's not a democratic process if you're only polling 'luminaries'. Further elitist when most of those luminaries work in the arts. What saddened me most is the Anglo & US-centric narure of supposed fellow artists. Why aren't they reading more widely?
I know of no democracy that allows everyone within its borders to vote. Democracies, even ancient Athens, restrict voting rights to citizens as well as by age and in the past gender yet we still call them democracies. Restricting the list to people who could be identified as “readers” is elitist, but the Times then opened up the process to everyone to everyone willing to take the time to fill out the survey and published that list as well. As for why those people don’t read more widely I think it’s because, being mostly English speakers, they are surrounded by works in English and not aware of works originally published in other languages.
I appreciate any list of books and I think it’s interesting how The Times put this together. I always like learning about new authors and books too. 😊💙
Me too!
Awesome video! I agree that the NYT’s lists celebrate books and have generated great discussions.
@@lindysmagpiereads Thank you Lindy
You're always very reasonable and I appreciate how you explain things so well. Thanks for the content!
Thanks for the kind words.
Been loving the reactions and discussion this list generated. Much like yourself, I enjoyed finding potential new reads on it and many of the “luminaries’” choices don’t actually interest me and I wasn’t surprised. The discussions around the list fascinate me!
I just watched your video about the Waterstones 20th Century list and really enjoyed it
@@BookishTexan thank you! These NYT reactions brought it all back to me!
I think it’s so interesting that you say all these lists are subjective? Because I swear my own list was objectively correct
Of course it is!
@@BookishTexan I knew it 😏
On a serious note, I appreciate the video. I find that inevitably when lists like these come out people are inevitably disappointed with them.
I admit some embarrassment that I haven’t read a lot of books on there, though there are a good few on there I want to read.
Great video as always!
@@someokiedude9549 Thank you. I enjoyed your video. I don’t think anyone need feel embarrassed by what they have or haven’t read. You can’t read everything so there will always be books you missed.
I've enjoyed all the Booktube discussions and some that I've had with friends of this list and the readers' choice follow up. It is good, nerdy fun. And yay! It's going to start up again in a couple of days when the Booker longlist drops. I can't wait!
@@readandre-read Me too! I’m really looking forward to the Booker long list
great take! 😀 thanks for the mention!!
Thank you.
I agree, all the commentary on this list has been wicked fun! But no one should take it seriously.
@@myreadinglife8816 Indeed!
I always like a list of books, and I’m definitely inspired by it and have moved some books of the list to my TBR. Great video
I love lists too. They almost always make me award of books I would otherwise not have found.
Pretty much my thoughts. We all love the fun of lists, and we also all love complaining (The Booker longlist next week will be fun). I'm not from an anglophone country, but I was actually surprised to see quite a number of translated books on that list given that the list was compiled from the NYT, and then I was even more surprised about everybody complaining that there were too few translated books on there. I think I saw one video on BookTube which, while talking about Ferrante, was even complaining that no foreign works at all were on that list.
There were a few works in translation on the list, maybe more than people realized.
Thanks for the thoughtful video. My reaction to the list was not to have one because I quickly realized I could easily count the books I’ve read from this century on one hand, so how could I judge? That didn’t stop some booktubers though. So for the best conversation around this list has easily been the NYT’s own podcast as well as Book Riot’s podcast. In both they discuss how the list was made, who contributed, things that surprised them, and what it says about the lit and reading world. They are both reasoned and dispassionate discussions.
I listened to the NYT podcast, but thanks for making me aware of the Bookriot one. I have read a good bit of 21st century fiction over the last five years, but still didn’t feel like I could come up with enough different books to contribute.
@@BookishTexan Yes, BookRiot is often painfully smug and self-serving but their interview with one of the NYT editors who compiled the list is one of the best episodes they've done.
First! Do I get a prize for not yet looking at The List? I've been excited (and exercised) about some other things lately.... 🥥
You do get a prize: sanity.🤓
@@BookishTexan ah yes, that lonely corner 😂
haven't seen the list yet but now I know I will have to look it up⚛
Daniel from the channel @guiltyfeat has videos in which he compares both lists and I forgot to include his in the show notes. I will correct that now so if you check back links to his channel and video should be there.
My main issue with the list or all lists like this is the multiple mentions of authors. IMO they could just put an author with their highest rated book on the list and mention the other liked books instead of giving multiple spots to one author. Another thing that stood out to me was how most of the 11 books I read I didn't really like and how few of the others I'm interested in. It was a list of literary fiction that didn't speak to me at all, highlighting how detached I feel from the bookish conversation lately.
@@1book1review I don’t have a problem with multiple books from a single author because I think it shows the Times didn’t place restrictions on the list and instead just complied the data they got from the surveys. The list is, surprisingly I think, dominated by literary fiction and excludes so much that is popular.
@@BookishTexan oh I thought it was for litfic only. Or rather the authors were litfic type authors, so that seemed logical to me.
I have read just seven of the books on the list.
If it hadn’t been for BookTube o probably would have read only a few.
I feel like a tightwad because I don't subscribe to the NY Times, so I couldn't access the list. I thought the voting was done by authors, so I'm disappointed that it was a different group of submitters. I love lists in general, but have no problem disagreeing with them, too. I suspect the list is on Goodreads by now, so I'll have to go have a look.
I put a link to Daniel from Guiltyfeat’s videos in which he goes over all 100 books on both lists. I’m way to cheap to pay for the Times as well.
It has certainly got us talking about books (not that we need an excuse!). And I think it has persuaded me that I finally need to read My Brilliant Friend - spent too long being put off by the unappealing cover - how shallow is that!
I think it has persuaded me to read Ferrante as well and that cover has played a large role in why I havent picked the first book up yet also.
I read the series on my daughter’s recommendation and loved the books.
From the original list I’d only read 18. When the readers list came out that number went up to 36. The original list should have separated nonfiction & fiction. Writers should have had one place with their most popular book. I’d love the Guardian or the Irish Times to create a list to compare.
I don't have a problem with mixing fiction and non-fiction or with authors appearing multiple times. I think the list is interesting because it is, for the most part, just a compilation of survey data without rules and restrictions. I think it would be great if other Newspapers in other places did the same.
It may not be the NYT's list but they chose who to ask. There is a dearth of books in certain genres: SF, thrillers/crime/mysteries, westerns, romance etc. Were illuminaries in these genres asked? If you ask 100 Trump supporters who are the leading politicians in the land it's going to be light on Democrats,right?
They chose public figures associated with books and authors. I haven’t seen the entire list but here are some names they made public:Stephen King, Bonnie Garmus, Claudia Rankine, James Patterson, Sarah Jessica Parker, Karl Ove Knausgaard, Elin Hilderbrand, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Roxane Gay, Marlon James, Sarah MacLean, Min Jin Lee, Jonathan Lethem and Jenna Bush Hager. Unlike surveying only Trump voters about politics the Times had no way of knowing what these people would say so I don’t think your analogy is accurate. Additionally the Times then opened the process up to everyone, compiled the data and published the “readers” list as well. There is a dearth of genre fiction, but it’s n both cases they published the data they received.
When they opened it up to all readers there was very little genre fiction, so it seems like they knew exactly who they were asking first time around in order to match the demographic of their readers.
OK. The NYT obviously could't know which exact book they would vote for but I suspect they would have an idea of the likely bias that might result from their mailing list. You say we should celebrate the list. Even when, as you agree, there is such a dearth of genre fiction? I suppose it just depends on how seriously you take the list. I should say I haven't seen the readers list, perhaps it is more inclusive.
I think we should celebrate the list for sparking interest and conversation about books including the conversation about how exclusive of genre fiction it is.
I have an extremely minor quibble withe the NYT list while acknowledging that it’s a list of books, not a list of authors so that it’s legitimate that a single author, such as Roth, showed up more than once.
I kind of like the idea that the NYT didn't place many restrictions on what could make the list. The multiple books from one author didn't bother me.
While the NYT did not choose the books on the list, they are responsible for choosing the people who chose the books on the list. Should we ignore the biases of the NYT in choosing the people who submit lists? No.
Imagine if they did a list of non-fiction and chose most of the people who would choose the books from a particular ideological position. The resulting bias would be similar. Do the people chosen add something, or is the result the same as if half a dozen NYT editors got together and went through the NYT best sellers and picked their favorites?
I think that the purpose of these lists should be less about creating a hagiography, than about encouraging exploration of books we might not otherwise read. A quarter of the way through this century and we seem to be repeating most of the mistakes of the previous centuries.
.
I believe they sent to survey to authors and celebrities with a bookish presence and there purpose was to generate discussion which they certainly did. Additionally they also opened the process up to readers in general who self selected and then published that result as well. I can't think of a way they could have made the process any more open than they did. I found books on both lists that I had not read and I'm sure many others did as well, which is I think one of the great things about lists like these.
@@BookishTexan Thank you for explaining their methods.
.
Very sparse on Australasian books. Bring on the Booker next week. I'll pay more attention to that.
@@janethansen9612 Very true.
Heh, I just put out a video about this very list myself.
I'll have to check that out. Thanks
The only thing that I was slightly miffed by (but completely, and sadly, used to happening when lists like this are compiled) is the almost complete absence of genre fiction. Again, in most "artistic" circles (I'm even including TV and film in this) is that for the large part, science fiction, fantasy, and horror are "popular" but not considered worthy of mention, unless it's a work like the LOTR films, or Game of Thrones for TV, or the Fifth Season in books, that are absolutely extraordinary that to not include them would be utter ridiculousness. However, there are books that aren't just merely speculative literary fiction (think Station Eleven) that are worthy of attention. Where's Neil Gaiman, China Mieville, Cixin Liu, or any number of Hugo or Nebula winners?
I guess I'm just getting tired of my tastes considered banal and not worthy of enshrinement.
I think the list based on readers surveys goes some way toward correcting the under representation of genre fiction which is anything but banal.
@BookishTexan I would agree with you if the reader's survey list was incorporated with the 'experts' choice list. But the NYT wrote two separate lists. One with the 'Experts,' the other for the reader's choice, which kind of states that the readers don’t have the same caliber of taste that the 'experts' do.
My opinion might upset some people, oh well: I think, only Americans and English would come up with a list of best books that feature about 75% of books from their own country😅! There are almost 200 countries in the world and nowadays, especially in the US and Europe, it's super easy to get translated books! Plus there are many countries beside the US that have English as an official language.I have lived in Australia and am living in South Africa now. People there and here read books from all over the world. I can understand that readers might be a bit lazy and gravitate towards their national authors, but bookish luminaries?!? I am puzzled and a bit shocked...
I think you have put your finger on the reason for the anglophone nature of the list: cultural arrogance. Excellent works in translation are available but unfortunately few Americans read them.
Just checked the 100 best books of all time list in the German newspaper Die Zeit last year: 29 were German-language.
And the 100 best books from the 20th century list from Le Monde (the list was from 1999): 44 were French-language.
@@markhnk you see- am I right or AM I RIGHT?
@@azu_rikka You are definitely right, but the question is more if this is surprising or if it's something we should be particularly worried about. I have seen many US/UK lists that were far less international, and while it's true that translations in English are available, there is just not this big culture of reading translations. I don't know if anybody compared this to the reader's list. I would imagine it may even be less foreign. I just don't expect every list to be perfectly balanced.
Every list is also different in how it is assembled. The list from Le Monde for example. It's not only that it contains 44 French books, it also contains books that tend to be difficult and which no way represent the average reading taste even with bookish people, so you have also things like more academic/high-brow lists, literary mainstream lists etc.
I’ve read two books: Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, Trust. I will be reading one later this year: Demon Copperhead. All three books were chosen by my local library’s book club. I will have to wait and see if they pick anything from this list for next year’s book club discussions. Personally I don’t use lists like this to fill my TBR.
Your local library's book club sounds great. I wouldn't say I fill my TBR with books from lists, but I have had good luck in choosing books that come from lists like these and award longlists.
It's not a democratic process if you're only polling 'luminaries'. Further elitist when most of those luminaries work in the arts. What saddened me most is the Anglo & US-centric narure of supposed fellow artists. Why aren't they reading more widely?
I know of no democracy that allows everyone within its borders to vote. Democracies, even ancient Athens, restrict voting rights to citizens as well as by age and in the past gender yet we still call them democracies. Restricting the list to people who could be identified as “readers” is elitist, but the Times then opened up the process to everyone to everyone willing to take the time to fill out the survey and published that list as well. As for why those people don’t read more widely I think it’s because, being mostly English speakers, they are surrounded by works in English and not aware of works originally published in other languages.