Yikes..not only have I not read any of them, I never even heard of half of the authors. Maybe I need to get my head out of the Victorian Era.

PAM

I am surprised to see George and Arthur and Black Swan Green on there - they were ok, but not notable in my book. FILTH is a ton of fun, but again, I wouldn't put it in my list. Several of those I do want to read including Echo and Suite Francsia (sp). I recognize many of the authors by wouldn't read them - McCarthy is one with a million fans, but I'm not one, sadly (coz everyone tells me how much I'm missing!)

I've read six of the books that were on the fiction list, have a couple more on my TBR stack, and tried to read a few of the others listed but found them to be mind numbing. I was gratified to see two books that I've read but which haven't received much attention in the press: Lisa Fugard's Skinner's Drift, a novel set in South Africa, and Beasts of No Nation by Uzodinma Iweala, a story about child soldiers in Africa, which was brutal and raw and yet touching, all at the same time. I was also pleased to see The Road and Suite Francaise on the list.

Pam, there are worse places for your head than Victorian literature. My opinion is simply that you are better to spend your reading time with enduring titles, than in a frantic and fruitless scramble to stay on top of what marketers and self-appointed pundits are telling us to read. I wouldn't worry about not having heard, let alone read, the majority of these books. The sad fact is that in a matter of a few years, most of them will have slunk into the abyss of the remaindered and deservedly-obscure.

I haven't read Suite Francaise, because I can't decide if the hype is genuinely based on its literary merits, or on the tragic story of its author and the remarkable survival of her manuscript.

I always look forward to the NYT's Most Notable Books of the Year lists. I personally thought this year wasn't a good reading year, but after browsing the list it was better than I remembered. I've bought a few of the notable books (Suite Francaise, Half of a Yellow Sun, Inheritance of Loss, Gate of the Sun), have read a few, and have marked off others that look appealing to put on hold at the library.

I've read one and intend to read four more I don't think these are meant as must-read lists, just suggestions of books they thought worth considering if someone was looking for something to read. In any case, that is how I plan to take it!

Speaking of lists, I recently picked up as book called 501 Must-Read Books at B&N. I don't agree that these books must be read, but I liked the descriptions and often, book covers, and the fact that the book mentioned a number of books I had always meant to read but forgot. I figure I can pick it up for ideas sometime I am at a loss for an idea of where to go next.

>frantic and fruitless scramble to stay on top of what marketers and self-appointed pundits are telling us to read.

I agree with rose, the lists are just suggestions, at least to me. No one is telling me I have to read them to be a 'reader' or anything like that. And I have found interesting reads by scanning those end of the year lists. And yes, many of the books will disappear, with the cream rising to the top. But thats no different from the lists of books from the 20s and 30s.

>I haven't read Suite Francaise, because I can't decide if the hype is genuinely based on its literary merits, or on the tragic story of its author and the remarkable survival of her manuscript.

Interesting question. I could see either one garnishing their own style of readers. As for me, its the latter which intrigues me. I hesitate to read Holocaust books, because I've read so many as a teen, but if one comes around with this history, I am drawn to it. So - after I finish, I'll let you know my answer to your question :)

I also try not to let hype affect me. I chose books based on my interest in the subject matter and the first couple of pages, not by whether a book is hyped or not.

"anarchic Americans collide with quasi-psychic European hedonists and a crew of boyish balloonists, anticipating the shocks to come."

I just have to laugh at this summary. If it weren't Thomas Pynchon, would this be on the list? Can you imagine a first time author pitching this? I haven't read Pynchon since college, but I might have to check this out.

WIth a list that is generated by the Times - I think it's important to be aware of the Times and its need to be with the trends, and their political orientation. I have almost reached the point that I did with Oprah's original lists...look at it, give the books a passing glance, because there are a few pearls there, but mostly rocks that will sink straight to the bottom of the pool and become obsured by their lack of lasting notability.

tim,

Thanks. I agree with you. Today it seems that publishers are more interested in the bottom line than in presenting the best materials to the public. It makes me cringe to see fluff and nonsense constantly on the bestsellers' lists and receive all of the hype. Whereas there are quite a number of good books that are released to a silent marketing campaign - perhaps because the powers-that-be feel a book that requires thought and intelligence is too heavy for our new 21st century attention spans? In any case, I agree with you.

AstroKath, you work in a book store. Do you see any of this? Am I way off base?

PAM

I've read two of these and started and gave up on two others (I do want to try again with Consider the Lobster but it's not high on the TBR list just now).

Anne Tyler's Digging to America was very good, but I wouldn't consider it exceptional. And Franzen's Discomfort Zone had some very funny sections, but on the whole struck me as self-indulgent and positively rambling in places.

I am curious about Suite Francaise, but I have a very hard time reading holocaust stories, I just get too emotional and upset.

I confess that I haven't read any of these. I looked at the listing of Non-Fiction, and all I could think of for some of them was, "And THIS is considered important?" Good Grief!!!

Maybe they were enjoyable reading or well written, but important? I wonder!!

I do wonder what they mean by notable. Ones that they gave positive reviews for? Or ones that are truly notable in the sense of classic? If the latter, no way. The former sounds much more logical and honest.

I haven't read any of them, but do have two sitting on my TBR and there are two more that I have been mulling over reading...but as I have said here before I am behind having had a houseguest for the month of November-but I do plan to catch up!

Pat

The only one on the list I found and tried to read was "Black Swan Green", which failed to draw me in. I am, however, very familiar with the excellent poetry of 3 authors mentioned: Gluck, Hemthel, and Ginsberg....

I want very much to read "The Road."

I've read 6 of them, and they seem to be evenly split between fiction and non. I just finished the Marie Antoinette, which was an interestingly different take on her life as dictated by her fashion forward attitude.
There are more I'd like to read but, since there's a lot I MUST read for writing my Ph.D dissertation, they'll have to wait for another century or so!

While it's easy to be dismissive of current trends in fiction and literature, it's also important to realize how much other fiction through the centuries has fallen into obscurity as well, and rightly so. I find lists such as the NYT Notable Books list to be a reminder that there are some outstanding writers working today.

I think the question about Suite Francaise is a valid one. I didn't know all of the back story before I read it. I just thought that it sounded intriguing, and that's why I decided to read it. Is it perfect? No. There were times that I felt that if Nemirovsky had had the opportunity to edit her work, she might have changed a phrase here and a word there. Still, some of her descriptive phrasing is pitch perfect, and the story is engrossing. Also, it isn't really a story about the Holocaust per se. It's likely that if she had been able to complete the book, the large-scale arrests and deportation to concentration camps would have figured prominently into the novel. As it stands, though, the first section of the book is about the frantic exodus of the residents of Paris as the Germans drew near, and the second section concerns the German occupation of a small French town and how the people of the town interacted with the soldiers.

I've only read Black Swan Green. I'm not much on rushing to read new stuff.

> it's also important to realize how much other fiction through the centuries has fallen into obscurity as well, and rightly so.

Exactly. Check out the list of Pulitzer prize winners for Literature, or the National Book Award, and see how many are still memorable. Every time had its wheat and chaff, we readers just decide how to separate it and what stays!

> reminder that there are some outstanding writers working today.

There is much talk about the decline of books, of novels, of the lack of good writing. But its the same talk, different century. We only hear about the best writers of a certain time. Many of our writers today will be among the ones long remembered. Writing, and reading, is still alive and well, thank goodness!

And thank goodness there are books for everyone to read - or as Nicholas Babanes says in the title of his most recent book: A book for every reader. Not all books will appeal to all, but every book will appeal to someone. And this is a good thing, and why I don't worry too much if I haven't read the majority on any list.

I've read one from fiction and one from non-ditto one each on my TBR pile(s). I wonder how these lists are developed. Many of the fiction books are new first time authors and have been published in the last half of the year. I'm not sure many first time authors would qualify for my personal idea of notable.

Pam53, your question about how these lists are compiled is perfectly valid. I suspect that the alleged notability of a title has a lot to do with its publishing house, and how much advertising space they purchase from the New York Times (or in any other outlet). Cynical? Perhaps.

I know RPers well enough to know that they do not need anyone to tell them what to read. There are many readers, however, who feel unnecessary guilt at not having read the book(s) that all the critics are raving about.

I have a relative, for instance, who does not like the books of Margaret Atwood, yet feels compelled by some unseen force to buy and read each new Atwood book the moment it hits the shelves. I think she thought I was speaking heresy when I told her that she was under no obligation to buy and/or read books she didn't like just because she wanted to understand what the critics were blathering about. Many readers bemoan that they have "fallen behind". "Fallen behind whom?", I want to ask. Is reading a competition? A contest?

I have read one of these (Black Swan Green) and have one on my TBR list.

But here is the disturbing thing: I work in a bookshop and am pretty good at keeping up with what is new, at least by title, and I have only heard of eleven more of the fiction titles. I am hoping it is a factor of the list being US-centric.

Pam, I am pleased to say that we sell a very wide range of books. There is an imprint that does only classics at a cheap price, and we sell heaps of those. New releases are popular, of course, but we sell lots of vintage too.

The only thing I would like to say is that I think reading anything is Ok by me - I don't like to judge what people read. I like fluff - lots of what I read is crime and some chick lit - and I like that between heavier stuff. As I have often said, I am a very plot driven reader, and can't stay with books that have very little story but lovely writing. I am wary of lists like this as the books often prove to be not interesting to me.

> wonder how these lists are developed

In the case of the NYT, these are books which have been reviewed favorably over the year. I wish tho they wouldn't say 'notable' because that means something different to me then 'favortie books of the year'.

> "Fallen behind whom?", I want to ask. Is reading a competition? A contest?

I've met folks like this - its crazy. Read at your own rate, at your own comfort lever, read the books you want to read. Its supposed to be fun and enjoyable!

>I think she thought I was speaking heresy when I told her that she was under no obligation to buy and/or read books she didn't like just because she wanted to understand what the critics were blathering abou

I don't get this either, and I'm an Atwood fan!

>I am hoping it is a factor of the list being US-centric.

Ayup - it is the NY Times. I've had the same problem when I read the lists on the Guardian! (tho I must admit sometimes I find more interesting books there than I do on the Times lists!)

The Editors' Choice lists are available back to 1981. It's interesting to see how even from these shorter lists, there are only 2-3 a year that I still hear people talking about 20+ years later.

Here is a link that might be useful: NYT Books Editors' Choice

I came across the following commentary on this list on the Bookslut website, and I had to laugh:

(by Jessa Crispin from Blog of a Bookslut)

The New York Times has released their 100 Notable Books of 2006 and it's zzzzzzzzzz.... Oh, sorry, drifted off there for a second. No, really, it's the most boring list of books since they released their Notable Books of 2005. Because I was bored last night and avoiding work, I worked out some statistics. (I also had had two glasses of wine at this point, so feel free to correct me if I miscounted.)

94% of the year's notable books were released by conglomerate publishing
30% were produced by one division of Random House or another
50% of the year's notable fiction/poetry were written by women
26% of the year's notable nonfiction were written by women
1% are comic books
1% of the books seem to have caused incredulity even in the synopsis writer
20% of the list I would agree with
15% of the list made me shake my head/roll my eyes/snort
6% were written by tired, old authors whose best books are years behind them
2% do not seem to have been reviewed by the NYT (yet), which means they do not believe they can make mistakes and overlook a book. They can.

It'll come out eventually, but who wants to volunteer to check to see how many of the writers of these books have also written for the New York Times?

Here is a link that might be useful: Bookslut

wrm, was the list discontinued after 1998? Coz a list like that would make more sense to me.

sheri, that is wonderful! I may have to copy and paste that elseforum, just classic!

And just what I need, another link for books....Tho I have gone there before, its fun!

I'm not sure why they broke it up like that. Here is a link to the 2005 Editors' choice list, which has links to 99-04 available.

Here is a link that might be useful: 2005 Editors' Choice

Although the NY list meant nothing to me - I've never heard of most of them - I was intrigued by one of the non-fiction texts 'The Ghost Map' - just after I'd checked thisout on Amazon it was briefly discussed on the radio - I'd already decided to read it anyhow -
So - thanks Chris - I dont know how I missed other reviews but at least the list has stimulated my interest.
(What about the mad ax husband non-fiction - can that be so good to make it on to the least?)

I found none that I have read, One that I am currently reading (Kiran Desai) ... One that was on my list and found one that I will add... Has anyone read THE TRANSLATOR By Leila Aboulela Sounds interesting.

I just loved Eat, Love and Pray. A great book, very insightful. One of those books that mirrored a lot of what I have lived and believe.
Definitely worth the read.

Back in the day I liked reading all the critically acclaimed books because they were the ones people around me were most likely to have read. I'm social. I like to talk about the books I read. Now that I have RP and two reading groups, I'm not as compelled to read the books from these lists. I do, however, tend to choose my reading group selections from such lists. Even if these notable books aren't future classics, they do reflect the current concerns of our culture. I want to be in touch with what interests the bright young minds of today. I am an information hound and have always wanted to know what goes on around me. I realized long ago how silly it was that I cared so passionately about Matilda, her husband Geoffrey, and her cousin Stephen and not to care equally about my own time. Even if I never find them, I want to keep searching for the Herodotus, the Marlowe, the Bach of my own lifetime. This drives my interest in lists of what is important today. I may not agree, but I want to know about them.

>they do reflect the current concerns of our culture

Good point. Which is why books such as these have been and always be popular - that is often what people want to read, something that is familiar and current. And for book groups, they are often books that are very readable, and easy to discuss because the issues in the books are ones that are relevant to their lives.