Spring 2008 "Good Reads"

Critical Mass has posted the NBCC's list of spring 2008 "Good Reads." (I didn't participate in the vote since I've only read one book published in 2008, and I didn't like it that much.)

I was hoping this list would be a little more interesting than the first Good Reads list, published a few months back, but it isn't really. None of the 10 fiction titles presented here (7 tied for 4th place) was published by anything resembling a small or indie press, and most of the books are titles that should be obvious to anyone with any familiarity with contemporary literature.

I don't see how the NBCC helps anything by publishing a list of recommendations that pretty much recommends the authors everyone is already reading. This kind of sounds like a rubber stamp to me. Perhaps before we put together the next Good Reads list we can find a way to ensure that the recommendations include a few books that readers are likely to have not heard of.

Comments

[Daniel]

Scott, I can't see how the NBCC actually helps anything without any actual standards.

[Steve S]

Compared to the mainstream bestseller lists, which I thought this project was designed to counter, I think it's a fairly useful list.

To list good books a well-read person like you hadn't heard of would...that's a pretty tall order. AND you want a consensus about it? I doubt you could possibly have both.

[Scott]

Steve,

Perhaps my standards are off, but I don't think you have to be particularly well-read to be familiar with most of the authors on the "Good Reads" list. Perhaps this list is more interesting than the NY Times bestseller list, but that's not saying much.

It's true that the consensus nature of the "Good Reads" list is part of its problem. I think next time the NBCC should shake up the selection process.

[Steve]

No, no, your standards are excellent - which is why I visit your blog! I just think when you get hundreds of people voting, you're going to get that watered-down "averaging" effect no matter what process you use. I still find the GR list interesting/useful, a nice counterpoint to the bestseller lists because it focuses on the more literary/intellectual. For readers who don't read thrillers/mysteries/etc., it completely replaces the NYT.

But I agree with you that the long lists and individual ballots (which you've blogged about since) are more interesting, more valuable.