Never mind piranesi -- Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell was not in the list! (I certainly prefer it to the broken earth trilogy.)
I'm going to say that the most interesting thing someone could say is not what is missing from the list, but what*doesn't* belong on it. I think it's far more revealing of aesthetic distinctions.
Like Lincoln, I adored Piranesi. It is an astounding book, one that I wish I could wipe my memory of and read again.
But I hated JS&MN. Ok, maybe hated it is too strong, but I really disliked it. I was excited to read it after Piranesi, but was disappointed. A shame, given how much I know it is loved.
I was honestly disappointed by how completely provincial the list was. We live in a golden age of literary translation and have access to more international literature in English than we've ever had before...87% of the list is books originally written in English. Like I get it's the New York times and it's an American publication...but how predictably pathetic of the New York times to include three George saunders books at the expense of any single book from say Spain, or Austria, or Russia or Brazil, etc. It's a small minded idea of what constitutes great literature in the 21st century
Wholeheartedly agree about "genre" being our defining stylistic ethos now, from prestige TV on. You mention the best example of this: look no farther than the fact that one of the most successful and also most critically lauded novelists of our time, Colson Whitehead, is a genre genius. Each of his books (except the Harlem Trilogy obviously) is completely different, each seemingly dreamed up by a totally different person, but all unmistakably him. And no surprise that Whitehead is smack dab in the middle of Gen X....
Ironically I’ve seen a fair number of people on Twitter complaining about the ABSENCE of genre fiction from the list, which makes me think that many people who think of themselves of “genre” fans consciously or unconsciously disqualify eg Station Eleven from counting as “genre fiction” precisely because it’s critically respected.
Yes, this is a larger topic but while "genre-bending" books--basically books published by literary presses or authors with literary world reputations--are celebrated it is true that most genre books--i.e., authors published by genre imprints or who made their name in the SFF world--aren't. Only The Fifth Season is a SFF imprint book here, I think.
That's a whole other newsletter topic. But it's true that the genre world often turns its own nose up at these works and deem them insufficiently genre...
I'm not sure that the absence of genre fiction is necessarily a problem. As with any awards, I'm not sure the purpose of an exercise like this list is to celebrate what's already popular and commercially successful. And, as you say, there are already books with clear genre elements on the list.
I would identify poetry and criticism (of anything; it was entirely shut out) as possible more glaring omissions.
This seems like a conflation of genre and mainstream widespread popularity and I don't think I agree, though I may misunderstand your meaning. I'm not losing sleep over GRRM, Sanderson, Maas, JKR, whoever else is blowing up the best seller lists not getting a spot. But I think there are a number of books that I guess for lack of a better term, fall further on the genre continuum than most of the genre-ish entries that it's too bad to not see celebrated. Piranesi and The Memory Police were two personal favs that I saw OP mention as well that would fit on the best-of list but are by no means any more commercially successful or popular than the books on the NYT list, Exhalation by Ted Chiang would be another off the top of the head.
At the end of the day though getting too worked up about a ranking is a fool's errand- especially because I can totally understand there not being as much overlap between that corner of the literary world and the people who are likely voting on the NYT list, just as it likely is for poetry and criticism as you mentioned as well. Would probably be fun to see a best-of list focused on those topics more specifically, too.
My apologies, first off. I guess I assumed that the genre fans critiquing such a list would be doing so due to the exclusion of, say A Feast for Crows.
Would you say that the arguably sf/f/adjacent books on the list (Never Let Me Go, The Road, Station Eleven, etc.) are still too far on the end of the literary spectrum?
And, when it comes to genre, are you mostly thinking of sf/f or also of, say crime/mystery fiction, or horror (there’s no Stephen King either) or espionage or romance?
I have a viewpoint on the genre-bridging trend, and if I'm wrong I'd love for someone to convince me otherwise.
As an avid reader of speculative fiction, it appears to me that we've seen a real rise in literary writers being lauded for incorporating genre elements, but not as much recognition for the genre writers executing literary quality.
China Mieville talked about this in an interview with The Believer years ago. He posited that genre writers had a sensibility that made even stories with mostly mundane elements into genre stories (he gives the example of Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle). I'm inclined to agree.
There are certainly some titles that fully blur this distinction. Station Eleven quoting Star Trek and Kavalier and Clay's deep appreciation for pulp comics both put them over the line for me, even if I think the authors start on the literary side of the divide. But maybe there is an actual bridge forming and the way I saw this even a few years ago isn't as relevant anymore.
I think what you're saying is generally true but it's not quite that grim and things are improving. NK Jemisin was profiled in the New Yorker and won a MacArthur. VanderMeer is on MCD/FSG, a gold standard literary imprint, and widely read in the lit world. Ted Chiang is also pretty widely read in lit world.
Then you have authors like Kelly Link and Brian Evenson who are firmly in both worlds and celebrated in both. They publish in genre mags and lit mags equally, etc.
I certainly agree there are high quality SFF authors like Mieville or Gene Wolfe who deserve wider readership and haven't gotten it. But there's more crossover today than decades past I think.
To put it another way, 25 years ago genre writing and genre books were basically verboten in MFA programs. Today, many programs have science fiction classes and students come in conversant in SFF literature. Not just literary writers dipping into genre waters, but books on Tor, Orbit, etc.
All of this seems very fair, and I had a sense it might be the case as I started typing my comment. I think my opinion formed in roughly 2013 when it seemed a bit more true. I don’t think there’s anything to be gained by self-imposed exile. Though of course I was thinking of authors like Wolfe. I’m not sure if there will ever be a reckoning for the literary giants from SF’s past in the greater canon, unfortunately, but there’s hope for the future of the genre(s).
I grew up reading SFF and went to college with creative writing classes had "no genre!" rules, so certainly know what you're talking about. I do think it's changing though. There are a lot of writers (myself included) that publish both in like Lightspeed and Strange Horizons and also in The Paris Review and McSweeney's. Lots of writers--e.g. Victor LaValle--who publish on both genre imprints like Tor and with "literary" imprints.
The Boomer dominance is caused by the fact that they a) won’t fucking die already and b) these authors have multiple books and established platforms that generate profit for publishers. Crichton just published a book from beyond the grave because his franchise is too valuable. The young talent you’re looking for is all small press or self published now…and lost in a haystack…some of it is getting discovered but not by the NYT which can not embrace indie authors because it exposes the lie behind their subjective lists from a tiny tribe of people wedded to traditional publishing’s endogenous and elitist system of status - that they represent a single source of literary truth. There are far more superb writers today than ever before and not enough possible ways for them get meaningful attention. Oversupply and declining demand. It is a lot like academic jobs.
What was it I say the other day on a Substack note? Something like, "The people who run the world read the WSJ; the people who think they should be running the world read the NYT."
This is great, and I too found it fascinating that literary genre fiction felt over-represented, while pure genre was almost entirely absent. I found it pretty surprising that even Gone Girl failed to make the list.
I was also pretty surprised to see no children's literature. I saw a few on the ballots, so it seems like they were "allowed?"
In my predictions, I'd guessed Gone Girl would make top 20. A surprise to me too. And yes I think what you say is quite accurate. The Fifth Season is the only straight up genre book, in the sense of what you'd find shelved in science fiction and fantasy instead of "general fiction." I thought Ted Chiang might make it. Deserves to, certainly imho.
I was surprised to not see Ted Chiang on the list—he's an exceptional writer imo and his short stories blend serious sci-fi and very moving human narratives in an amazing way
Is there a particular children’s book that you would point to as having a strong case as one of the young century’s best books so far? I’d love to hear it.
Re: your comments about My Brilliant Friend, I was reminded of this thought from James Wood in the preface of How Fiction Works pp xxx-xxxi, "One of these writers is endlessly interviewed and profiled and photographed, and reads from his work all over the world; the other is not who she claims to be, and is completely invisible (despite misguided journalistic attempts to out her.) One is essentially an autobiographer, the other essentially a novelist. One writes about a real man, the other about invented women. Yet both are often discussed as if they belong together. Why? The nearest explanation may be that in both their work, the reader feels a refreshingly radical innocence, a determination to use writing to uncover truth, an interest in renovating or even breaking the traditional project of realism, ever greedy for life. These two writers see no need to choose between a reality hunger or a fictional hunger (Knausgaard is full of artifice, Ferrante full of reality). Their project, their goal, their quarry, is what Ferrante calls "authenticity," which she contrasts with mere verisimilitude."
I have read almost all of My Struggle. I'd like to read My Brilliant Friend and see if I agree.
That's well stated--Wood is a great stylist as a critic--although I must confess I don't know what it means. In what way is Ferrante more "full of reality" than Bolano, Jones, Morrison, Franzen, or any other celebrated novelist one might pick? I also don't see her breaking from the traditional project of realism more than any of those.
But if you read Ferrante and disagree please let me know!
I think The Atlantic's approach earlier this year (to talk with literary critics, scholars, etc) was much better. The results may be more predictable, English-class type stuff (with some surprises) but it's also harder to argue with, assuming the goal is actually to create a list of the "best" stuff.
Javier Marías is another notable omission. Even though I think he wrote his best work in the 90s, Tu Rostro Mañana (2002-2007) is considered by many to be his masterpiece and it certainly belongs in the top 100 (probably in the top 20).
Love your point about the rise of genre-bending fiction here. Totally can see that now. Favourite part of these lists is reading everyone's comments and outrage about who wasn't included.
I noticed i had 9 fiction titles so felt I needed to add at least one nonfiction. Debt really stuck with me. I still need to read The Dawn of Everything
But also, having just finished Ursula LeGuin's essay collection, The Language if the Night, it irritates me that SF still is being disrespected & ignored.
The SF I've read in my life has changed me in numerous, marvelous ways hard to describe. The literary fiction I've read, not so much.
This isn't to disparage lit fic, just it's not my cup of tea. But also to say, SF is as valuable as lit fic.
As someone whose last novel was a science fiction book on Orbit, I certainly agree! The NYT list has a lot of lit-SFF crossover stuff, but really only NK Jemisin's The Fifth Season is something you'd see shelved with SFF at a bookstore. I also thought there was a notable absence of horror, including lit-horror crossover. I suppose you could count The Road but otherwise...
This is the second time within a few minutes that someone raves about how great Piranesi is. I will put it on my list. On list, they are mostly useful to the person who makes them.
Piranesi is amazing—just incredibly alluringly engrossing and strange, and Susanna Clarke is so effective at creating a particular mysterious, melancholic, uncanny mood that lingers well after the novel is done (imo)
Never mind piranesi -- Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell was not in the list! (I certainly prefer it to the broken earth trilogy.)
I'm going to say that the most interesting thing someone could say is not what is missing from the list, but what*doesn't* belong on it. I think it's far more revealing of aesthetic distinctions.
For the NYT list, I agree Jonathan Strange would have been more likely to make it. Personally, I adore Piranesi.
I love Piranesi so much and rarely ever meet or talk to anyone else who has read it. So glad to know you found it incredible too!
Fellow Piranesi-lover here 😄
I absolutely had Jonathan strange on my ballot!!
Like Lincoln, I adored Piranesi. It is an astounding book, one that I wish I could wipe my memory of and read again.
But I hated JS&MN. Ok, maybe hated it is too strong, but I really disliked it. I was excited to read it after Piranesi, but was disappointed. A shame, given how much I know it is loved.
I’ll add another tick for Piranesi. An astonishing book.
I was honestly disappointed by how completely provincial the list was. We live in a golden age of literary translation and have access to more international literature in English than we've ever had before...87% of the list is books originally written in English. Like I get it's the New York times and it's an American publication...but how predictably pathetic of the New York times to include three George saunders books at the expense of any single book from say Spain, or Austria, or Russia or Brazil, etc. It's a small minded idea of what constitutes great literature in the 21st century
they surveyed American authors, and were clear about that methodology. this is a pedantic criticism.
Wholeheartedly agree about "genre" being our defining stylistic ethos now, from prestige TV on. You mention the best example of this: look no farther than the fact that one of the most successful and also most critically lauded novelists of our time, Colson Whitehead, is a genre genius. Each of his books (except the Harlem Trilogy obviously) is completely different, each seemingly dreamed up by a totally different person, but all unmistakably him. And no surprise that Whitehead is smack dab in the middle of Gen X....
Ironically I’ve seen a fair number of people on Twitter complaining about the ABSENCE of genre fiction from the list, which makes me think that many people who think of themselves of “genre” fans consciously or unconsciously disqualify eg Station Eleven from counting as “genre fiction” precisely because it’s critically respected.
Yes, this is a larger topic but while "genre-bending" books--basically books published by literary presses or authors with literary world reputations--are celebrated it is true that most genre books--i.e., authors published by genre imprints or who made their name in the SFF world--aren't. Only The Fifth Season is a SFF imprint book here, I think.
That's a whole other newsletter topic. But it's true that the genre world often turns its own nose up at these works and deem them insufficiently genre...
The nose turning goes in both directions, I guess I'm saying
Absolutely.
It usually does. :)
Will happily read that "whole other newsletter topic" ;)
I'm not sure that the absence of genre fiction is necessarily a problem. As with any awards, I'm not sure the purpose of an exercise like this list is to celebrate what's already popular and commercially successful. And, as you say, there are already books with clear genre elements on the list.
I would identify poetry and criticism (of anything; it was entirely shut out) as possible more glaring omissions.
This seems like a conflation of genre and mainstream widespread popularity and I don't think I agree, though I may misunderstand your meaning. I'm not losing sleep over GRRM, Sanderson, Maas, JKR, whoever else is blowing up the best seller lists not getting a spot. But I think there are a number of books that I guess for lack of a better term, fall further on the genre continuum than most of the genre-ish entries that it's too bad to not see celebrated. Piranesi and The Memory Police were two personal favs that I saw OP mention as well that would fit on the best-of list but are by no means any more commercially successful or popular than the books on the NYT list, Exhalation by Ted Chiang would be another off the top of the head.
At the end of the day though getting too worked up about a ranking is a fool's errand- especially because I can totally understand there not being as much overlap between that corner of the literary world and the people who are likely voting on the NYT list, just as it likely is for poetry and criticism as you mentioned as well. Would probably be fun to see a best-of list focused on those topics more specifically, too.
My apologies, first off. I guess I assumed that the genre fans critiquing such a list would be doing so due to the exclusion of, say A Feast for Crows.
Would you say that the arguably sf/f/adjacent books on the list (Never Let Me Go, The Road, Station Eleven, etc.) are still too far on the end of the literary spectrum?
And, when it comes to genre, are you mostly thinking of sf/f or also of, say crime/mystery fiction, or horror (there’s no Stephen King either) or espionage or romance?
I have a viewpoint on the genre-bridging trend, and if I'm wrong I'd love for someone to convince me otherwise.
As an avid reader of speculative fiction, it appears to me that we've seen a real rise in literary writers being lauded for incorporating genre elements, but not as much recognition for the genre writers executing literary quality.
China Mieville talked about this in an interview with The Believer years ago. He posited that genre writers had a sensibility that made even stories with mostly mundane elements into genre stories (he gives the example of Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle). I'm inclined to agree.
There are certainly some titles that fully blur this distinction. Station Eleven quoting Star Trek and Kavalier and Clay's deep appreciation for pulp comics both put them over the line for me, even if I think the authors start on the literary side of the divide. But maybe there is an actual bridge forming and the way I saw this even a few years ago isn't as relevant anymore.
I think what you're saying is generally true but it's not quite that grim and things are improving. NK Jemisin was profiled in the New Yorker and won a MacArthur. VanderMeer is on MCD/FSG, a gold standard literary imprint, and widely read in the lit world. Ted Chiang is also pretty widely read in lit world.
Then you have authors like Kelly Link and Brian Evenson who are firmly in both worlds and celebrated in both. They publish in genre mags and lit mags equally, etc.
I certainly agree there are high quality SFF authors like Mieville or Gene Wolfe who deserve wider readership and haven't gotten it. But there's more crossover today than decades past I think.
To put it another way, 25 years ago genre writing and genre books were basically verboten in MFA programs. Today, many programs have science fiction classes and students come in conversant in SFF literature. Not just literary writers dipping into genre waters, but books on Tor, Orbit, etc.
All of this seems very fair, and I had a sense it might be the case as I started typing my comment. I think my opinion formed in roughly 2013 when it seemed a bit more true. I don’t think there’s anything to be gained by self-imposed exile. Though of course I was thinking of authors like Wolfe. I’m not sure if there will ever be a reckoning for the literary giants from SF’s past in the greater canon, unfortunately, but there’s hope for the future of the genre(s).
I grew up reading SFF and went to college with creative writing classes had "no genre!" rules, so certainly know what you're talking about. I do think it's changing though. There are a lot of writers (myself included) that publish both in like Lightspeed and Strange Horizons and also in The Paris Review and McSweeney's. Lots of writers--e.g. Victor LaValle--who publish on both genre imprints like Tor and with "literary" imprints.
Not changing fast enough, but changing.
The Boomer dominance is caused by the fact that they a) won’t fucking die already and b) these authors have multiple books and established platforms that generate profit for publishers. Crichton just published a book from beyond the grave because his franchise is too valuable. The young talent you’re looking for is all small press or self published now…and lost in a haystack…some of it is getting discovered but not by the NYT which can not embrace indie authors because it exposes the lie behind their subjective lists from a tiny tribe of people wedded to traditional publishing’s endogenous and elitist system of status - that they represent a single source of literary truth. There are far more superb writers today than ever before and not enough possible ways for them get meaningful attention. Oversupply and declining demand. It is a lot like academic jobs.
What was it I say the other day on a Substack note? Something like, "The people who run the world read the WSJ; the people who think they should be running the world read the NYT."
This is great, and I too found it fascinating that literary genre fiction felt over-represented, while pure genre was almost entirely absent. I found it pretty surprising that even Gone Girl failed to make the list.
I was also pretty surprised to see no children's literature. I saw a few on the ballots, so it seems like they were "allowed?"
In my predictions, I'd guessed Gone Girl would make top 20. A surprise to me too. And yes I think what you say is quite accurate. The Fifth Season is the only straight up genre book, in the sense of what you'd find shelved in science fiction and fantasy instead of "general fiction." I thought Ted Chiang might make it. Deserves to, certainly imho.
If historical fiction is considered genre fiction, then that is certainly represented on the list.
And there's Station Eleven, Never Let Me Go and other books that arguably blur the genre-literary divide.
Definitely, although the popularity of historical fiction feels more like a constant to me. It always seems to do well.
I was surprised to not see Ted Chiang on the list—he's an exceptional writer imo and his short stories blend serious sci-fi and very moving human narratives in an amazing way
Is there a particular children’s book that you would point to as having a strong case as one of the young century’s best books so far? I’d love to hear it.
Re: your comments about My Brilliant Friend, I was reminded of this thought from James Wood in the preface of How Fiction Works pp xxx-xxxi, "One of these writers is endlessly interviewed and profiled and photographed, and reads from his work all over the world; the other is not who she claims to be, and is completely invisible (despite misguided journalistic attempts to out her.) One is essentially an autobiographer, the other essentially a novelist. One writes about a real man, the other about invented women. Yet both are often discussed as if they belong together. Why? The nearest explanation may be that in both their work, the reader feels a refreshingly radical innocence, a determination to use writing to uncover truth, an interest in renovating or even breaking the traditional project of realism, ever greedy for life. These two writers see no need to choose between a reality hunger or a fictional hunger (Knausgaard is full of artifice, Ferrante full of reality). Their project, their goal, their quarry, is what Ferrante calls "authenticity," which she contrasts with mere verisimilitude."
I have read almost all of My Struggle. I'd like to read My Brilliant Friend and see if I agree.
That's well stated--Wood is a great stylist as a critic--although I must confess I don't know what it means. In what way is Ferrante more "full of reality" than Bolano, Jones, Morrison, Franzen, or any other celebrated novelist one might pick? I also don't see her breaking from the traditional project of realism more than any of those.
But if you read Ferrante and disagree please let me know!
I think The Atlantic's approach earlier this year (to talk with literary critics, scholars, etc) was much better. The results may be more predictable, English-class type stuff (with some surprises) but it's also harder to argue with, assuming the goal is actually to create a list of the "best" stuff.
Javier Marías is another notable omission. Even though I think he wrote his best work in the 90s, Tu Rostro Mañana (2002-2007) is considered by many to be his masterpiece and it certainly belongs in the top 100 (probably in the top 20).
Agree. He's amazing.
Love your point about the rise of genre-bending fiction here. Totally can see that now. Favourite part of these lists is reading everyone's comments and outrage about who wasn't included.
It goes to show that even the worst list can be a good specimen of a bad example. ;)
Fascinating to see Debt: The First 5000 Years on your list. I love David Graeber. The Dawn of Everything seems like a strong contender too.
I noticed i had 9 fiction titles so felt I needed to add at least one nonfiction. Debt really stuck with me. I still need to read The Dawn of Everything
I agree. I left fiction 17 years ago and I came back and it felt like the same authors were popping. Time for something new. Rap Fiction.
Not having younger authors is a clear bias.
But also, having just finished Ursula LeGuin's essay collection, The Language if the Night, it irritates me that SF still is being disrespected & ignored.
The SF I've read in my life has changed me in numerous, marvelous ways hard to describe. The literary fiction I've read, not so much.
This isn't to disparage lit fic, just it's not my cup of tea. But also to say, SF is as valuable as lit fic.
As someone whose last novel was a science fiction book on Orbit, I certainly agree! The NYT list has a lot of lit-SFF crossover stuff, but really only NK Jemisin's The Fifth Season is something you'd see shelved with SFF at a bookstore. I also thought there was a notable absence of horror, including lit-horror crossover. I suppose you could count The Road but otherwise...
This is the second time within a few minutes that someone raves about how great Piranesi is. I will put it on my list. On list, they are mostly useful to the person who makes them.
Piranesi is amazing—just incredibly alluringly engrossing and strange, and Susanna Clarke is so effective at creating a particular mysterious, melancholic, uncanny mood that lingers well after the novel is done (imo)
Color me intrigued. I read the blurb and it sounds like something I would enjoy. And so the list grows :)
I totally agree with Lincoln here. I extensively covered the same topic this week, and I can relate.