AAR's Top 100
Oct. 19th, 2007 03:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jmc_bksCheck out the interim list! Most of them are not among my favorites. In fact, there are only 21 on that list (out of 100) that I am tentatively including on mine. I've managed to compile a list of 71 books that are keepers, but I'm having a hard time ranking them.
The interim results seem very heavy on Lisa Kleypas, Julia Quinn, Judith McNaught, Julie Garwood, Susan Elizabeth Phillips, Linda Howard and Nora Roberts. I'm a little surprised, given NR's backlist, that it isn't more skewed toward her...but maybe the sheer number results in scattered voting?
On my (incomplete) ballot, Nora Roberts has 10 entries (including 2 JD Robb books), Carla Kelly has 6, Suzanne Brockmann has 4, Mary Jo Putney and Jennifer Crusie have 3 each. Otherwise, no other author has more than two entries, and most have only one.
The interim results seem very heavy on Lisa Kleypas, Julia Quinn, Judith McNaught, Julie Garwood, Susan Elizabeth Phillips, Linda Howard and Nora Roberts. I'm a little surprised, given NR's backlist, that it isn't more skewed toward her...but maybe the sheer number results in scattered voting?
On my (incomplete) ballot, Nora Roberts has 10 entries (including 2 JD Robb books), Carla Kelly has 6, Suzanne Brockmann has 4, Mary Jo Putney and Jennifer Crusie have 3 each. Otherwise, no other author has more than two entries, and most have only one.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-21 05:25 pm (UTC)I'm a little surprised, given NR's backlist, that it isn't more skewed toward her...but maybe the sheer number results in scattered voting?
That's exactly what happens. AAR addresses the different sizes of authors' back catalogs with their "listing of those authors who received the most votes (http://www.likesbooks.com/190.html)" (scroll way down). Overall, though, this isn't a representative kind of poll. It's fun, but I wouldn't over-interpret the results.
I only submitted 40-something books. I didn't submit any Jane Austen, etc. I have a pretty expansive definition of "romance", but after looking at the previous lists I thought the top 100 was really focused on genre romance. So it seemed strange to put classics up against, say, Stephanie Meyer and JR Ward.
Like Marianne McA, I tend to read by author. My list was heavy on a few authors, with some isolated books by others.
I browsed the previous "top 100"s hoping to add to my reading list, but so many of them are blockbusters that I didn't see many new names. I'd love to see the books that didn't make the top 100--that would be a great reading list.
RfP (http://www.readforpleasure.com)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-21 06:18 pm (UTC)I did receive your email and replied about a half hour ago. Sorry about the delay -- I'm having home email/internet problems.
I was intrigued to see Meyer's Twilight on the interim results. It hadn't occured to me to include it. As it is, I've got a list of 70 books, many of which are not straight genre romance. If I am strict about the definition of romance, the list will be reduced to 40-50.
The inclusion of classics and contemporary genre novels (Feehan next to the Brontes!) does cause me a bit of whiplash. I love Persuasion and would argue that in addition to being social commentary and a book of manners, it is also very much a romance. But it is very hard to compare it to Lover Unbound. Apples and oranges.
I would *love* to see the list of books that didn't make the cut. I get the feeling that there isn't going to be a significant change in the poll results (maybe more paranormal and more YA?) from the last go-round, and I wasn't all that impressed with that list. When I did a book by book run down of the last results, there were many that I'd read, but not many that I'd classify as keepers.