Good News and Bad about Polls
It’s clear to us we don’t have the manpower to do our usual reader’s pick the Best of Poll for 2016. We’re bummed about that but it is what it is. (Clichéd but true.) We plan to get a jump on it this fall and it will return for 2017.
We are also hoping to, in 2017 or early 2018, do another AAR’s Top 100 Romances poll. We last did this in 2013–we’ve done this six times since 1998. You can see all the polls here.
In the meantime, we’re curious. What do you think the best romances ever written are? Do you think the 2013 list holds up?
Let us know in the comments!
Thanks!
I am going to post our reviews of all of the current top 100. I am hoping people will post on them. We have begun that with Sylvester.
While I too am disappointed we won’t have the top 100 poll this year I appreciate that it is a huge task and AAR has finite resources. Thank you for keeping us informed so we aren’t wondering when it will be happening.
In reading the interesting discussion above I wondered how many “older” romances really deserve their place on the list. To my mind some certainly do e.g. Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion.. Since I am a rereader one measure of a book for me is whether I like to reread it. Using this criteria I would, for example, always include a number of Georgette Heyer titles in my list.
When I come to more contemporary writers I realise that often there are certain books ( or series) I enjoy as much or more on the second or third read as I did on the first. E.g. Nora Roberts ” Born In” , ” Chesapeake Bay” and ” Three Sisters islands” trilogies, Jennifer Crusie’s ” Bet Me”, Julie James ” There’s Something about You” and ” It happened One Wedding”, I enjoyed “The Hating Game” but have no desire to reread it so I think I would drop it off my list”
When I think about ” older” authors I enjoyed in the eighties like Janet Dailey, Betty Neels, Essie Summers, Daphne Clair, Helen Bianchin and try to reread them I find I can enjoy only certain titles. I get impatient with rich Dutch doctors who are incapable of expressing their feelings till the last page, or plots that rely on the big misunderstanding or heroes who are alphaholes in their treatment of the heroine. I suspect a lot of older romances on the top 100 list suffer from these same characteristics.
Perhaps in lieu of a poll we could have a series of discussion threads where we list authors and books we believe are worthy of inclusion on a top 100 list and why. The aim would be to decide whether older books have stood the test of time.and whether a recent release is likely to be still highly regarded in 5 or 10 years time. I think whether the book is worth rereading is one criteria we could consider.
Another approach might be to choose the top 10- 20 authors of a romance sub-gene eg historical romance and discuss which of these authors books should be shortlisted on a mythical top 100 list.
It would be interesting to see who makes the cut in an historical romance shortlist if we consider Carla Kelly, Lisa Kleypas, Georgette Heyer, Sherry Thomas, Amanda Quick, Courtney Milan, Grace Burrowes, Mary Balogh, Julia Quinn, Eloisa James, Sheri Cobb South, Cecelia Grant, Sherwood Smith, Stephanie Laurens, Lorraine Heath, Roberta Gellis, Louise Allen, Tessa Dare, Ellen O’Connell, Jo Beverly,……
I would enjoy reading others’ thoughts on who are the top authors (and which are their best books) for each sub – genre eg contemporary, scifi romance, historical romance, paranormal romance, etc etc
I’m going to post the top 100 as reviews over the next year, beginning with #100. That will give our readers exposure to what’s on the list.
Great idea!
Once again, both sides are right. Old romances all too often do not hold up, sometimes for a reason that I just can’t put my finger on. On the other hand, when I reread my old favorites, even after 10, 15 years of not having read them, they are still my favorites. Like all art–tv, movies, plays, etc.–it’s sometimes a magical quality that makes them endure, and others not.
I suggest we have two favorite lists, at different times. One, books written within the last say, ten years, and the second, those written before 2007 or so. We are ALL looking for new “best” book and if it encourages sales of books–old and new–everybody wins, readers and authors.
I agree, Lynda, that simply because a book is older does not necessarily mean that it’s problematic in its values by today’s standards. Far too many are, but not all. I read and teach books from the past and when I do, I teach from the perspective that texts shed light on their cultural/historical moments. When I think about the Top 100 romance list though, I conceive of it as a list of books that I still enjoy and that still resonate with me. I think the issue of “nostalgia” that Caroline raised up-thread though is that readers put books on the list out of nostalgic reasons and that many (most?) readers would have trouble reading these books today. It’s an interesting issue!
Dabney: “There are many of us–and yes I put myself in that category–whose taste in entertainment allows for things from the past to be judged by the time they were created in. Romance has room for all kinds of readers, which is one of the great strengths of the genre.”
Of course, which is why I said that this is *my* view of sexism and homophobia as a trend in older romances – they are unpalatable values, to me, though hopefully and probably to many today as well. Some readers find these values acceptable today. I don’t doubt that for a second. We kind of had this discussion recently with an older Brockmann novel that depicts outdated attitudes about how men and women interact in work situations.
I think the “nostalgia factor” from readers when asked to accumulate a list of top 100 romances can gloss over problematic values and allow readers to avoid confronting these issues. My example of Mr. Perfect helped illuminate this issue for me as it was a book that has been on my Top 100 for years. Then I reread it months ago. How do I reconcile its deeply troubling depictions of transgender people with its placement as a “top” book? I suppose “nostalgia” is one way, though it’s just not a satisfying way – for me.
What about getting a sponsor to foot the bill for an outside professional to assist with design and implement the poll? That way AAR staff can breathe easy, I like the top 100 poll, it takes time, but the results are worth it.
That’s an interesting idea. I’ll think on it. Thanks.
I wonder how different the results would be if the ballot wasn’t weighted. I know you give the first choice 100 points, the second 99, etc.
I also wonder if it was possible to do series as 1 book. Or have a separate favorite series poll. I know I’ve had a few In Death books, etc on my poll in the past, but everyone has different favorites in a long running series so usually just the first book ends up making the list if any of them do.
I liked the Hating Game, but I wouldn’t vote for it in a poll of best romances. Lucy Parker’s Act Like It……YES! But that is what’s so great about the AAR poll it’s full of diverse readers who almost never agree, but when we do it is so very special. I’m looking forward to when you have a new poll, because so much has change in the world of romance over the past decade, it will prove very interesting to be sure.
I am thinking about the best way to do the poll. One thought I’ve had is to ask people to pick, in order, their top ten romances and then collate that data. It’s a challenge!
That is better (and easier for the staff!) than the 2013 procedure, which asked readers to list their 100 best romances in order. There is, of course, no such thing as a perfect voting system, but it seems preferable to ask readers to focus on their absolute favorite 10 or so best romances than to try to get them to produce a more comprehensive list.
It’s also clear that there are sharp divisions about which novels should be included. IMO that is a feature, not a bug. Readers who dislike the romances published in the 1980’s and 1990’s can simply omit them, while others like me who value some of these novels will continue to include them in our lists. I also think that it will be interesting to see which of today’s currently popular novels will make the Top 100 list produced in 2037 or so. I strongly suspect that many will not.
Yes. The biggest challenge I see right now is making sure it’s a one ballot, one person poll. I suspect we will simply have to trust that people only vote once.
If the poll is still going to have 100 books, I think people should at least get to do say their top 25. 10 is such a limiting number.
I actually like being able to submit the full 100. Even then stuff gets left off.
We have to mindful of our staff. We do not have unlimited manpower. We will work to balance out our abilities with our readers’ wants!
I think 25 is a good number. Like you though, I happily submitted 100 and enjoyed doing it.
Maybe AAR can recruit volunteers for this particular poll work since I can imagine it being an enormous task.
Yes, I think a lot of the books on the 2013 list are ‘most famous’ rather than ‘best’ and if many of them had been written by someone else (other than Kleypas or Quinn, for example) they wouldn’t be there. There’s not much diversity of genre there either. I found that I’d read a surprising number of those books but none in the last five years or so, and there are very few I’d take the time to read again. Bring on new authors and books that try new things!
Yes, that’s a hazard of a numerical votes model. When more people have read a book it can do better. There’s also the fact that a lot of people use our existing top 100 lists to make their ballots so there’s a tendency to perpetuate old books (which, again, have had time to accumulate more readers).
What’s wrong with perpetuating old books? It keeps them alive and therefore new readers find them and enjoy them. That way they don’t fall into oblivion. Plus most of the historicals written these days are modern characters in period dress. I love “them” old ones, they’re like old and beloved friends.
I am with you!
Wow, really? I think recent historical heroines are significantly more authentic than the flouncy foot-stomping virgins of yesteryear.
And sure, it’s nice to have a sense of the genre’s history. But that’s not what “Top 100” means. That means the 100 best. If old books can hang (I vote for nearly Kathleen Gilles Seidel’s entire backlist every time) then they should be on. But some books deserve to fall off the list.
Well, I think it’s our Reader’s Top 100, not the Top 100 romances critics might now pick. Many of our readers still read and love books from an earlier era.
I agree about the curl-tossing foot-stampers of the past, but would disagree that recent historical heroines are more authentic. Some are – notably from the authors mentioned – but there are lots that are, as someone else has said, merely modern characters in long frocks.
I love this comment so much. While many ideas in historical romance would be super problematic for me if authors wrote them today, I can still lose myself in a Virginia Henley or Bertrice Small novel and love it based on the time it was written. I love seeing romance evolve, but some of those old favorites still deserve to be read and enjoyed, despite some of their outdated ideas.
I really need to read The Hating Game, seeing as I live minutes from the author!
I don’t think my favourites are “Top 100” sort of books. I honestly don’t know what I’d add, and I’m pretty sure a lot of current favourites with readers won’t hold up a few years from now…
I would love to see The Hating Game, Sustained by Emma Chases, something by Tessa Dare, something by Julie James, and something by Lauren Layne added. For me, my top two favorites are still Devil in Winter and Not Quite a Husband which are both high on the last list and many of the others still hold up. I love Match Me If You Can by SEP, but ost of the other SEP books on the list I enjoy but don’t think deserve to be in the top 100.
The Top 100 list was how I found AAR originally. I was searching for romance reviews, and I’ve been a pretty consistent follower/reader ever since. I love each reviewers’ annual list – I always find new things to read that I somehow missed – but I love the Top 100 even more. I think it is fascinating to compare books/authors placement over time. Looking forward to the next one.
I think it would be a great reader challenge for people to go back and read the top 100 of 2013. I know a few of Judith McNaughts or SEP might have lost a lot of appeal—although they’re still great for nostalgia reasons
I think a lot of the books on the Top 100 are there for nostalgia reasons. The poll tends to skew historical which I don’t read much anymore. There are a lot of books on there I thought were ho hum at best.
Bummed there will be no best of 2016 poll as I finally remembered to keep track last year – lol. But looking forward to next years and another Top 100 poll.
We really did try to get something off the ground for the 2016 poll, but it just hasn’t been possible, We hope to get the ball rolling for the 2017 one in good time, though.
The nostalgia vote is polarizing. I personally hate it. I think the top 100 romances of 2017 or whenever should be exactly that: the best romances you can read or buy in 2017. Other people have argued that it’s their top 100 reading experiences as of 2017, so a book that blew them away in 1993 makes the list even if they haven’t reread it since and it wouldn’t likely hold up today. I’m not convinced!
I don’t quite understand your issue here. If I’ve read a book several times and know it’s on my top ten list, why would it matter if I’ve read it within the past year? Is that what you’re saying or am I misunderstanding you?
i said 1993 but I think I’d be leery of voting for any book I haven’t read in over 5 years, and definitely not a book I haven’t read in a decade – which is only 2007! I think the quality of books is much higher now and the genre has matured, especially in historicals. Garwood heroines seemed so complex to me after Woodiwiss heroines, but then seemed froofy against Kleypas and Quinn. Now after Duran, Bourne, and Cecilia Grant, I find Kleypas and Quinn superficial. They were good reads for their times but it isn’t that time anymore. I’d like to have read the book close enough to this time to objective rank it against everything you could spend your money on today.
I still love many a Kleypas and Quinn.
I find Kleypas and Quinn “froofy” and superficial compared to Duran, Bourne and Cecilia Grant too. There was a time when I loved Kleypas’s novels, but now I feel annoyed by her writing.
This whole issue of “nostalgia voting” is why I struggle with polls. I’ve been a little dismayed with how many romances I once loved haven’t aged well. I have so much less tolerance for things like sexism and I feel like it’s inescapable in a lot of romance I once loved. I find I can’t brush it off or ignore it anymore. But my brain remembers how much I once loved certain ones and won’t let go!
I would say my top romances are concentrated in with a handful of authors now like Duran, Milan, and Thomas. And oddly still skews historical despite the fact that I’ve been reading lots of contemporary lately and enjoying it.
I agree completely, Amanda. Cultural shifts in our society render many older books unpalatable today. I was shocked recently when I reread Linda Howard’s Mr. Perfect at how homophobic it is and I can’t imagine audiences accepting it at face value if it were released today. But it shows up consistently on Top 100 books here at AAR. Many of the writers I used to love represent ideas that are problematic, especially with respect to attitudes about women, and so many older romances no longer work for me. I would say that the “aging well” criteria is important to consider when choosing a top romance.
I think it’s more accurate to say that for some, cultural shifts render older books unpalatable. There are many of us–and yes I put myself in that category–whose taste in entertainment allows for things from the past to be judged by the time they were created in. Romance has room for all kinds of readers, which is one of the great strengths of the genre.
For example, I adore Animal House but, were it to be made today, I’d give it the stink-eye. There are historical romances about which I feel the same.
I would love to see another Top 100. I’ve been surprised by how many books I adore that have been written over the last few years. For instance, I can’t imagine my list not including The Hating Game.
So true Blackjack!