The top TBD Books of all time: FBG consensus (1 Viewer)

[kupcho1]

I'm blatantly copying @Scoresman 's TV consensus thread. However, I am not sure (1) how many people would be interested in participating and (2) what the count should be for the number of books ranked.
So, with that in mind, here's the preliminary poll.

Are you interested in participating?
If yes, how many books do you think each list should rank? I've included 70 to capture Scoresman's insanity.

Depending on interest, and the number of submissions, I'd like to garner a top 100, but if there's a groundswell of support, 200 isn't out of the question.

 

[shuke]

In for 50.

 

[timschochet]

Love this. In for 100 or any number you guys agree on

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I voted 50, but I could do more given enough time.

 

[Hastur]

I voted 50, but I don't know how I will manage that. What with Garfield alone has 77 books out. Then there is Bloom County, Calvin & Hobbs, The Far Side, Pearls Before Swine...

I should have voted 200.

 

[Don Quixote]

In for whatever.

Fiction and non-fiction?

 

[Psychopav]

I could see doing this as long as it's my favorite books and not my all time books ranking. I know there are great books that I have not read.

eta: 50 seems like a better number for me personally than 70. But I will go with the flow.

 

[kupcho1]

I voted 50, but I could do more given enough time.

I won't even be posting the official thread until scoresman's TV ranking is complete, so there's plenty of time.

 

[Ilov80s]

I could see doing this as long as it's my favorite books and not my all time books ranking. I know there are great books that I have not read.

eta: 50 seems like a better number for me personally than 70. But I will go with the flow.

I think it has to be favorite because there probbaly aren't too many people here who've read Ulysses, War and Peace, Moby ****, Wuthering Heights, Invisible Man and Madame Bovary plus like 20 other "greatest novels of all time". We have to work with what we've read.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I will definitely think it through and see what i come up with for 50+. Interested to try at leaat.

Are we counting full series or each book individually?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Are we counting full series or each book individually?

To me, it would be a case-by-case basis. There are wildly different series and how they were constructed. I think author intent matters, too.

 

[kupcho1]

Are we counting full series or each book individually?

I'd lean toward individual books.

Some series (I'm looking at you Frank Herbert) are wildly uneven. I think setting the lists at 100 would allow for this. I'd be very interested to see if entire trilogies, for example, made the overall list, or if it's only a subset.

Perhaps one might choose to rank, for example, the Lord of the Rings trilogy with each books having the same weighting. Something like:

17. Some other book
18. The Fellowship of the Ring
18. The Return of the King
18. The Two Towers
21. Another book

Or entirely different rankings. Might spur some interesting discussion.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I’d submit a list.

 

[kupcho1]

Fiction and non-fiction?

Yes. Books is books.
Fiction only

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Are we counting full series or each book individually?

I'd lean toward individual books.

Some series (I'm looking at you Frank Herbert) are wildly uneven. I think setting the lists at 100 would allow for this. I'd be very interested to see if entire trilogies, for example, made the overall list, or if it's only a subset.

Perhaps one might choose to rank, for example, the Lord of the Rings trilogy with each books having the same weighting. Something like:

17. Some other book
18. The Fellowship of the Ring
18. The Return of the King
18. The Two Towers
21. Another book

Or entirely different rankings. Might spur some interesting discussion.

For Lord Of The Rings, I think it should be considered one entry. It's the way the author wrote it and it was the publisher who split them into three volumes (along with naming each of them, much to Tolkien's displeasure).

But that's just me. I don't envy you on this one, brother, and will go along with whatever the consensus says.

 

[kupcho1]

For Lord Of The Rings, I think it should be considered one entry. It's the way the author wrote it and it was the publisher who split them into three volumes (along with naming each of them, much to Tolkien's displeasure).

OK, bad example on my part.
In this case, it's one book. Others, though, book at a time (unless I get a note from the publisher saying they split it despite author's request).

 

[Uruk-Hai]

For Lord Of The Rings, I think it should be considered one entry. It's the way the author wrote it and it was the publisher who split them into three volumes (along with naming each of them, much to Tolkien's displeasure).

OK, bad example on my part.
In this case, it's one book. Others, though, book at a time (unless I get a note from the publisher saying they split it despite author's request).

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be difficult. It would actually make my job easier (look at my user name) if they were considered separately so I'm not trying to game the system, but I think a linear story like that that had an intended beginning-to-end from the start should be one - whether there's a paper shortage or not.

 

[Psychopav]

For Lord Of The Rings, I think it should be considered one entry. It's the way the author wrote it and it was the publisher who split them into three volumes (along with naming each of them, much to Tolkien's displeasure).

OK, bad example on my part.
In this case, it's one book. Others, though, book at a time (unless I get a note from the publisher saying they split it despite author's request).

Meh. It's what Tolkien intended but not the way they were actually published. People look at them as three distinct books despite Tolkien's intent. I'd be fine calling them 3 distinct books.

Let me put it this way: if they are distinct, I for one wouldn't rank them in order.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

For Lord Of The Rings, I think it should be considered one entry. It's the way the author wrote it and it was the publisher who split them into three volumes (along with naming each of them, much to Tolkien's displeasure).

OK, bad example on my part.
In this case, it's one book. Others, though, book at a time (unless I get a note from the publisher saying they split it despite author's request).

Meh. It's what Tolkien intended but not the way they were actually published. People look at them as three distinct books despite Tolkien's intent. I'd be fine calling them 3 distinct books.

Let me put it this way: if they are distinct, I for one wouldn't rank them in order.

I'll roll whichever way y'all want to. It seems cut-and-dried in this case to me, but I've said my piece and have polluted the thread enough with my thoughts on the subject.

 

[Psychopav]

For Lord Of The Rings, I think it should be considered one entry. It's the way the author wrote it and it was the publisher who split them into three volumes (along with naming each of them, much to Tolkien's displeasure).

OK, bad example on my part.
In this case, it's one book. Others, though, book at a time (unless I get a note from the publisher saying they split it despite author's request).

Meh. It's what Tolkien intended but not the way they were actually published. People look at them as three distinct books despite Tolkien's intent. I'd be fine calling them 3 distinct books.

Let me put it this way: if they are distinct, I for one wouldn't rank them in order.

I'll roll whichever way y'all want to. It seems cut-and-dried in this case to me, but I've said my piece and have polluted the thread enough with my thoughts on the subject.

Good call. We don't want to run over on budget with too many posts.

 

[Don Quixote]

I’m fine with whatever. If split out, on some of the nonfiction that I was thinking about including in my list that are multi-volume histories, I might just list the first one for space reasons and let the chips fall where they will. E.g., If I listed all of Robert Caro’s LBJ volumes, I’d run out of room pretty quickly.

 

[kupcho1]

Ok, rank each book separately
Hopefully that doesn't cause anyone to drop out or choose not to participate

 

[Psychopav]

What about the Bible? One book or 73 (or 66)?

 

[Eephus]

What about the Bible? One book or 73 (or 66)?

Fiction or non-fiction?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Ok, rank each book separately
Hopefully that doesn't cause anyone.to drop out or choose not to participate

It does make things easier but harder.

 

[Eephus]

I'd say 50. I doubt there will be as many entrants as scoresman's TV poll but even so, the books at the bottom of an individual ranking get an almost insignificant number of points compared to the top.

I'd prefer novels only. I love reading non-fiction as well but I just think it'll be a better list if it's one or the other.

 

[kupcho1]

I'd say 50. I doubt there will be as many entrants as scoresman's TV poll but even so, the books at the bottom of an individual ranking get an almost insignificant number of points compared to the top.

I'd prefer novels only. I love reading non-fiction as well but I just think it'll be a better list if it's one or the other.

Just the sort of input I'm looking for.
Keep the opinions coming

 

[The Dreaded Marco]

I'm out but Mrs. Marco would like to participate.

She votes for the highest number of books allowed and prefers both fiction and non-fiction---but will play with whatever is decided.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'd say 50. I doubt there will be as many entrants as scoresman's TV poll but even so, the books at the bottom of an individual ranking get an almost insignificant number of points compared to the top.

I'd prefer novels only. I love reading non-fiction as well but I just think it'll be a better list if it's one or the other.

Just the sort of input I'm looking for.
Keep the opinions coming

I lean to separating them too. I don't read nearly as much as many of you, but I was just having fun thinking about all the odd books I read as a kid or even thought about throwing in a couple picture books I read to my kids. Add to that the possibility of having mulitple books from a series of novels, and I won't have trouble putting a list of 50-100 fiction entries.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

I will follow along, but im a ****ing dummy when it comes to books.
Alex Cross books are my reading level.

 

[Scoresman]

I’m embarrassingly not well read so this would be tough for me, but one I would follow along.

 

[Ilov80s]

I'd say 50. I doubt there will be as many entrants as scoresman's TV poll but even so, the books at the bottom of an individual ranking get an almost insignificant number of points compared to the top.

I'd prefer novels only. I love reading non-fiction as well but I just think it'll be a better list if it's one or the other.

I agree would be better as two different rankings.

 

[Eephus]

If we go to 70, I think it would be better to give books 50-70 (or whatever) the same number of points. With fewer entries, a 50 point #1 is probably fairer than 70.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I will follow along, but im a ****ing dummy when it comes to books.
Alex Cross books are my reading level.

I have been trying to read more and more, and I would be more likely to read suggestions like this vs Tolstoy. I am going to have some books from series silimar to this.

I even thought of a couple movie novelizations that I remember having as a kid.

 

[Psychopav]

If we go to 70, I think it would be better to give books 50-70 (or whatever) the same number of points. With fewer entries, a 50 point #1 is probably fairer than 70.

I was just coming back to say this.

Also what about real series books like Encyclopedia Brown? Those should definitely be combined.

 

[guru_007]

I could submit 50. This will be super tough though as there are millions of books. So many genres. I’ve read a lot in my life but I’d suspect the books that overlap lists will be a lot of Stephen king, Willy shakes and some other classics. Not saying that that’s bad it’s just sheer volume of books out there

 

[Ilov80s]

I could submit 50. This will be super tough though as there are millions of books. So many genres. I’ve read a lot in my life but I’d suspect the books that overlap lists will be a lot of Stephen king, Willy shakes and some other classics. Not saying that that’s bad it’s just sheer volume of books out there

I agree, most lists are going to be all over the place. I suspect lots of genre stuff thought.

 

[Keith R]

In. Prefer 50 but will work with whatever

 

[guru_007]

Okay I think 100 would work better. I just jotted down 50 in a heart beat. I read a lot of series so something like GoT gonna be tough to differentiate by book. Let’s do this

 

[Instinctive]

Ok, rank each book separately
Hopefully that doesn't cause anyone.to drop out or choose not to participate

It does make things easier but harder.

It makes a top 50 way too few IMO. Especially if, like me, your favorites are fantasy series. Often 8+ books each. I would have far preferred a series be one entry and then in discussion phase we can elaborate on the ups and downs, faves, etc.

 

[The Gator]

No

 

[mr. furley]

would be very interested in seeing people's lists so as to pick up some new recommendations

 

[shuke]

At some point I started keeping track of what books I read. I'm at over 250 so a list of 100 wouldn't be a problem. But thing is, my book memory is bad. I'm sure I don't even remember what some of these are about.

 

[Ilov80s]

Ok, rank each book separately
Hopefully that doesn't cause anyone.to drop out or choose not to participate

It does make things easier but harder.

It makes a top 50 way too few IMO. Especially if, like me, your favorites are fantasy series. Often 8+ books each. I would have far preferred a series be one entry and then in discussion phase we can elaborate on the ups and downs, faves, etc.

Yeah I might agree. Wil a lot of books get pushed off the list because some of the most popular book series place 2,3,4 books on the list?

 

[scoobus]

I regret not submitting for the TV list. I’ll do this.

 

[kupcho1]

OK, so here's where I'm at right now.
Seems like 50 is the popular choice. That said, it is probably best to limit it to fiction only.
In thinking about a scoring system, I think it should be something that puts greater weight on everyone's top 20 (rather than a straight-line #1 gets 50 points down to #50 gets 1 point). So top 20 gets a bonus and we'd pick up straight-line scoring with book 21.

Perhaps

Rank Points
1 100
2 97
3 94
4 91
5 87
6 84
7 81
8 78
9 74
10 71
11 67
12 63
13 58
14 54
15 50
16 47
17 43
18 40
19 37
20 35
21 30
22 29
23 28
24 27
25 26
26 25
27 24
28 23
29 22
30 21
31 20
32 19
33 18
34 17
35 16
36 15
37 14
38 13
39 12
40 11
41 10
42 9
43 8
44 7
45 6
46 5
47 4
48 3
49 2
50 1

Still spit ballin' here, so keep the feedback coming.

 

[Instinctive]

OK, so here's where I'm at right now.
Seems like 50 is the popular choice. That said, it is probably best to limit it to fiction only.
In thinking about a scoring system, I think it should be something that puts greater weight on everyone's top 20 (rather than a straight-line #1 gets 50 points down to #50 gets 1 point). So top 20 gets a bonus and we'd pick up straight-line scoring with book 21.

Perhaps

Rank Points
1 100
2 97
3 94
4 91
5 87
6 84
7 81
8 78
9 74
10 71
11 67
12 63
13 58
14 54
15 50
16 47
17 43
18 40
19 37
20 35
21 30
22 29
23 28
24 27
25 26
26 25
27 24
28 23
29 22
30 21
31 20
32 19
33 18
34 17
35 16
36 15
37 14
38 13
39 12
40 11
41 10
42 9
43 8
44 7
45 6
46 5
47 4
48 3
49 2
50 1

Still spit ballin' here, so keep the feedback coming.

Loving it

I talked about this with my wife a bit, and she suggested series get handled as one entry with a parenthetical for your 1-2 favorites.

The thought was "it's about the story of a world." When pressured with, say, Shannara, the reaction was "while that's one world, it's really more like 10 different 3-5 book series." I'd handle a trilogy as one entry, but not group all 30+ books as one entry.

Wheel of Time, for example, would be one entry because the 14 books are one story.

Harry Potter would be one entry, the 7 books are one story.

But Salvatore's Drizzt books...Icewind Dale trilogy would be one entry, the Neverwinter tetralogy another. Rather than all 30+ books as one entry.

Lord of the Rings? One entry. The Hobbit? Separate entry.

Does that make sense to you and others? It's really about ranking a story, vs where the story happened to be split up.

 

[KarmaPolice]

OK, so here's where I'm at right now.
Seems like 50 is the popular choice. That said, it is probably best to limit it to fiction only.
In thinking about a scoring system, I think it should be something that puts greater weight on everyone's top 20 (rather than a straight-line #1 gets 50 points down to #50 gets 1 point). So top 20 gets a bonus and we'd pick up straight-line scoring with book 21.

Perhaps

Rank Points
1 100
2 97
3 94
4 91
5 87
6 84
7 81
8 78
9 74
10 71
11 67
12 63
13 58
14 54
15 50
16 47
17 43
18 40
19 37
20 35
21 30
22 29
23 28
24 27
25 26
26 25
27 24
28 23
29 22
30 21
31 20
32 19
33 18
34 17
35 16
36 15
37 14
38 13
39 12
40 11
41 10
42 9
43 8
44 7
45 6
46 5
47 4
48 3
49 2
50 1

Still spit ballin' here, so keep the feedback coming.

I just want clarification of if we are doing fiction vs novels as well. For example, certain story collections my Mr. King allowed here, or stick to novels?

 

[kupcho1]

Wheel of Time, for example, would be one entry because the 14 books are one story.

Of all of the examples you could have picked ...
OK, I guess I've got to institute the Fiver rule (IYKYK).

I think we should hold the line at 1 book per ranking. The only exception would be to allow for the Lord of the Rings - publisher decision to split; if there are verifiable others, we'll allow. Otherwise, each books stands alone.

There's no reason you can't discuss the series w/r/t whichever book(s) you choose to rank. To be clear, this will effect several of my rankings as well, but if we're only doing 50, the choices should be difficult.

I just want clarification of if we are doing fiction vs novels as well. For example, certain story collections my Mr. King allowed here, or stick to novels?

Fiction only. Collections of fictional short stories
Using Mr. King as an example, Secret Windows: Essays and Fiction on the Craft of Writing and Danse Macabre would not qualify, whereas Night Shift certainly would.

 

[kupcho1]

What about the Bible? One book or 73 (or 66)?

Fiction or non-fiction?

For the purposes of this exercise, the Bible qualifies and will only cost you one slot.
Of course if you include it, I'll have to assume you're not a Fundamentalist.