Originally Posted by gmw

I've been curious to see a number of comments on the 1901..1910 thread where people indicate that they are effectively discarding one or more genres (eg: children's books) from their consideration for best. I didn't want to derail that thread, so making my observation here - I hope that's okay.

Disclaimer: As already discussed here, we are each using our own rules for choosing what "best" means for each of us, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone using whatever rules they see fit. I just found it ... odd, interesting, curious.

I did hesitate before nominating children's books for the vote. Part of that was seeing the serious literature in the nominations, and I started to think that maybe I was the only person at the party who forgot to arrive in fancy dress. And part of that was wondering whether I had missed some implicit words in the subject line, that maybe we were looking for only the "best serious adult fictional literature".

But I went ahead and nominated them anyway. The reason being that - for me - "best" includes books that influenced me, and books that I can see have influenced others. So, for me, that has to include some children's books. Given my own interpretation of best, I found I could not ignore books that I not only enjoyed very much (and still enjoy), and that I know were enjoyed by others, but have also generated ongoing comments and adaptations since their publication.

None of this means any of my nominations should necessarily win a vote for their decade, that's not what I'm trying to say. There are some amazing works of fiction out there in every decade. No, my observation is merely that I find it odd that anyone should discard entire genres from consideration - it's apparent that we are using very different rules for "best".