"New York Times best-selling author"

[crich70]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I guess it means quite a few people probably liked some of the author's previous books.

That might not mean anything specifically useful, but it might mean that you are a bit more willing to take a risk on something if other people like it.

It's obviously significant enough to be worth putting on the cover.

Ah, but you then have to hope that it's an honest label. I mean someone could (in theory if not practice) make up false reviews of their book that make it seem more popular than it is. I remember some time back there was some trouble with people doing something like that at Amazon or something.

[DiapDealer]

Just one more reason to ignore covers and/or commercial blurbs.

[Luffy]

Well I had always had my suspicions. Especially when someone like Bill O'Reilly broke into the non fiction list twice ("Killing Jesus" and "Killing Kennedy").

However, many of the books are pleasing to read. They are very digestible, and the ease of reading is an experience of its own. The last book from NYTBSL that I liked was "The Target" by David Baldacci and I happily gave the book 5/5.

[Quexos]

I occasionally have a peek at this list just to keep posted about what's hot and what's not. But it is clear that all good books are not on that list and all bad books are not off that list either.

The most blatant example perhaps is James Patterson...

[Tarana]

The most blatant example perhaps is James Patterson...

Of course. He has good books and bad books but all his books make it to the list now due to his popularity in general.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Does this have any meaning nowadays?

Thinking about it, I see it on about every English book in (e)stores. It could even be the case that I *DON'T* have any books *WITHOUT* this recommendation, apart from non-English books and classics.

Frankly, it has never meant anything to me. That isn't to say that I don't like books on that list, because sometimes I do. At most, it gives me an idea of what to look at if I'm looking to get a book. But I have never just bought a book because it was on some list.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by Quexos

I occasionally have a peek at this list just to keep posted about what's hot and what's not. But it is clear that all good books are not on that list and all bad books are not off that list either.

The most blatant example perhaps is James Patterson...

Patterson is one whose books I've given up on. I had hopes for the Women's Murder Club series. It wasn't to my liking. Patterson hypes his villains too much or too badly.

[jersysman]

Originally Posted by Luffy

Patterson is one whose books I've given up on. I had hopes for the Women's Murder Club series. It wasn't to my liking. Patterson hypes his villains too much or too badly.

Depends on who actually wrote the Patterson books.

[DiapDealer]

"And if you'll look to your left, you'll see the facility where we hatch, grow and train the authors who will eventually be absorbed into the book-writing machinery collectively referred to as 'James Patterson'."

[Fluribus]

Back when I was able to get to the bookstore, and had room for paper books, I was always happy to see a title that I wanted amongst the top ten on the best-seller list. Those titles all got an extra discount.

[crich70]

I think of "best seller lists" much like I think of lists made by movie critics. Sometimes they are on the money but sometimes they aren't. I remember back when Siskel and Ebert were both still with us they both gave a thumbs down to "The Never Ending Story" which was based on the book by Michael Ende. Two more movies, a set of cartoons and at least one DVD worth of additional adventures have appeared since then. The problem is that like anyone else a critic literary, film, etc. has their own bias as to what is good and what is bad.

[Luffy]

I think Ebert on his own has made more embarrassing decisions than with Siskel. He gave the Usual Suspects 1.5 stars, Unforgiven 2.5, Reservoir Dogs 2.5, Gladiator 2 stars among others.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Totally meaningless:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffberc...tsellers-list/



More, the NYT only looks at select bookstores so the people who know which stores they track, gaming the system is way cheaper, especially for non-fiction and specialty categories where a couple thousand sales in the right stores can guarantee a number one rating.

Even without gaming, it is possible to hit number one through preorders alones by launching during the slow summer season when no nane-brand author books are launched.

All the list reports is peak sales *recorded* in one week. Which can be done with high 4-figures. If the book never sells a single copy after that week, it still can boast of NYT bestsellerdom. Conversely, a book could sell a million copies over a couple years and never get annointed.

Lecturing gurus routinely buy their own books to buy their way onto the list and then sell them at full list at their lectures so the Bestseller tag comes for free.

Thanks fj!

Remember in the late '70s when Doug Casey with Crisis Investing and Robert Ringer with Winning Through Intimidation both came out of nowhere to hit #1 on the NYT chart? When I first heard about ResultSource some time back, they came to mind immediately.

There may be something else to consider. I believe that back in the '30s, the best sellers were genuinely talented authors like Falkner and Hemingway. The sort of people who would get Nobel Prizes. I'm pretty confident that James Patterson and Sue Grafton are not in line for a Nobel Prize. Perhaps the practice of promoting an author as a NYT best-seller started back when such authors were good!

[Luffy]

My pet theory is that Nobel Prize winners are now mediocre writers who neither deserve their award nor an appearance on the NYT bestsellers' list.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Luffy

I think Ebert on his own has made more embarrassing decisions than with Siskel. He gave the Usual Suspects 1.5 stars, Unforgiven 2.5, Reservoir Dogs 2.5, Gladiator 2 stars among others.

You may be right, but my point stands. Critics don't always get it right whether it's how good/bad the newest movie is or how good/bad a new book is. I hadn't known Mr. Ebert had given Gladiator such a low rating. I rarely pay attention to what the critics say (no matter the media). Gladiator is special in that two actors had their last roles in it (Richard Harris & Oliver Reed). I have no idea who is the critic who gives the reviews of the books in the NYT or even what is 'good' among new books reviewed, but I still think there is some (natural) bias in any critical review. There has to be as long as critics come from within the ranks of the human race.