Sign in with Facebook
Time to Vote! Announcing the Nominees of the 2015 Goodreads Choice Awards!
Vote now in the Opening Round! »
Bust out your black-tie finery, because we're unfurling the red carpet for the nominees of the 2015 Goodreads Choice Awards! All year long, you've added your reviews to Goodreads, sharing the work of favorite authors and raving about newly discovered gems, and now we've funneled all that reading excitement into our list of Opening Round nominees!
We analyzed statistics from the hundreds of millions of books added, rated, and reviewed on Goodreads this year to select 15 worthy nominees in 20 categories, including Best Fiction, Best Fantasy, Best Memoir, and Best Young Adult Fiction. And we also accept write-in votes during the Opening Round so you can vote for exactly the book you want!
A huge congratulations to all of our nominees! Who will you be rooting for? We've got some interesting match-ups to keep an eye on this year. Newcomer bestseller The Girl on the Train is up against books from perennial favorites like Stephen King and David Baldacci in Best Mystery & Thriller. E.L. James's Fifty Shades follow-up Grey is facing some heated competition in Best Romance from Sylvia Day and Colleen Hoover. Best Historical Fiction is packed with strong contenders, including Kristin Hannah, Kate Atkinson, Paula McLain, and Alice Hoffman. Can Internet darling Felicia Day take down TV darling Mindy Kaling in Best Humor? How will Aziz Ansari fare against Ta-Nehisi Coates in Best Nonfiction? And how on earth will readers pick a winner in Best Young Adult Fantasy, where the ranks are stacked with Sarah J. Maas, Victoria Aveyard, Leigh Bardugo, and more?
Our 300 Opening Round nominees have a combined average rating of 4.17 and have been added on Goodreads more than 6.2 million times. Fun fact: We have five different author nominees named Robert, but one of them is a nom de plume (guess who!). And the record-holding author name this year is Sara(h), with 10 nominations!
You have three chances to vote. The Opening Round lasts until November 8. Vote now to make sure your favorite books make it into the Semifinals (November 10 - 15) and Finals (November 17 - 23).
Finally, as a special bonus, this year you can tell the world you voted with our shiny new "I Voted" banner. Just click the Facebook or Twitter icons after you vote to share your pick and this image.
Vote for the best books of 2015! »Comments Showing 51-100 of 150 (150 new)
message 51:
by
Sennett
(last edited Nov 04, 2015 08:30AM)
(new)
Nov 04, 2015 08:29AM
I love this idea, but it's kind of weird to put Winter on the list. I love the Lunar Chronicles, but will probably not read this book before December. I can't really vote for something I haven't read. Is there a chance you guys change the voting dates to the end of December next time? It gives the books in November and December a better chance.
flag
Jayne wrote: "Where can we vote for LGBT fiction in the Goodreads Choice Awards? The M/M romance genre ALONE is absolutely massive and has a vast readership, yet a lot of readers are saying they cannot vote for ..."This was also a complaint last year, and I think the year before. For some reason they don't want to divide that up. I voted for a M/M in the romance section since I did not read other new romances this year
Still waiting for some rundown of the process by which nominees are chosen. It seems to me that GR is a big enough entity in the publishing arena -- backed by the biggest retailer in the world -- that some transparency in this kind of process is appropriate. It seems only fair to the readers and authors.
Also, you guys seriously need to explain why you choose the dates as you do. It seems very arbitrary and lacking in logic. And to have books that haven't been released yet appear in the nominees smacks loudly of favoritism. You really should get out in front of this for your continued credibility.
Su wrote: "Why would books published between November 3 and 15 2015 be included on this year's awards if when the voting starts they haven't even been published yet and therefore nobody has read them?"It saddens me that GR has chosen to do this. It feels a lot like favoritism and I hate to see that happen. :(
Su wrote: "I think these awards are great but I don't undestand the choice for the eligible book dates.Why would books published between November 3 and 15 2015 be included on this year's awards if when the ..."
I was thinking the same. I am highly anticipating Winter by Marissa Meyer and have high expectations and probably would be full filled as they were in the previous books. So naturally I would want it to win the award. But how could I vote for it when I haven't even read it while other favourites are there in the nominees. Then again if I happen to love it most, wouldn't it be unfair not to vote?
Wouldn't it be unfair for them all? And for that dilemma, I completely despise GR authority.
If you did a write in vote, can you change the book you voted for or delete it and re-vote?
keloy wrote: "None of my favorite books on the list.. so sad.."just write in your nominees
Please add a category for audio books as you are offering a brief listen of audio of a number of books on your site. Also listening to your readers about the type of categories they want to vote on is just good business sense. GR comments was we don't want to make the voting too large. I only vote in categories I am interested in and have read some titles and I think many others do the same. INCREASE the categories.
Why is Winter by Marissa Meyer nominated for Young Adult Science Fiction and Fantasy? The book hasn't even been published yet!
Bookaholic wrote: "Why is Winter by Marissa Meyer nominated for Young Adult Science Fiction and Fantasy? The book hasn't even been published yet!"Exactly.
The books are picked by Good Reads staff, not its users. Books that aren't even published yet are up for the award, but other books, books that ARE eligible, are not listed and must be "written in" if you want to nominate them. The likelihood that they'll actually make it to the next round of voting is slim to none.
This doesn't in any way seem like a "readers' choice" award.
Kim wrote: "If you did a write in vote, can you change the book you voted for or delete it and re-vote?"Yes, you can. Same as changing any other vote...
Books released in the month of November should not count. Most of us are avid readers that could read through a book in a day, but having books that have just been release put in a poll is a bit unfair. I must be in the minority and not read popular fiction, because nothing I've read beyond graphic novels was listed. Also, I agree we need a LGBT category, as I read mostly in that genre, yet none of those were given an option. At least give us a write in option, even the government does that much.
Will wrote: "Sorry I won't be participating, even though I read 26 action adventure thrillers in 2015, three of which were nominated as Best of 2015. I'm not sure how you determine the finalists (this is almost..."You can enter a write-in vote...
Sarah wrote: "Can't believe that The Heart Goes Last didn't make the list. Maybe because it was published so recently that enough people haven't read it yet. Thank goodness for write-in nominations!"If you read the rules, "Opening round official nominees must have an average rating of 3.50 or higher." The last time I checked, The Heart Goes Last had a rating of 3.45.
Roxy wrote: "This time of year reminds me of that there are so many books I didn't get to..."Totally with you there. Most of my votes were write ins, but I wish I had had the ability to have read so many of the nominees. I hope you get a chance to read them soon! ~*Happy Reading*~
Erin (Paperback stash) *is juggle-reading* wrote: "Every year I'm one of those who want more subcategories for major areas like fantasy and romance. We get them for YA - and I swear we have at least one more YA than we did before, although I could ..."+1
Science Fiction Category:"Shadows of the Gods"
Jay Allan
United States
Publication date was Oct 4, 2015
Jared wrote: "Forgive me, I digress, my point is that I will be abstaining from voting as I liken it unto voting for the least worst politician; in the end no one wins! "Good for you! I'm glad.
The book I want to vote for doesn't appear in the drop-down menu below the write-in-vote bar!
I've often wondered why there's no YA non-fiction category. Teens read biographies, history, etc. Even Amazon acknowledges this with categories in their YA section for sports, social issues, bios, etc. Just throwing this out as an idea:
It seems it would be more logical for the eligibility can't run from Dec 1 to the following Nov 30, with nominees announced Dec 15 and voting beginning Jan 1. Cutting off on Nov 30 would help keep the current year's Holiday marketing push from overshadowing the early year releases. (Any truly good books from the previous holiday push should have staying power to survive--if they don't, they probably aren't "the best.") The gap between releasing nominee lists and opening the voting would give voters a couple of weeks to read/finish reading a nominated book.
I seriously doubt many people have read a book released a day before voting opens. Any votes that book gets is likely based completely on propping the author by his/her fandom rather than the quality of the specific book.
I'm currently reading a non-fiction book that was released October 29th. being only 1/3 through it, can I honestly say it is THE best non-fiction I've read this year? No, not yet. I think it might be, but it could also fall apart halfway through. And yet it's not going to be eligible for next year's list.
Sajeta wrote: "It bothers me that nominations are not released earlier so that I can vote based on having read all the books of a specific category. It's unfair to vote without having read and compared all nomine..."I agree with this so much. In most categories I've only read one nominee, and don't exactly want to vote for it when I've never given the other ones a chance. I feel like books released this month are only going to be voted for because of hype or because of previous works by that author, rather than voters having actually read the book and enjoyed it.
Goodreads should have shown us the nominees earlier to give us time to read them and give an accurate vote.
Every year I look forward to these, though there are often many books I haven't read, books I write in--some of which make it to the next round, and categories I skip entirely.Every year I dread these, though, for all the complaining I see posted. Voting isn't a requirement. So much negativity!
Kristy wrote: "So much negativity!"Not necessarily. Criticism can be constructive. Users' feedback is the best way to improve something.
why do you never change your f*cking site interface?
I don't know many of the books that are on the list.
Since there are GR's customer support staff popping in, maybe they can answer my question. I guess I'm fine with the cut off dates for a book's eligibility, but why are the voting period's so compressed? So many people- including me, and I've read over 400 books this year- haven't read a majority of books in any one category. But I know a lot of people on Goodreads who read 100+ books in a year and if you announced the books on November 1st, but held off on closing the first round of voting until January 1st, that would mean that many people could read all or a vast majority of books in at least one category. (At 100 books a year that's 8.3 books a month, times two months= 16.6 books. Which means many people could read enough to make an informed vote.)So, to sum up, why does GR's give us such a short time between announcing the books and the end of the first round of voting?
Tamsen wrote: "I would like to advocate for a Short Stories category for next year! There are so many great short story collections, and they would benefit from their own category!
P.S. Sometimes I think, readi..."
That's a great idea
P.S. Sometimes I think, readi..."
That's a great idea
Jaclyn wrote: "Tamsen wrote: "I would like to advocate for a Short Stories category for next year! There are so many great short story collections, and they would benefit from their own category!"
Trisa wrote: "..."
Great news
Trisa wrote: "..."
Great news
If you're voting for a book that's not already listed, how many votes are needed to make it to the next round? Anyone know?
Jared wrote: "So narrow as to the appreciation of good literature as to find yourself with feelings of indignation on such a limited category such as LGBT Romance and not any other? Isn't it an almost esoteric c..."
You know 80 years from now someone is going to be making exactly the same argument about the books that will be considered classics from today versus the novels of that time. In my opinion the more categories the better. I have found some wonderful authors in categories that I wouldn't usually have read like Andy Weir and Ann Leckie in sci-fi. Further categories just means more chance to find other new authors, it's not a political agenda, it's a chance to encourage reading. I really hope you do find some that you like, it's so frustrating when you can't find a new book to read.
You know 80 years from now someone is going to be making exactly the same argument about the books that will be considered classics from today versus the novels of that time. In my opinion the more categories the better. I have found some wonderful authors in categories that I wouldn't usually have read like Andy Weir and Ann Leckie in sci-fi. Further categories just means more chance to find other new authors, it's not a political agenda, it's a chance to encourage reading. I really hope you do find some that you like, it's so frustrating when you can't find a new book to read.
Nicki wrote: "Further categories just means more chance to find other new authors, it's not a political agenda, it's a chance to encourage reading. "Amen!! And, if it is an author that has particularly impressed me, I will tend to read from their list of influences.
Personal opinion here, but I see the classics as a foundation, not the be all/end all some people make them seem.
Glad to see I'm not the only one...
Erma wrote: "Nicki wrote: "Further categories just means more chance to find other new authors, it's not a political agenda, it's a chance to encourage reading. "
Amen!! And, if it is an author that has partic..."
:)
Amen!! And, if it is an author that has partic..."
:)
Can you enable printing of the lists of nominees? Then I can take to the store or use for online ordering of some I would love to read!!!
Jared wrote: "Classical, intrinsic by its very definition, intimates that it is a piece of literature that has withstood the test of time as to become something of remarkable quality. (...)Further, I feel compelled to point out that the majority of contemporary literature is put to better use by leveling your kitchen table or providing much needed warmth to your home or to the homeless."
Of course you do realize that your beloved classics were at one time newly published?
Who is to say which books published today will turn out to have lasting quality? Does that mean there should be no awards for best/favourite new books?
That said, I'm not going to vote for this award. I was told that I had read one nominated book, but since I didn't like it all that much, why vote for it?
Also, I don't like the arbitrariness of it all (the strange cutoff date, the very broad categories, the fact that only books published in the US are eligible, the fact that original pub dates are changed to make them eligible - argh! I do hope these changes are tracked so they can be reversed once the voting is over!)
And is there a point to write-in votes? Have books ever won thanks to write-in votes? (This is the first time I'm being confronted with the GR Choice Awards happening, so I'm sorry if these are dumb questions.)
lethe - the changes for original pub are marked for reversion later on in the librarian group - there is a thread for specific changes and we are annoting the original date in comments for reversionsas for write-in votes - i don't know if one has won, but I think last year one of the top 3 in the romance might have been a write in
Brilliant read so far. Static Push by Richard Horsley
Dee wrote: "lethe - the changes for original pub are marked for reversion later on in the librarian group - there is a thread for specific changes and we are annoting the original date in comments for reversions"Glad to hear it, Dee, and thanks :)
most people dont understand i get that but just try to understand and mabye just mabye you might understand
Noah wrote: "most people dont understand i get that but just try to understand and mabye just mabye you might understand"Well, that sounds very poetic.
Noah wrote: "most people dont understand i get that but just try to understand and mabye just mabye you might understand"I appreciate you saying this Noah. I suppose by making any public statement, especially those in writing, one takes the risk of being misinterpreted and misrepresented.
I must say that I find myself almost regretting ever having typed a word of commentary here. I supposed that being among fellow readers that I'd find a measure of kinship and that they'd be among the ones to first seek to understand and then to be understood, as you seem to do.
Alas my impressions fall regrettable short of the realities and I am still left to question the condition of fellow internet peers. Noah, your comment gives me hope. Thank you.
Tamsen wrote: "I would like to advocate for a Short Stories category for next year! There are so many great short story collections, and they would benefit from their own category! P.S. Sometimes I think, readi..."
One more vote for short story category
Jared wrote: "I believe your intentions to be good."Wow, condescending remark is condescending.
My advice is not to take these Goodreads awards so seriously.
Hc wrote: "Why isn't there a category for GLBT? Romance is so broad.. I think they should have a separate category. Some people read only one or the other.. I read both but the majority is in GLBT and I doubt..."That would be great. Thanks for recommending it.
Jared:Perhaps you didn't mean to come across as condescending, but it certainly sounded like it, especially since you concluded with the "making a fool of yourself" remark (not to mention the last paragraph of the comment I'm now responding to, or should I call that tongue in cheek?).
You are also condescending towards others: "Am I to attribute your lack of appreciation for classic literature to be the reason for your poor reading comprehension?" you say to Erma. Where does she say she has no appreciation for classic literature? It seems to me you are misinterpreting her "I see the classics as a foundation, not the be all/end all some people make them seem."
So I agree with you, misunderstandings are bound to happen, especially over the internet.
I do, however, wish that the awards did not perpetuate the lamentable conditions of today's literature
That is a generalization, and probably also something that was said 50 years ago, or a hundred. Have you read most of today's literature? Some books you do not have to read to know they are bad, but every age has its masterpieces, too.
I'm not voting either, for reasons I mentioned earlier. But I would welcome more categories to vote in, because the fewer categories there are, the more chance there is that the usual suspects (the likes of E.L. James, Stephenie Meyer, Dan Brown, et al.) will win. The lowest common denominator, and all that. (No offence to people who love their books.) More categories means more diversity and more chance of less massively popular books winning.
Jared wrote: "I'll admit that it was a reproachable choice of words and I have, therefore edited it."I thank you.
I am saying that the same standards and principles used to determine a classic and be applied to contemporary literature.
This is becoming an interesting discussion! :) I cite from one of your previous comments:
"Classical, intrinsic by its very definition, intimates that it is a piece of literature that has withstood the test of time as to become something of remarkable quality. A good book invokes thoughts and musings that can last a lifetime and adds an edifying quality on an individual's character and/or view on humanity and/or life in general." (emphasis mine)
I agree with the italicized part of your comment. Also with the last sentence, but a good book is not necessarily a classic. I do believe a book needs time to become a classic, and therefore I don't think it's possible to say for certain which contemporary books will become classics. Books that give an answer to important current issues, or brilliantly reflect the Zeitgeist, may become outdated pretty quickly. Yet they are perfect for this day and age.
I have added books to GR for a couple of literary awards (from the '50s and '60s), and it was rather sobering to see how many of those books had sunk into obscurity. In a couple of cases I couldn't even find a record of those books in the national library.
So, no matter if based on popularity or on literary merit, awards themselves will always be a reflection of their time as well.
Jared wrote: "It would seem to me that you intentionally misunderstand me. I have addressed this already in a previous reply.Please re-read my statements that I have previously posted if you care to reply."
I did not intentionally misunderstand anything at all you said. I did not refer to you, Jared, or to your post, if you care to go back an re-read my sentiments.
I am sorry that my post made you feel uncomfortable, but I was sincere in everything I wrote, so I will not change it regardless of your discomfort.
I didn't think that my opinion of the classics would cause such a reply, or even warrant such a reply, but, there you have it.
I wonder why you have chosen this thread and conversation in particular to be your soapbox. Lord knows I've had my share, but why this venue?
Melissa wrote: "Carefully read all my comments if you care to make a fair reply or you take the risk of making a fool of yourself.^^^ You made a fool of yourself when you first implied that 1. I replied to you, ..."
That quote was in response to my comment.
Melissa wrote: "Have a good night, lethe :) "You too, Melissa :)
To be fair, I think Jared is actually sincere when he says he didn't mean to be condescending. Although the tone of his writing seems to suggest otherwise. He's a man of mystery :)
Erma wrote: "Jared wrote: "It would seem to me that you intentionally misunderstand me. I have addressed this already in a previous reply.Please re-read my statements that I have previously posted if you care..."
I appreciate your candor. To be fair you were replying to a comment someone made on my comment. I assumed that you were in the same following and therefore replied. I hope you can understand that and certainly didn’t mean to offend.
One thing I can say with complete, total, unequivocal, utmost sincerity is that I didn’t intend to get on any soapbox especially in this venue. I am regretting the attention. But, a person commented on my post and in turn I commented feeling that it needed clarifying and one thing lead to another and before you know it people are calling for my execution. Please don’t let them send me to the gallows!!!!!!!!!!!
_________
| |
| 0
| /|\
| / \
|
|
lethe wrote: "Jared wrote: "I'll admit that it was a reproachable choice of words and I have, therefore edited it."I thank you.
I am saying that the same standards and principles used to determine a classic a..."
Thank you kindly for your defense and understanding. You are a pearl among swine and by popular vote I'm the fattest pig, and headed for the slaughterhouse. I urge you not to make yourself a target as I have done.
I agree with your words and also like the direction the discussion is headed. Infact, The discussion finally headed the direction I originally intended. As another commented pointed out, this is probably not the right venue. I would however like to continue this intriguing discussion elsewhere at some other time. I'm sure that you have some noteworthy books to recommend to me. Although my to-read list is overflowing at the moment, I nevertheless, welcome more.
I hereby retreat by way of humor in the hope of escaping with my life. Yikes!
Thank you for the stimulating exchange.
Cordial Regards, -J
