Sign in with Facebook
The best books published during the 2010s decade (2010–2019).
See also:
2010s lists
2010s shelf
Best By Date
Fantasy of the 2010s
Mystery of the 2010s
Non-fiction of the 2010s
Picture Books of the 2010s
Romance of the 2010s
Science Fiction of the 2010s
Best Books by Century:
21st, 20th,
19th, 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th,14th, 13th, 12th, 11th, 10th,
9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th
Best Books by Decade:
2020–2029, 2010–2019, 2000–2009,
1990–1999, 1980–1989, 1970–1979, 1960–1969, 1950–1959,
1940–1949, 1930–1939, 1920–1929, 1910–1919, 1900–1909,
1890–1899, 1880–1889, 1870–1879, 1860–1869, 1850–1859,
1840–1849, 1830–1839, 1820–1829, 1810–1819, 1800–1809
Best Books by Year:
2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019
Lists for all books by Number of Ratings:
Most Rated Book by Year
10,000 to 15,000, 15,000 to 20,000, 20,000 to 25,000, 25,000 to 30,000,
30,000 to 40,000, 40,000 to 50,000, 50,000 to 60,000, 60,000 to 70,000,
70,000 to 80,000, 80,000 to 89,999, 90,000 to 99,999, 100,000 to 149,999,
150,000 to 199,999, 200,000 to 499,999, 500,000 to 999,999, 1,000,000 and more
See also:
2010s lists
2010s shelf
Best By Date
Fantasy of the 2010s
Mystery of the 2010s
Non-fiction of the 2010s
Picture Books of the 2010s
Romance of the 2010s
Science Fiction of the 2010s
Best Books by Century:
21st, 20th,
19th, 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th,14th, 13th, 12th, 11th, 10th,
9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th
Best Books by Decade:
2020–2029, 2010–2019, 2000–2009,
1990–1999, 1980–1989, 1970–1979, 1960–1969, 1950–1959,
1940–1949, 1930–1939, 1920–1929, 1910–1919, 1900–1909,
1890–1899, 1880–1889, 1870–1879, 1860–1869, 1850–1859,
1840–1849, 1830–1839, 1820–1829, 1810–1819, 1800–1809
Best Books by Year:
2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019
Lists for all books by Number of Ratings:
Most Rated Book by Year
10,000 to 15,000, 15,000 to 20,000, 20,000 to 25,000, 25,000 to 30,000,
30,000 to 40,000, 40,000 to 50,000, 50,000 to 60,000, 60,000 to 70,000,
70,000 to 80,000, 80,000 to 89,999, 90,000 to 99,999, 100,000 to 149,999,
150,000 to 199,999, 200,000 to 499,999, 500,000 to 999,999, 1,000,000 and more
7,686 books ·
14,160 voters ·
list created January 14th, 2010
by deleted user.
1143 likes · Like
Lists are re-scored approximately every 5 minutes.
April
11518 books
2104 friends
2104 friends
Leah
1557 books
22 friends
22 friends
Ross Willard
317 books
17 friends
17 friends
Ahem!
610 books
1 friend
1 friend
Steven
27 books
249 friends
249 friends
Nicole
19 books
3 friends
3 friends
Amanda
761 books
11 friends
11 friends
Nicolle
1066 books
426 friends
426 friends
More voters…
Comments Showing 1-50 of 152 (152 new)
There are plenty of grown-up books on the list, they just aren't on page one at the moment because not enough grown-ups have voted. It would only take a few more grown-up voters to transform it into something more widely representative...
Phillip wrote: "There are plenty of grown-up books on the list, they just aren't on page one at the moment because not enough grown-ups have voted. It would only take a few more grown-up voters to transform it int..."And...... it's better. Lots of literary fiction, history books, etc. now on Page One.
Well -- I wouldn't say "lots" yet, but yes, better than before at any rate ...
There are plenty of years to go here. What about works not in English, translated or not?
Joje wrote: "What about works not in English, translated or not?"I think all that matters is the period of publication, not language ... at least that's the way it works on the other "best books of the decade" lists!
In 100 years, people are going to think we were shape-shifting-paranormal-obssessed teenagers.
I've just added a history book that came out last year.
Perhaps there are a little too much young adult books on this list, but other than that, it's a okay list for the decade so far.
is it just me or are there an awful lot of books from book series? :)
That's a real trend, series.
This list really shows how far literature has fallen in the past few years. This is more like a top list of preteen books.
I just can't understand how some of these books got on here.
Emily Ann wrote: "I just can't understand how some of these books got on here."Yes! Most of the books here are utter and complete crap.
I think there's fewer adult books that have huge followings; there's no Harry Potters, Hunger Games, etc. in the contemporary adult literary world.
Thania wrote: "Perhaps there are a little too much young adult books on this list, but other than that, it's a okay list for the decade so far."Laura wrote: "is it just me or are there an awful lot of books from book series? :)"
Couldn’t agree more. I finally got bored with this because too much of it was “teeny” or “list"
Added links to the 'best-of-decade' lists for the 19th century.
Strongly suggest a minimum number of ratings for this list of 1000.
Mitchell wrote: "Strongly suggest a minimum number of ratings for this list of 1000."I totally agree with you there. It doesn't solve the YA problem, but most definitely would solve the spam problem.
Found & removed one duplicate.I think the quality of the list will improve as the decade continues. I had to knock at least 10 off the bottom of my own list in order to add some really strong ARCs I read recently. The more we read, the higher our standards will have to be, since we only get 100 votes.
Checked for duplicates: 3 books removed.
I've read at least 1 book from each author in the T50.A largely uninspiring lot.
I agree with Mitchell. I always side-eye books that have more votes on lists than they have actual ratings...or books that are even close to even on that count.
Checked for duplicates: 6 books removed.
It's always inspirational to sit down with a nice cup of coffee, get onto my favorite book site, and read a bunch of comments written by people who have nothing nice to say. Cheers, all.Librarians (on staff): it is true (by my count and right now) that 3 books in the top 100 have, by a small margin, more points than should be possible. Can this be explained by people leaving during the whole amazon purchase uproar? In other words, if someone leaves the site and clears all their reviews (or not), does their score still turn up on listopia without counting them as a "person"? If that's not the reason, then what can we do to rectify the problem?
As for the grumps out there, if you don't like the books listed, add some that were first published in 2010 or later that you do like. I found 99 to either vote for or add. What can you do to improve things?
To my best knowledge, when a person goes, their listopia votes go as well?ETA: To add to Donna's statement: it's easy to add books to lists. At the top of the list, at the tab next to "all votes."
Susanna - Censored by GoodReads wrote: "To my best knowledge, when a person goes, their listopia votes go as well?"that is my understanding as well - which is another reason why that 100 vote limit is so irritating. You really need at least two votes per book to maintain a list.
Mitchell wrote: "Susanna - Censored by GoodReads wrote: "To my best knowledge, when a person goes, their listopia votes go as well?"that is my understanding as well - which is another reason why that 100 vote lim..."
Then I am completely mystified. Is it a bug? How does any book receive more votes than it has voters? Even if all of the voters who voted chose the book as their #1 pick, there are 3 books in the first 100 which should not be able to have that many votes.
That said, I still enjoy the list and will be happy to maintain it, to the extent that a volunteer librarian can.
Donna wrote: "Mitchell wrote: "Susanna - Censored by GoodReads wrote: "To my best knowledge, when a person goes, their listopia votes go as well?"that is my understanding as well - which is another reason why ..."
can you point to a specific book, I am not following which issue you are talking about.
Because you don't need to have read a book to vote for it. (Which is good on "these are the books we're most anticipating" lists.)
*moan* Oh, I see. I always thought we were supposed to read them first, and that the "anticipating" lists were really just people voting on amazing ARC's. The last time I felt like this was when I found out there was no Santa Claus.
since this list is now owned by "deleted user", did we arbitrarily want to add a minimum number of ratings - say to 1000 - like the sf list https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/4...
Checked for duplicates: 10 books removed.
Checked for duplicates: 7 books removed.
It's a sensible suggestion, but it's probably too late now, because of the amount of work necessary to weed out books with fewer ratings than whatever number has been decided on. Such a rule would have to be implemented from the beginning for the editor to stay on top of it. There is another problem: books with the same rank in this list have wildly different numbers of ratings. for example, at the moment three books, all ranked #2002, each voted for by one person, each with 18 points, have 318, 3526 and 1147 ratings respectively. It isn't clear what a smaller number of ratings has to do with a book's quality: it's only a reflection of popularity. This is an awkward fact for a list that is trying to identify the best books.
If popularity and quality were the same thing, Goodreads would be able to compile the list themselves automatically by generating a list of all books published in the period in question in order of number of ratings.
It's a fault of all Goodreads lists that there is very little control over who can add what to any given list. Many contributors simply ignore any stipulations in the list description so that they can vote for their favourites. Easily added, these books are then very time-consuming to identify and remove: so the lists very quickly become choked with books with very low numbers of votes and ratings, as here.
Paul wrote: "It's a sensible suggestion, but it's probably too late now, because of the amount of work necessary to weed out books with fewer ratings than whatever number has been decided on. Such a rule would ..."It's definitely not too late - there are enough librarians to semi-enforce it. A minimum rating especially for recent books cuts down on listopia spam by non-readers. Sure it under counts awesome books that no one has heard of. And for books from the pre-goodreads period a minimum rating really isn't necessary.
but compare
Best Fantasy Books of the 21st Century
to
Best Science Fiction of the 21st Century
The fantasy list has no ratings minimum, 5341 voters and 1471 books
The sf list has a 1000 rating minimum, 3191 voters and 375 books
I think the sf list is a higher quality list, doing a better job of capturing what books in their genre is actually good. And it is easier to maintain.
I object to adding a minimum number of ratings. Listopia is a democratic way that readers can promote brand new books that are excellent. I say this as a frequent (but unpaid) reader of ARCs, and since authors have been known to work the system, I will also volunteer the information that I have zero books published, and zero books in the hopper. My objection is strictly as a reader who likes to promote strong new literature.
Donna wrote: "I object to adding a minimum number of ratings. Listopia is a democratic way that readers can promote brand new books that are excellent. I say this as a frequent (but unpaid) reader of ARCs, and s..."All I can say to that is goodreads has seemingly defended the right of a list creator to specify an arbitrary minimum and for librarians to defend that criteria.
I think that Best Fantasy on Goodreads with less than 100 ratings actually satisfies the case you have, at least for fantasy fairly well.
Mitchell wrote: "Donna wrote: "I object to adding a minimum number of ratings. Listopia is a democratic way that readers can promote brand new books that are excellent. I say this as a frequent (but unpaid) reader ..."I don't know where you came up with the idea that fantasy ratings of fewer than 100 would substitute for the right to vote for a best book of the decade! It's not what the list's creator designated, and I don't like the notion that some Goodreads staff might arbitrarily make the change after the fact. I suspect a lot of my own votes would be suddenly nil. In fact, I will pull all my own votes off in protest if this is done, and I will certainly not use my volunteer librarian capacity to enforce it. I've done a lot of volunteer work for listopia because it is one way that readers can have their voices heard, but since amazon bought this site, I have noticed more and more constraints on the lists that make them more closed-off. It doesn't bode well for free speech.
Checked for duplicates: 5 books removed.
M/Ðɑηηɑ wrote: "...Voted only by teens."M/Ðɑηηɑ wrote: "...Voted only by teens."
Thanx, I'm 35 :)
Whipper-snapper! I'm pushing 50.
Susanna - Censored by GoodReads wrote: "Whipper-snapper! I'm pushing 50."...and I'm past it. Well into my rear-view!
Good luck with the promotion.