Curating the Canon, with Gilbert Cruz

Summary

Zero to Well-Read - Episode Summary Curating the Canon, with Gilbert Cruz
Book Riot | August 12, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this insightful episode of Zero to Well-Read, hosts Jeff O’Neill and Rebecca Schinsky sit down with Gilbert Cruz, Canon Editor at The New York Times, to discuss “the canon”—what it means in today’s book culture, its history, controversies, and the Times’ recent project: “The 50 Best Thrillers of the 21st Century So Far.” The conversation explores how lists are curated, the evolving nature of consensus and authority in literary circles, and the balance between expert curation and democratized input from critics, authors, influencers, and readers alike.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Defining ‘The Canon’ in a Changing Media Landscape

• The Meaning of Canon ([05:17], [02:15])

  • Gilbert reflects on the loaded nature of the term "canon," describing it as "fraught," historically shaped by gatekeeping and elitism, and now recognized as something “fuzzy, elliptical, flawed and ever-changing." ([05:17])
  • The canon once meant a tightly controlled and exclusionary list of “should-reads,” but in the past few decades, this has been heavily debated, democratized, and even undermined in favor of more inclusive readings.

• Authority Meets Criticism and AI ([06:25])

  • Gilbert highlights the shrinking number of trusted cultural curators and the rise of both social media influencers and AI-generated recommendations.
  • “On one end you have these individuals… on the other… this rising fear of… AI inflected recommendations… So the Times, as a place that has invested in cultural coverage for a long time… has long been a place, we believe, where people come to get ideas about what is good and what is not good in culture.” ([07:35])

2. Evolution of Expert Input and Collective Lists

• From the Ivory Tower to the Crowd ([11:48], [14:55])

  • Rebecca notes the past tendency for canons to be determined by a narrow, often homogenous group (“old white men” discussing books by “old white men”), contrasted with today’s recognition that “anyone can have a platform… not everyone has equal expertise or knowledge.” ([11:48])
  • The Times’ new approach brings together critics, authors, and figures like Stephen King to create a more “authoritative” and representative canon.

• Why Lists Matter ([18:14], [19:43])

  • Jeff and Gilbert talk about how public interest in “the best X books” is enduring, reflecting a widespread desire for curated recommendations—whether or not people intend to read every book themselves.
  • “It invites you to keep sort of moving through it… It conveys information efficiently and quickly, which is as important for a journalistic outfit like ourselves…” ([20:19])

3. Methodology of The Times’ List-Making Process

• Polling, Not Dictating ([24:39], [29:06])

  • The methodology is as democratic as possible: “We send polls out… pick 10 things, we take those votes, and we count them… we are not using editorial choices to move stuff.” ([24:39])
  • Constraints (like number of books or one title per author) are avoided to preserve authenticity, leading to, e.g., four Tana French books out of fifty, representing true consensus rather than curated balance. ([26:03])

• Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Canon ([27:47])

  • The approach is “descriptive rather than proscriptive”: rather than defining exactly what a thriller is or what 'best' means, the lists reflect the lived opinions and choices of the contributors.

4. Gatekeeping and the Changing Roles of Critics

• Gatekeeping vs. Curation ([14:55])

  • The episode explores the necessary existence of gatekeeping and curation in a world where sheer access and “listicles” threaten to flatten expertise and thoughtful critique.
  • “Two things can be true at the same time… criticism is important, but we also want to reach people who will never engage with criticism.” (Gilbert, [14:55])

• Who Gets to Vote? ([31:21])

  • Selection of voters (authors, critics, notable figures) is one of the few points of subjective influence, mitigating purely popularity-driven results (e.g., avoiding the purely populist "Goodreads effect") ([31:21])

5. Reader Involvement and Divergent Canons

• Reader Polls as a ‘Release Valve’ ([22:06], [23:11])
  • After expert lists are published, reader lists are solicited and shown side-by-side—often with dramatic differences (60 of 100 titles diverged in a previous project).
  • “We need a release valve. This is where people can say, you guys were full of BS… It’s a cacophony of voices here that we are organizing hopefully in a way that is pleasing to people.” (Gilbert, [23:14])

6. Genre Fluidity and Defining ‘Thriller’

• No Hard Lines ([27:21])
  • Respondents received no strict instructions on how to define a "thriller" or "best": “You can quibble with whether The Sympathizer or The Goldfinch is a thriller, but… enough people thought that.” (Gilbert, [27:21])
  • The result is a “theory of canon” that mirrors language, always evolving, based on aggregate usage and perception rather than top-down decree. ([27:47])

7. Trade-Offs of the Aggregated Approach

• Surprises and Limitations ([29:06])

  • “A potential trade-off might be less room for surprise,” says Gilbert—one loses the idiosyncratic, passionate picks a single critic might include.
  • Selection of voters is a key lever of influence, but ultimately, “we are reflecting an aggregate opinion of experts, which… makes it more valuable than other aggregate opinions.” ([30:37])

• Voting for Your Own Book ([32:37])

  • Some authors hesitated to make ballots public if they’d voted for their own book. Gilbert: “Let’s normalize this. If you know you wrote the best thriller of the century so far, you should get to vote for yourself.” ([32:52])

8. Genre Hierarchies and Adaptation

• Thrillers in the Canon ([43:06], [45:41])

  • The hosts and Gilbert discuss why thrillers, despite being widely read and adapted for screen, are less often canonized than science fiction, possibly because of their perceived focus on plot over ideas.
  • “There’s something about the plot-heaviness of thrillers that make [them] perfect for screen adaptations… At least half [of the Top 50] have been made into a movie.” (Gilbert, [47:56])

• Academia’s Involvement (or Lack Thereof) ([49:10])

  • Very few academics participated in the thrillers list, perhaps because, as Gilbert says, “it doesn’t feel serious enough in some way.”
  • “One of the things we don’t want to be is to feel overly academic… It can keep people at a distance more than it invites them in.” ([49:33], [49:34])

9. What Makes a Great Thriller?

• Beyond Plot: Elevation by Ideas ([51:02])
  • Books like Gone Girl succeed because they merge plot, character, theme, and ideas, which “is the cream that’s going to rise to the top.” ([51:39])
  • Authors like S.A. Cosby are praised for marrying place, character, plot, and social themes (race and class in America). ([52:11])

10. The Future of Canon Lists

• Frequency and Evolution ([53:43], [54:31])
  • Jeff asks about the longevity and frequency of such lists; Gilbert suggests an evolving, possibly more frequent approach than once per decade, due to the fast pace of cultural change: “A lot of shit is happening very quickly. Stuff is changing very fast.” ([54:50])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Taking the Title “Canon Editor”:

  • “It's a word that means different things to different people. And maybe it's a little fusty... Is this gonna like send the wrong message? ... Since then everyone's like, wow, what an amazing title.” (Gilbert Cruz, [02:15])

• On Democratizing Lists:

  • “On the 100 best books of the 21st century, 60 of the 100 on the reader's list were different than what was on the main.” (Gilbert Cruz, [23:30])

• On Voting for Yourself:

  • “Let’s normalize this. If you know you wrote the best thriller of the century so far, you should get to vote for yourself. Absolutely.” (Gilbert Cruz, [32:52]; Gillian Flynn named)

• On the Value of Lists:

  • “Lists can coexist alongside news pieces, alongside critical pieces, alongside investigative pieces. It's all part of the stew of modern digital journalism. I love lists. I always have.” (Gilbert Cruz, [19:43])

• On the Reader’s Experience:

  • “Have we introduced you to something you didn't know about? Did we remind you of something that you've always wanted to read?” (Gilbert Cruz, [39:19])

• On the Evolving Canon:

  • “There is a way in which the word canon now has achieved escape velocity. Right. It's no longer limited to the world of academia... That's canonical.” (Gilbert Cruz, [49:34])

---

Important Timestamps

• [02:02] − Gilbert joins, title origins, defining “canon”
• [05:17] − The problematic history and new relevance of the canon
• [14:55] − Shifting from old critical models to expanded, more inclusive curation
• [24:39] − Methodology for compiling best-of lists (polling, data integrity)
• [27:21] − Defining ‘thriller,’ methodological openness in polling
• [31:21] − Voter pool curation as a source of influence
• [32:37] − The debate over authors voting for their own books
• [43:06] − Genre selection rationale; thrillers versus sci-fi and literary fiction in canon discussions
• [47:56] − Adaptation patterns: thrillers and screen media
• [49:34] − Relationship with academia; expanding the meaning of “canon”
• [51:39] − Elements that elevate genre fiction in the canon
• [54:50] − Prospects for updating or iterating canon projects more frequently

---

Overall Takeaways

• The ‘canon’ is more open, dynamic, and democratically shaped than ever, but authority, expertise, and structure are still valued.
• The New York Times aims to use its standing to convene a wide—but intentionally selected—community of experts, authors, and influencers, preserving both substance and diversity.
• List-making is more complex than it appears, involving thoughtful boundary-setting, methodological transparency, and room for public disagreement.
• The permeability of genre definitions, like what counts as a “thriller,” makes modern canon formation as much a record of usage as of prescription.
• Despite inclusion, some trade-offs (surprise, idiosyncrasy, historical depth) remain—yet the lists largely “feel right” to most readers, fulfilling an ongoing cultural appetite for curated guides.

---

For further reading:

• The New York Times’ 50 Best Thrillers of the 21st Century So Far
• Listen for upcoming genre lists and reader’s choice polls on the Times and Book Riot platforms.

---

Transcript

[Rebecca Schinsky]

I want to date with Rawls Carty says.

[Podcast Sponsor Announcer]

Rawls Rucker asks.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

This is the love story of real hinge couple Carti and Rocca, written and read by me, Nicola Dinan. Listen to the free audiobook now. Hey folks, it's a big moment here at Zero to well Read and I'm here to tell you about a couple of things we're celebrating. First up, we're going to be marking the first anniversary of this podcast in September. We with more than a million downloads on conversations about dozens of the great books. That's huge. And Book riot is turning 15 in October. A lot of things have changed in the 15 years that we've been doing this work, but one thing remains. The independent media landscape is wild and it's ever changing. We're so proud that we've been able to build Book Riot and Zero to well Read without any corporate investments or publisher subsidies. And we couldn't be more grateful for the readers and the listeners like you who help make it possible through paid memberships. Right now you can get 25% off an annual membership to the Zero to well Read Patreon, which includes ad free listening, early access to new episodes, and exclusive read alongs and bonus content. Plus, you get the satisfaction of knowing you're supporting human creators who read all the books with our brains and who make everything you read, watch and listen to by hand. Thank you. There's no AI in any of our content. Go to patreon.com 02Well Read to start your annual membership for 25% off today. That's patreon.com 02Well Read.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Welcome to Zero to Well Read, a podcast about all the books you wish you read, you want to read, you want to think about some more.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

I am Geoff o' Neill and I'm Rebecca Schinsky. Today we're talking with Gilbert Cruz, the canon editor of the New York Times, about what we're talking about when we talk about canon and the 50 best thrillers of the 21st century so far, which the Times just released a list of in the last few weeks. Gilbert, thanks so much for being here with us.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Thank you for having me. I listen to the show all the time. It's a delight to be here, wouldn't you say?

[Jeff O'Neill]

Gilbert now has the Crown the Goat title, I think.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Canon Editor first of all, it's a title no one else has ever held there before.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Ed Absolutely. It's funny because when we were writing the announcement and coming up with the title, I was kind of resisted. I was like this is a word that means different things to different people. And maybe it's a little fusty. It's a little, maybe it's a little fuddy duddy. Is this gonna like send the wrong message? You know, sometimes your bosses listen to you, sometimes they don't. They proceeded with this title and since then everyone's like, wow, what an amazing title. So I'm rolling with it.

[Jeff O'Neill]

You're probably pulling for wizard of All Knowledge. Was that your suggestion, Gilbert, that that was what you were gonna go with?

[Gilbert Cruz]

Top five Top. You know, I mean, it was up there. I mean, whenever you could be officially called a wizard, why not seize the opportunity?

[Podcast Sponsor Announcer]

Yeah.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

I mean, heavy is the head, but I think you're wearing it well. Thank you. Before we jump in with our conversation with Gilbert, folks, you can always click the link in our show notes to become a member of our Patreon for access to our guided read alongs. The next one is coming up this fall for early free episodes and for bonus content. Patreon.com 02 well read and please, if you have a moment to rate or review the show, wherever you're listening, that helps other people discover it. We are racing towards a thousand ratings on Apple podcasts and I think we're gonna do a listener's choice episode where y' all will get to vote on a special book for our discussion when we hit that goal. So thanks to everybody who's taken time to do that. If you have messages for us about this episode or any other episode because we exist out of space and time, you can email us@02 well read bookriot.com

[Jeff O'Neill]

Gilbert speaking of things that exist out of space and time, we're going to, we're going to get to the Thriller list specifically, but we're interested in this moment, how the Times was thinking about your job, how you thinking about it, because the canon as a durable thing is sort of, it's an implied argument of your title and the project of the things you're working on. I think it's also an implied idea in the show that we do here. Rebecca like this idea that there is this canon thing, fuzzy, elliptical, flawed and ever changing as it may be, is something that exists or people traffic in and we think about. So Gilbert, you know, for people that don't know, formerly the editor in chief of the New York Times Book Review, before that you were doing more popular culture, wider sort of mainstream culture ideas. So I'm assuming those kinds of forms are going to be implied in the new gig. What do we talk about when you talk about Canon Gilbert, like you were saying, there's some trepidation about even taking on that title, especially putting in your job title. So how do you understand it when you, when you're waking up, when you wake up in the middle of the night, as a, as a person who's getting up there in age, younger than me, but still probably not sleeping, shots fired, and you're worried about things and you're worried about your life and you're like, God dang it, the Canon Gilbert. What are you thinking about?

[Gilbert Cruz]

You know, I am waking up in the middle of the night so much. I did recently go for a sleep test and the doctor was like, maybe you should just exercise more.

[Jeff O'Neill]

It's just your title. Just you get it.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

It's.

[Jeff O'Neill]

The canon is bothering you, sir.

[Gilbert Cruz]

It is, it's. It's. Canon means a lot. Obviously. It's a word that has several meanings. In the past several decades, it is in fandom, it has come to mean its own thing. This is or is not canon in the Marvel universe or the Star wars universe or something like that. So that has a very strong meaning and that's the way that people use it. I think anyone who's a bookish person, or lots of people who are bookish people, also know it as a source of controversy. You know, for many decades, the idea that there were a group of people that put together a canon, particularly of Western literature, and told you these are the things you should read. And in order to be a well educated person, there came a time at the end of the 20th century when that whole idea was up for debate and there was a big sort of to do in academia. And so the canon as an idea, in books, in culture, I think for a while has been suspect because this idea of people up here, gatekeepers, elites, whatever you want to call them, making decisions about what is good and what is not good and. And then what we're just supposed to listen to them. So it is fraught. However, I think we are at this moment, and I think this is why the Times decided to invest in this idea of this department, in this title. When it comes to culture, when it comes to books, when it comes to movies, when it comes to the arts, the number of places that used to exist where you can go to read or discover good things has really shrunk over the past several decades. And in its place, we have a lot of individuals on various social media platforms and other places, influencers or not, who have filled that, that space, have filled that vacuum and come and tell you you should read these books, you should watch these movies, and some of them are great, and some of them maybe are financially incentivized in order to do that, right? So maybe on one end you have these, these individuals who have filled this hole of expertise and recommendations, and on the other, maybe if we're thinking about it in a binary, you have this, this rising fear of aggregated artificial intelligence inflected recommendations. You know, they're scraping the Internet, scraping all these sites and what have you, and then they're just telling you, everyone says these are good, or all these sites say these are good. So you should read this, right? So the Times, as a place that has invested in cultural coverage for a very long time, the New York Times Book Review has existed for almost 130 years, has long been a place, we believe, where people come to get ideas about what is good and what is not good in culture. In this moment, when influencers AI the role of the critic in the world, criticism as a practice that continues to be like, paid for as something that people can survive doing, those are all factors that have diminished authority. And so we're trying to figure out, is there a new authority to be had as a place that has done this for quite a while? Can we start to use a different model? Can we both rely on the expertise of our critics and the people that we pay in order to do this work, but also use our, what we call our convening power to go out and ask hundreds of experts in each of these fields, people who know this stuff front to back because they live it, what they think is good, particularly in this century. Take all that stuff, do some math, compile it, and then put out a list for people that we hope not only feels authoritative, not only starts conversations and arguments, but also leads people to things that they haven't read or haven't watched or haven't experienced. It's as much for that as anything else.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

This episode is sponsored by Boll and Branch. Here's something I didn't see coming. One of the best upgrades I've made recently wasn't a new gadget or even a new life changing mattress. It was new sheets. You know, I'm always looking for little ways to optimize the things I use every day, whether it's my desk or my travel gear or my bedroom. And better sleep is absolutely one of those things that I know is worth investing in. For the longest time though, I just assumed I was a hot sleeper. But it turned out my old sheets were trapping heat and I was waking up way too warm and because I'm a lady of a certain age. So in my house we switched to Bol branch's signature organic cotton sheets and the difference was immediate. They're incredibly soft, but they're also really breathable. So I stay comfortable all night instead of overheating and waking up at 3:27 exactly. And every time I wash them, somehow they get even softer. It's one of those upgrades you don't realize you needed until after you've made it and I'm just trying to help you all get ahead of the game now. Getting into bed at the end of the day feels like a little luxury and I am sleeping so much more comfortably. Upgrade your sleep with bowl and branch get 15% off your first order plus free shipping at bowlandbranch.com Wellred with code Wellred that's bowl and branch B O L L a n d branch.com wellred code wellred to unlock 15% off exclusions apply.

[Podcast Sponsor Announcer]

Today's episode is brought to you by USG Audio, Same Boat Productions and Peacock. Now, if you're into a bookish kind of boozy, kind of delicious good time, it's perfect for book clubs. I got something for you. Join best selling author Ellen Hildebrand as she unpacks every moment of the Five Star Weekend with the show's cast and crew. They discuss all the joy, the drama, the tea and of course the food. Now guests include Jennifer Garner, Chloe Sevy, Kanye, Regina Hall, Gemma Chan, Darcy Carden Harlow, Jane West Duchovny, all the People Friend and the series showrunner and directors. You can stream all eight episodes of the Five Star Weekend on Peacock, where you can also watch this podcast. Now, I did say boozy, right? So on that on the rock Spartender created Cocktails has partnered with the podcast to bring fans deeper into the story through sponsored quote unquote book talk segments where Ellen enjoys an on the rocks ready to drink cocktail and answers questions from book clubs and fans across the country. Like I said, a boozy good bookish book club time. Check it out on Peacock. And thanks again to USG Audio, Sameboat Productions and Peacock for sponsoring this episode.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

This podcast is supported by Quince. The older I get, the more I want to invest in having really versatile pieces in my closet instead of a hundred things I barely wear. And one of the best things I've added this year is Quince's 100% European linen pants. They are exactly what I want. As summer tapers into early fall, they're lightweight. They're breathable enough for the hottest summer days, which can last into the fall here in the South. But they're polished enough that I can wear them to a work meeting, out to dinner, or throw them in a suitcase for vacation and know that they're going to work with everything else I've packed. I find myself reaching, reaching for them constantly because they're just so easy and they look so good. And that's what I love about Quince. They specialize in high quality essentials that are designed to last and to become the pieces you'll wear on repeat. And because they work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen, everything is priced 50 to 80% less than similar luxury brands. So you're paying for quality, not the brand markup. And it's not just apparel. Quince has beautiful bedding, bath essentials, kitchen staples and thoughtfully designed furniture. Upgrade your everyday when you go to Quince.com Wellred for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. That's Quince.com Wellred for Free Shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com Wellred you know, there was this real moment that you were talking about towards like end of the 20th century and even the first maybe decade plus of this century where it felt like maybe we were going to throw the baby out with the bathwater when we were talking about criticism and the canon and the criticism of the old canon was really valid, that this is a thing comprised kind of an ivory tower situation by mostly old white men talking about books by mostly old white men. And that that was no longer relevant or maybe it had never really been fully relevant and representative of the universe of books and reading. And what's been exciting to me about this project, about really the group of projects you've taken on at the times and the ways that the sort of literary and critical community seems to be coming together now is around the idea that we need both. It seems like a yes. And we do need some kind of gatekeeping, curation that while the Internet has allowed for a democratization of voices, that anyone can have a platform, not everyone has equal expertise or knowledge about the things that they're speaking about. And some authority to be coming from a place of some authority does still matter to many people. There are plenty of people who just want to like watch an influencer that they relate to. And that's, that's fine. That's not what we're doing here. But that's fine. But I'd love it if you would talk about how y' all came up with this idea that as you were going into the best books of the 21st century so far and then the song thriller list, how did you land in the place of not just critics, but also authors, influencers, bookstagrammers, you know, expanding the idea of who can be a critical authority.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Yeah, I think you know, the word critic, by virtue of the fact that it has implies the word criticism to many people. And I don't blame anyone. And I also don't know how to solve this problem has long implied negativity. Someone whose job it is to just say bad things about the things that I like. And I think, you know, and I certainly know as someone who grew up obsessed with criticism, reading criticism of all sorts, that the best criticism, even if it doesn't like something, cares about it and is trying to engage with it on some way. And to be a critic, you can't just be someone who likes them thing, you know, you can be someone who likes movies, but you need to be or who likes books. I think it's important for you to be able to communicate that in a compelling way to people, whether it's by typing it and publishing it, or increasingly talking on podcasts or other through other formats. So being able to communicate compellingly and also resting on expertise, resting on like I have experienced a lot things in this space and I have thought about it and I have read or experienced other people writing about it or talking about it. And it allows me to think about it, not just reflecting my whether I like it or not, but what does it mean? Why is it effective? Why is it successful or unsuccessful at doing the things that it does? So the Times continues to be one of the few journalistic outlets that invest in critics still. You know, we have three staff book critics and a critic at large at the Book Review. We have two movie critics, we have a dance critic, we have a theater critic. We just, we care about criticism. At the same time, we have to face reality. And there are lots of people who want to find out what they want to read next or watch next or understand a piece of culture who are never going to read criticism. And that just continues to be the case. So I think two things can be true at the same time. And this is why the Times has stood up this team, which is criticism is important, but we also want to reach people who will never engage with criticism. So what are some other ways thinking about the wisdom of the crowd, but not just the crowd, like the informed crowd, reaching out to Barry Jenkins, reaching out to. Who has watched more movies, arguably, than most average people. Reaching out to Stephen King, who has read more thrillers, in this case than, I would argue, 99% of people on Earth. And understanding that they have an expertise that most people don't have. And we can use that in order to inform these big projects that we're doing about what is great in this century. We think we've proven that out across the best books, best movies, best thrillers. We have another one coming up in a few months. And my goal and my role here is to try to continue to make the Times the most authoritative place for culture coverage, while also understanding that different readers come in different ways and also making space for readers, right.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Whether or not they're going to read the Critic, but they might look at a 50 best X of N units of time. The demand is similar, which is, I want to know what's out there. I want to know what's out there and what's important and why it matters. And sometimes it's so that I will go read it myself, but sometimes I just want to know. And I think that's maybe something that 20, 25 years ago, we may not have guessed, because you see the kinds of things that go viral on social media. It's often the X number of books you must read to whatever. Right. And that only works. Those only get millions of views if there's demand on the viewer side to, like, want to know what those things are. That's one of the reasons we started this show. Not because we were, like, wanted to just sort of send out into the void our takes on Oedipus. That would be me. I would do that myself. I don't know Rebecca would be interested in that. But we also heard people saying, like, what is the deal with this thing that I've heard of? Or what really matters? Or I want to engage with culture on a level that's different. Different than maybe just consuming it on my own. And so this is a way of tapping into that interest, because I'm assuming that that best books of the century so far list did sufficiently well to motivate, well, whatever metrics you have. We saw imitators all over the place. Maybe we did a little of our own. Who can say? But this idea. This idea resonated Gilbert, and I think that's something that's important, too. It wasn't. You're not just looking at the supply side of criticism and coverage. You're looking at what the demand is and there is demand for. Tell me some stuff about these things I've heard of.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Absolutely. And I think it also has to do with format. Right. We can talk about lists as a format that I think are unfairly impugned more than they should be. I agree. It's just like I think lists can coexist alongside news pieces, alongside critical pieces, alongside investigative pieces. It's all part of a. It's all part of, like, the stew of modern digital journalism. I love lists. I always have. And you know what? I think a lot of people do too.

[Jeff O'Neill]

People like the list.

[Gilbert Cruz]

People like a list. It is a way to convey information that I think accomplishes two things. It invites you to keep sort of moving through it. So, like, it's engaging, and that's both good for the reader and it's good for the producer. And I also think it conveys information, like, efficiently and quickly, which is as important for a journalistic sort of outfit like ourselves to do these days when we're competing against literally anything else that can take your attention.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

I think one of the things that we feel as people who make lists on the Internet, is that the making of a list requires a whole bunch of choices. And you feel that as a person producing a list, that you have to decide, like, what are the parameters of this list? How do I decide what's going to go on it? Because it cannot be eternal and fully comprehensive. And that the first comment on any list on the Internet will be, what about, where's X?

[Jeff O'Neill]

Yeah, where's X?

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Insert my favorite book here. How come it didn't make this? The necessary limits of list making can be really helpful for we're talking about books just from the 21st century so far, or we're talking about books around this theme. And then you get to trouble the lines of that a bit, which has been really interesting to see in the thrillers list, particularly like Jeff and I were talking on the Book Riot podcast about how we were surprised to see the Goldfinch by Donna Tartt make the list of best thrillers because it just doesn't fit our typical prescription for what a thriller is. But you all. You can also make a really good argument for that. And I wonder about, like, not just the ease and efficiency for consumers of list making, but on the production side, is that something that you're thinking about? It's helpful to have the limitations and the framework of a list.

[Gilbert Cruz]

I think so. First of all, even this thrillers project, which was sort of our attempt at a small mini canon, it was 50 instead of 100. It was almost 300 people we polled, as opposed to more than 500 people even that was just like such a huge lift. Like, this is a months long project. These things take a lot of time to produce. I think in terms of just to connect it to gatekeeping, this idea of gatekeeping as well. One of the things that we have found in the ways that we are producing these is it's sort of not just a list. Yeah, it's a list. But also we have a ballot page in which you can see how everyone, or not everyone, but many people who participated voted. And each of those is a tool for discovery in its own way. Some people like that stuff more than they like this list. Right. And then we have our reader list, which we will publish I think in a couple days, which we try to do with each of these, in which we let the readers of the New York Times say, actually, you were wrong. This is what we think is great. Right.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Nothing more satisfying.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Absolutely. We're like, we need a release valve. This is where people can say, you guys were full of BS. You know, on the 100 best books of the 21st century, 60 of the 100 on the reader's list were different than what was on the main.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Really interesting discrepancy, 60 books.

[Gilbert Cruz]

And the number one was quite different. And so while we have this sort of the main list and the main part of the project, there are so many different entry points that allow for so many different voices to be part of this, that it's not just the New York Times says this, it is the New York Times, but then the readers and Freedom McFadden and, you know, there are just so many different entry points that I feel like it sort of removes to me at least this idea that we are trying to, you know, be the definitive stamp on this thing. It's like that's a cacophony of voices here that we are organizing hopefully in a way that is pleasing to people.

[Podcast Sponsor Announcer]

People.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

And you can do it because you're the New York Times. And they'll answer your emails like Stephen King will answer your email.

[Gilbert Cruz]

That. That is a big part of it. It's like we. We have the access, we have the authority. Let us see what we can do with that.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Was there anything methodologically that changed between the initial list and this project of the thrillers? I mean, it sound. It looked to me like pretty much the same framework with. Scaled down a little bit in terms of number of books and the number of participants. Did Anything else change, Gilbert?

[Gilbert Cruz]

No. I mean, part of the thing, as we continue to do these, is really to try to keep the methodology as similar for all of these as possible. And the basic methodology is we send polls out, we send a ballot out to people. We say pick 10 things, we take those votes, and we count them with our partners at the upshot, which is sort of the data journalism wings of the New York Times. And that's pretty much it. We're not, like, we're not using editorial choices to move stuff.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Not putting your thumb on the scale,

[Gilbert Cruz]

because it'll make, you know, the number, the number 100 book on the 100 best books of the 21st century, which is the first book that people see. Because we do this, we roll it out over five days for the big lists, and in descending order was Tree of Smoke by Dennis Johnson. I looked at it, and I was like, shit, no one knows what this book is. It's gonna be the first book that they see. People are gonna bounce immediately, you know. But. So if I had my druthers, if this was a list that I was editorially, like, really messing around with, I would have been like, oh, let's make the Ann Patchett, which was number 99, number 100. That is word of fighting. And it'll bring people in. But we really are trying to stick to, like, we are taking in data in a very journalistic way, and we are collating that data, and then we are presenting that data. That data, in this case just happens to be books or movies or titles.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

I think you see that some in the thrillers list, where there's four Tana French books out of the 50. And maybe if you were curating, you would have gone, 4 is a lot out of 50 for one author to have. So let's mix it up in there. But this is just a reflection of the reality and of how good she is.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Absolutely. If you were making, you know, we've seen this in comments on this and in other projects. Why didn't you limit it to just one title per. It's like, well, because this is what people. Enough people liked all of these books that they just. We can't just, just. We can't just be like, no, only in the woods is it. All the other ones that you voted for are not valid. Like, if we were making it on our own, if it was me and a bunch of critics and editors doing on our own, we do whatever we want. But we're actually. The benefits of this approach also have limits in a certain way. And this is one of them. You know, definitionally, I think another thing that people have sort of been interested in discussing is like, what is a thriller? And we have taken a really backseat approach to this. We did the same thing with like, what does best mean if we're talking about the best book?

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Yeah. No guidance in that email because Jeff and I did get to participate in that poll and that was the hardest thing I did in 2024 for work was try to pick 10 best without any guidance about what best meant.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Yeah. So two thrillers, you can quibble with whether the Sympathizer or the Goldfinch is a thriller, but what this list is saying is that enough people of the 291 people that we polled thought on their own that these books were thrillers. Enough people thought that. That they made it onto the list list unprompted from us or anything like that.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

It's fascinating.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Yeah. It's a theory of canon that's not unlike a theory of language that is descriptive rather than pro. Skip. Proscriptive. Right. Rather than this is what a word should mean. This is how people actually use language. Right. So there's a version of list making which is a thriller means X or a romance special. You know, some of these other genres may have firmer boundaries right around them that you could use. But this is. All right, we're going to go out and we're going to describe the. The thriller is what people say a thriller is and they cannot be wrong. Right. That's sort of the idea is like, in aggregate, the people cannot be wrong about what thriller is, which is fascinating. Right. And I think that does ally some of the, as Rebecca said, warranted criticism of the canon, like, of its infallibility, you know, comes with the canonizations of Saints, for God's sake. Like that's. It comes like. It's like a scriptural, like divine thing. This is more. We're more polling people that has a reason to have a stake in the game and what they say goes. So it's not really. It's not really a critical enterprise, actually. Maybe the writing of the descriptions are a critical enterprise, but it is a journalistic or almost like a political sampling prospect at the same times. And there's trade offs to that. Like, where do you feel the trade off? Do you feel a trade off anywhere? Do you feel it in, like. Well, I'd really like to have a look for me, you know, not speaking for the times, but like, where do you feel the limits or the friction or the inconveniences of, of that descriptive approach.

[Gilbert Cruz]

I think a potential trade off might be less room for surprise. Right. One thing that is true if you rely on a single critic, let's say, or a group of critics to produce, to come to a consensus on what is and what is not great, is that you will always leave room for the idiosyncratic thing. Look at our. The Times also did the 30 greatest American living Songwriters.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

It was a really interesting list.

[Gilbert Cruz]

And that was, that was a list that, that was a project that was produced in a different way. It used some of what we do, which is polling people. But after that poll came in, a group of critics came together and then debated and put stuff on and took stuff off because they were trying to make an argument. They were not just reflecting journalistically in the way that we are. This is the data. They were saying actually Billy Joel sucks. I don't think this, please do not at me. I like Billy Joel. But they were saying, no, no, no, no, no, no Billy Joel. Even, even if a million of our readers think he's in the top five, no Billy Joel, but instead this person. Right. Critics or a critic can make an argument. Whereas what we are doing here, I think positively. But some can see it as a downside is reflecting an aggregate opinion. In this case it's an aggregate opinion of experts, which I think makes it more valuable than other aggregate opinions.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Yeah, that's probably where the critical intervention is, the selection of the pool of voters. Right. That's one way of mitigating altering the Goodreads effect that Rebecca and I talk about all the time. Because we look at a list of the Goodreads most popular books of X and it's usually uninteresting to us for what we do now as its other value. Right. As a data point. But you could probably, if you're going to put your thumb somewhere, it would be on the selection of people that you're offering the ability to, to vote. Right. Because I'm guessing there's not a lot of self published authors on the list.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Right.

[Jeff O'Neill]

I mean, I'm just guessing something like that. And there's a lot of thriller activity that happens throughout that. But that's a critical choice of like who X versus why and how we're going to do the sampling. Right?

[Gilbert Cruz]

Absolutely. I mean we, we, we want to pick people who are names, we want to pick people who are known to a lot of our readers, you know, and you know, the thing is we send out so many invites, you know, for books, for movies. I think we sent out over a thousand for thrillers here. We probably sent out over 500, maybe over 600. And even the New York Times can only control so much. They're just some people. And be like, I'm not doing that. Like, it doesn't matter how big a journalistic institution we are. There are just some people who are not going to participate. So there are people who are not going to participate. There are people who, try as you might, they're just not checking their emails or what have you. And so we really tried to, like, reach out to the biggest pool possible, and then we get who we get. And a further complication is there are some people who only participate if you keep their ballot private. And that complicates it a little bit because you go to this ballot page, you see all these wonderful people. Lee Child, essay, Cosby, Gillian Flynn. They're all like, yes, print my ballot. But then you have other people.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Gillian Flynn, who voted for herself, which I love.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Side note here. Let's normalize this.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Yes, I agree.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Let's normalize this.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

If you know you wrote the best thriller of the century so far, you should get to vote for yourself. Absolutely.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Yes. That is totally applicable in Flynn's case, even if you didn't. Yeah, yeah. Be proud of your work. There are a lot of people who voted in this who I tried to convince to make their ballots public. And because they voted for their own book, they're like, I just can't. And they wouldn't say why, but I think it's because they were a little embarrassed. And I understand that. But also, let's be proud of our work. It's okay to vote for your own.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Maybe you could just auto check. Maybe you just say, which of your books would you like to vote for? Rather than, there you go. You know, you sort of nudge them. You can use behavioral psychology to say, okay, you're going to vote for one

[Gilbert Cruz]

of your books, or we just don't. We say, you cannot vote for your own thing. Just a simple thought.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

No, you don't think they should get to. Again I ask, I would never ask you to name names out of school, but have you gotten pushback from people that you've asked to participate who have given, like, reasons or objections why they won't participate?

[Jeff O'Neill]

Oh, to the project. You mean, to the whole thing.

[Gilbert Cruz]

There are a precious few who are like, I don't think we should be ranking art in this way. And I was like, all right. Just. All right, good. Go be boring. I don't know what to say it's just like, that's just the silliest thing I've ever heard. Like, we do it all the time. It's fine. So yeah, I've heard a couple of that. There was one person who eventually ended up participating after an email exchange who was like, well, anything could be a thriller, so this is not valuable. And you know, we sort of oh,

[Jeff O'Neill]

the anything can be everything crowd. Yeah, that's a tough one to wrangle.

[Gilbert Cruz]

I was like, well, I don't know that I can totally convince you otherwise, but this is why I think this particular project is important and why there is actual, there's an actual frame that can be put around this, this genre or this broad genre in some way.

[Podcast Sponsor Announcer]

Today's episode is brought to you by Vault Comics and AAN Vault, the best in fantasy, science fiction and horror. Publisher of The Primal Hunter Volume 1 by Zogarth now, if you're looking to get into one of the best selling lit RPG progression fantasy series of all time that has more than 31 million views and over 350, 000 subscribers on webtoon, the Primal Hunter is what you need to get into. Where does it start? Well, it starts with a day like any other day where suddenly the world changes, the universe reaches a threshold humanity never knew existed, and it's time to finally be integrated into the vast multiverse, a place where power is the only thing anyone can truly rely on. Then there is Jake, a seemingly average office worker who unexpectedly finds himself thrust into a fantasy world teeming with dangers and opportunities. Rather than succumbing to fear, Jake thrives in this unfamiliar realm. As he navigates the expansive multiverse, his power grows and he transforms, evolving from a mundane office worker into a true Apex Hunter. Check out The Primal Hunter Volume 1 by Zogarth and thanks again to Vault Comics and Eighthan Volt for sponsoring this episode.

[Jeff O'Neill]

I just want to give you the space to process it, michael said. Elena paused.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

I don't think I want to see anybody else.

[Gilbert Cruz]

This is the love story of real

[Jeff O'Neill]

hinge couple Elena and Michael.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Written and read by me, Raven Smith.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Listen to the free audiobook now.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Strength is one of the most important investments in your long term health. That's why I love orangetheory Fitness. Every one hour orangetheory Workout helps you build muscle, burn fat and take control of your health. Guided by a coach every step of the way. No wondering what to do next, no intimidating gym floor. Just strength built for life. Visit orangetheory.com Spotify to learn more and get your first class free. Terms and conditions apply. See website and participating studio for details.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Yeah, yeah, because I think even, I think one thing that's emerging through this project and the durability of people's interest in a canon or a list or a group of works of art that are worth more attention for their own sake than everything. Like not every work is equally worth paying attention to. Right? I think we've come to understand that. Then what do you do? Is the answer. And I think what's so surprising to me is even as there's these caveats and there's fuzziness and trade offs, you look at one of these lists, a well made list, this and there's other well made lists out there and you're like, yeah, like that kind of checks out, right? Like very often, very infrequently. Am I looking at a list by something that's done with good intention and some kind of rigor either. Even if it's independent of a kind of rigor, they're like, you know what? That's a really interesting group of books that hold together, that's cohesive even with all the stuff about criticism and the fuzziness of genre and the vicissitudes of time. I think it's so fascinating that you look at one of these lists. You're like, yeah, that seems about right. And you haven't read everything. I've heard of some of these and I haven't heard of the other ones. I do think the thing I'm not sure how to reconcile with, and I was just thinking about this today because John Crowley just passed away and I don't think the Times is written a nobit which I found surprising. But maybe this is, this is proving the rule which Harold Bloom included him in his the Western Canon book that I read as a teenager a million years ago. And so I read Little Big by John Crowley, this really weird fairy book from 1983, and I'm like, that book ruled. And no one else has talked about it. But like the, the specificity of an individual nerd going like pointing with enough finger at that thing that is, I think, what we lost. And I don't know how you get that back. I don't know where that's gone. Gilbert.

[Gilbert Cruz]

I mean, it is, you know, ideally there are a few people out there on Bookstagram or Booktok or on YouTube who we can each encounter who are like, this person actually is truly introducing me to some stuff I don't know, as opposed to just rehashing the same titles over and over again. You know, hopefully we're all. We'll all be blessed to find that one person, you know, that works for us in the context of the things that we are doing here. I do think it is looking at those individual picks, like even Gillian Flynn's. She had one book on there, I can't remember what it was, or two books on there that I. I just had never heard of before. As soon as I saw them on her list, they weren't on the main list. I was like, what is this?

[Jeff O'Neill]

What is this?

[Gilbert Cruz]

Wow. This is like a supernatural detective story or something that takes place in London. That's interesting, right? A big part of this for me as a user, but hopefully for people who even spend 90 seconds with one of these projects is, have we introduced you to something you didn't know about? Did we remind you of something that you've always wanted to read? Totally forgot about. I find that to be very valuable. And, you know, we have this feature that started with the books list several years ago where you can say, I want to read it, or I've read it now on the Times app and on the Times website. You can go to your YouTube and sort of see the stuff that you've kept track of. Right? You can start keeping track of books that you want to read on the New York Times and then refer to it later. In the past week, we've seen tens of thousands of people save hundreds of thousands of titles of books that they want to read. It is incredible.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

You know, it's just a great innovation because I'm so tired of scrolling a long list trying to count in my brain how many of them I've read. Like, 100 is a lot to count through, or 50 is a lot to count through. And it's so nice to be like, yeah, there's my 22 out of the 50. And just anecdotally, like the. That's how many of the 50 best thrillers I had read. And I'm not a big thriller reader, so I think that that's one more piece of evidence that the attention coalesced around the ones that were so good they broke out of just like thriller circles and into mainstream reader, mainstream literary person circles to the place that I was familiar with them.

[Gilbert Cruz]

And I think it's interesting also to think of, if we're just talking about the thriller list here, this as sort of a, you know, practitioners love SA Cosby, right? He was. He was. He had the number eight book. He had the number 11 book. He had another book on there they love Tana French. There are these people that pop up over and over again. I'd be curious, once our reader list is published to see what the differences are. Are there other writers who have more like, I suspect, Stieglark title?

[Jeff O'Neill]

Are you gonna get a free to McFreedom McFadden? Are you gonna. Is that where you're gonna see just sort of. Because how many people have read those books in the last three years? Because that's an interesting thing.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Or are. Yeah, exactly. And so the difference between enthusiasts and practitioners. Obviously practitioners can be enthusiasts, but I think if you are, there's a world in which you're like, this person does my craft so well that I hold them in higher esteem than just the regular reader.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

This is how we. This is at least how I was taught to learn more about books and the universe of literature. Coming up before the Internet was a thing was like, read authors, see who they refer to. Like whose books do they talk about in interviews? Do they mention other authors and their acknowledgments? Read those people that influenced them. And then you just go down the wormhole of who influenced the people that influenced your favorite author. You know, like, yeah, Stephen King has influenced everybody. He comes up in so many zero to well read episodes from like Colson Whitehead, who's not doing anything similar to what Stephen King is doing, like a whole bunch of other modern authors. But if all those roads point to Stephen King, then I'm sure Stephen King's got a list of other people he loves that you can read and you can find it in this thrillers list.

[Gilbert Cruz]

He does. He does both of present day people and also the people that came before him that he references over and over again. Right. If everyone read Stephen King, then the people that Stephen King read were Shirley Jackson, Richard Matheson, Ray Bradbury, John MacDonald. You know, he has his people and there's this whole line of influence that continues to go down.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Yeah, it's like a lineage almost.

[Jeff O'Neill]

I don't know that I would have guessed, Gilbert, that thriller would be the first specialized list out of the gate. I don't know how much you can talk about the talking about that went into order of operations for other book lists. What was appealing to you all about prioritizing a thriller list?

[Gilbert Cruz]

Several things. So one, we thought we were going to publish in summer and thrillers summary. That's not the main reason though. But that was a factor. The main reason is that the New York Times has for decades, decades and decades and decades had a crime or thriller column. So The New York Times Book Review has monthly columns, thriller, historical fiction, romance, etc. In which we have one person mostly who's not on staff, although in thrillers they are on staff whose job it is to review three or four titles in a genre every single month. And the thriller column has been around for a very, very long time. Sarah Lyle, who's an amazing writer on staff now. And so there's just this idea that like there's a built up history of the New York Times covering this genre. We see by the numbers that whenever we publish one of these genres, the digital readership is pretty strong. And so those were sort of the two main factors as we were thinking about what are the different genres that we could start with. We could start with romance, historical fiction, science fiction, fantasy. But this was the one that felt like for our readership right now, given our history of covering the space for 50, 60, 70 years, like we feel like we can do it more.

[Jeff O'Neill]

More comfortable terrain. Yeah, that's interesting. Rebecca and I were talking on a recent BR pod about kind of the worm turning a little bit from romantasy to thrillers and the most popular books, the best selling books. And that seemed like auspicious timing, like, okay, we're kind of in a thriller moment. And then I do think there's something to the idea of institutional memory. But also the times has an association there. But I think when people are willing to. Because the thing I don't know people have kind of caught on to is that making a thriller list under this aegis is making an argument that thrillers are worth taking seriously. The genre is worth taking seriously. I guess my own thought, Rebecca, and I'm not sure we haven't talked about this like of the genres that are most likely to enter the regular canon or the the nor vanilla canon. I'm trying not to hierarchicalize here. I think sci fi goes first of the genre just historically because it tends to be more about ideas. Thriller I think is deeper. I think it's later on the list, historically speaking.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

I think that's right. I think that's right. Even just looking at the 45 books that we've covered on zero to well read so far. The ones that haven't been kind of straight up literary, if you divided them by genre, more of them have been out of science fiction than other genres. And that's of course not just like we're not doing a power ranking of titles. We're looking for a certain mix and a certain variety. But when I look at things that are Considered classics that happen to be genre. And you get Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 and the parable of the Sower. There of course are some classic mysteries. We could get into Agatha Christie. There are some classic thrillers. We might be talking about Stephen King on this show later in this season, but I think you're right there that science fiction, for whatever reason, like has crossed over to mainstream canonical status a little bit more. But thrillers are read, I think by more people. Like the sales numbers bear that out. And maybe part of that what's going on there is that there are just more thrillers. So it's harder for a thriller to break into classic status than other genres. What do you. I don't know. I'm guessing I'm pulling together a lot of threads here. Gilbert, what do you think about this theory?

[Gilbert Cruz]

I think, I think. I mean I'm. I buy totally that the, that the sci fi novel or the dystopian novel actually can be something that is. That has plot, that has character, but also has ideas that sort of stick, you know, that get incepted in your mind. And the thriller is just like it's a great time. And the best of them have memorable characters and memorable twists. It sets a mood, makes you uncomfortable or makes you comfortable given the generic conventions, but you're not thinking about humanity or something like that afterwards. There is also a sense in which part of why thrillers, I think always feel present is because you see them on the big and small screens as much as anything else. Like, you know, on this list of 50, at least half of them have been made into a movie.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Or this is probably the most adapted list. I did think about that.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Or recurring series. Right. It's just like there's something about sort of the plot heaviness of thrillers that make it perfect for screen adaptations. Whereas you can really screw up a great sci fi novel because when it

[Jeff O'Neill]

costs a lot of money, I mean, that's other thing a thriller, you know, a contemporary thriller. Like to take Gone Girl, which is the exception that proves the rule to a lot of cases. Like it's just a bunch of people in the suburb in suburban Missouri. Right. You can film that relatively. You could do a four part BBC series of a lot of these thrillers. Right. Because they're relatively, you know, relatively contained a few cast of characters, notably the action has largely already happened in a mystery kind of setting. So, you know, it's people walking around thinking things and putting things together, which makes it more attainable. At the same time, I was gonna think too, about. I don't know. And I haven't gone to look. But one thing that occurred to me is historically, we associate canon making with academia and thrillers, kind of bridging off Rebecca's point. Don't get taught. There's a recursive cycle. They don't get taught, so they're not in the canon, so they don't get taught. Like, I think that's part of what happens to them. But I didn't notice a lot. Did you? Have you reached out to academics? It doesn't seem like that's a notable, interesting pool of voters for you all.

[Gilbert Cruz]

No, not in this project. I believe with the 100 best books of the 21st century, we did reach out to some academics. With all due respect to academics, oftentimes it's just I find they can be the ones that are most resistant to participating in something like this. It doesn't feel serious enough in some way.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Sure.

[Gilbert Cruz]

You know, when I was in college, I took a mystery, mystery novel class with a professor who now is one of the book reviewers at npr, Maureen Corrigan. And she introduced me to just a bunch of writers that I'd never heard before. I think you can find it, stuff like this in academia in pockets. But there's a way in which the word canon now has achieved escape velocity. Right. It's no longer. It's no longer limited to the world of academia. Like, as I said, we find it in the world of fandom. People just use it in everyday. That's. That's canon. That's canonical. Like, it is a thing that you just use to refer to something that is good, that is great, that is all time. One of the things we don't want to be is to feel overly academic. It just feels like that is whether for good or ill. One of my best friends is a professor that feels like it can keep people at a distance more than it invites them in. And one of the things we're trying to do is reach the biggest audience with each of these.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Yeah. Well, nothing is more inviting than here's a list. Tell us how we're wrong.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Yeah. Yeah. It's really fun to go into the comments, which we really try to do, and just grit your teeth as you respond with grace. No, this is the 21st century. That is why there are no Agatha Christie novels out here. Yeah.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Just to go back to a point you were making a moment ago about thrillers and how the genre maybe is thought of as being mostly about, like, hewing to the conventions, solving the mystery, doing something that people are comfortable with. But notably, like Gillian Flynn and Gone Girl, that is a book about ideas. That's a thriller. That's not just about the solving of the thing. And I wonder if that really contributes to how that book ends up at the top of it, that the best books in any genre are the ones that do both the genre conventions that people are looking for, but also elevate into a place of also being about ideas.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Yeah. I think when you find a work that can combine plot, character, theme, and a little soupcon of ideas like that, that's the cream that's gonna rise to the top. Right. I think that's part of the reason that you see Essa Cosby, for example, so well represented, because he is combining place, character, plot, theme, and a thing that, you know, a lot of people don't write about, which is like race in class in America.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Yeah. Those books read like they're on rails and they're about something. And what more do you want from any reading experience, really?

[Jeff O'Neill]

It's so fascinating, too, to think about how there wasn't a lot of overlap between this list and the initial list. I mean, I don't. Was there. Was there any overlap?

[Gilbert Cruz]

No, I. Actually, we were. When we did the initial list, we were quite surprised that we. Gone Girl was not. I voted for Gone Girl as someone who participated in that ballot and just didn't appear. And that was, frankly, part of the reason why we did this. We saw an opportunity. We said, we have this Great list of 100 books that were published this century. They're all great. A lot of them are what we would refer to as literary fiction. We know that a lot of people read books that are not literary fiction.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Most people read books that are not literary.

[Gilbert Cruz]

All right, fine. I'll let you say it. We know a lot of people that read the New York Times read books that are not classified as literary fiction. And a lot of those books are good. And so, while not trying to undermine our list of 100 books of the 21st century, we know that when people read in genre, they read deeply. And we wanted to sort of tap that knowledge, passion, and expertise to really go into something like thrillers. This is. It was an experiment. I think it was a successful one. But we wanted to see if we broke off a genre, if we made it smaller, if we really focus, would there still be interest? And I think. I think there was.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

I think you did, too.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Last question from me is, how often can you go back to The. Well, do you think, do you think this is an every decade project per genre? Like, because this is going to evolve and change over time. Right. One thing I noticed in the. And I'll be super curious to see you on the thriller companion of the reader's picks. The reader's picks were tended to be much more recent across the board. We can speculate about reasons. Or you could put the other way is that the critics pick or the influencers pick or the smaller pool pick was more biased towards historical works, however you want to put it. I'd be curious to see if something happens with thrillers, but I wonder how often these things change. Right? I'll be curious to see because one thing that you guys are going to do or have the ability to do if you choose to do it, is to do like that core sampling of like what's going on in the glacier by drilling down every now and again and seeing how it changes. Have you thought about that?

[Gilbert Cruz]

It is one of the things that I plan to think about.

[Jeff O'Neill]

You thought about that? That's all I'm asking.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Yes. I mean it is. You know, you look at the sight and sound list that is done every 10 years. Something that I've been reading since I was a teenager. They do that every 10 years. You see stuff radically change.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Radically.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Not only, not only because of time, but because of the pool. They've reached out to more and more people every year, just like the Academy has added more and more people every year. And so the type of picture that wins best picture continues to evolve. You know, I don't think we are planning here on like a decade time frame. A lot of shit is happening very quickly. Stuff is changing very fast. And so, yeah, we are going to update these. I don't think it's going to be every decade. It might be on a shorter time frame, but maybe. But that is something that is unproven and that we need to really give some.

[Jeff O'Neill]

I mean, I'm telling you, right. I mean I don't need to tell you the best thrillers of the decade would, would, would rip. That would work. You know, if you do it one, if you do it that way now again, that would be towards just that decade. But you don't maybe have to go every time. Gilbert, thank you so much. Oh, Rebecca, anything else? I was, I was about to get us out of here.

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Oh no, we got all my questions. I got it all out there. Thank you, Gilbert.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Thank you.

[Jeff O'Neill]

Gilbert's going to be joining us for a regular episode in the not too distant future. I'll give the readers readers listeners a couple hints. One is my least favorite genre and

[Gilbert Cruz]

two it's going to be fun.

[Jeff O'Neill]

I feel like any it's my anything else I feel like I'm gonna triangulate it too easy I'm not gonna give that's your two hints are that hint your two hints are if I gave you another hint it would be too easy to guess. Does that count?

[Rebecca Schinsky]

Can I you can sit down without Gilbert and I will just have a party without you. It's fine.

[Jeff O'Neill]

No, I'm looking forward to it. I'm looking forward to it but it's it's a genre that I don't read a lot of. Gilbert Cruz, Canon Editor of the New York Times if you've got a beef you now know that if you leave a comment someone there is looking at it. So be sure be kind but you can be fulsome in your feedback for them. Gilbert, thank you so much for joining us.

[Gilbert Cruz]

Thanks, Jeff. Thanks, Rebecca.