NYT Best Books of the Year (So Far) and Their Enhanced Genre Coverage

The New York Times Books section just released their 2026 Best Books of the Year (So Far) (gift link). I love a few things about this list and all of it comes from the NYT Books sections concerted effort to be more inclusive of all types of books and reading experiences.

First, the list is focused NOT on the quality of writing alone. Yes that matters, but they have proclaimed the mission statement for how they chose these books in the subtitle for the article: "The nonfiction and novels we can't stop thinking about." This statement makes it clear that the reader's experience matters.

Second, and related, in the past, the NYT would pride themselves on picking the most obscure books. It was their badge of honor. The staff of the section has had a major overhaul in the last few years and the results are showing. The NYT Books section and their lists are serious about connecting readers with the best books for them, full stop. And in fact, obscure is now seen as a bad choice, unless the writers believe it has a wide appeal that has been overlook by others.

Third, and also related, there are genre titles here, and more than one token choice. Genre works can be among the best even when considered across all literature. And this list has genre titles, books that have long queues at your library right now. The inclusion of more genre in the NYT best lists is directly correlated to their increased genre coverage in general. I wrote about this, here, in February when the NYT released their Romance glossary. And then last week, they added a Fantasy column to their regular rotation of Sunday Book Review section genre coverage. They are now regularly covering the most popular genres in fiction and nonfiction, and that coverage has led to the best of those books being added to overall best lists. Knowledge matters. If they are paying writers to cover genre titles, obviously the cream will rise to the top and the very best will be allowed to break through into the over all best conversation, a fact we know well at libraries.

Fourth, the list is not huge. It is focused. If someone wanted to read them all, they could. And they have been adding a feature throughout all of their lists that takes advantage of the fact that many people have a digital subscription to the NYT now. You can click to say you have read a book or that you want to read it and it will be saved in your account. All of this encourages people to find a book that they will actually read. And get ready, because they will come to us to get their copy to read. This is why I have included gift links, so even if you do not have access, you can see these lists.

And I think that is the final thing to say here. The NYT used to be focused on telling us about books you would probably never read. Sure they'd throw readers a bone or two over the course of the year, but they absolutely did not prioritize the reader. Not any more. Now, they want you to read the books they are reviewing, they are covering them and including a wide swath of titles to encourage you to give more titles a try, and they are slowly re-building trust with lists that SHOW they care about all types of books and readers.

With the closing of many newspaper sections that had serious coverage of books, the NYT actively trying to fill in all the gaps. Most libraries have digital access to the paper. Please make sure you are using their Books coverage as one of your regular resources, especially if you haven't visited in a while. And get ready for all of the titles mentioned in their Books coverage (especially the genre and best coverage) to lead to longer holds queues.