RESUBMITTED Best Book of the Decade?

USA Today had an article in it with the best books of 2000 to 2009. As you probably guessed Twilight had some spots, as well as the ever bestselling Harry Potter. And, shockingly, Twilight came in first, followed with New Moon at fourth and Eclipse at ninth.

What do you think? Should Twilight have been the top book of the decade? Does it surprise you, due to sales around Breaking Dawn, that it isn't on the list? How about all of the Harry Potter books (save Prisoner of Azkaban) claiming top spots? Should they have come first, or last? And Deathly Hallow's space on the list? (Seventh, although fitting).

Article:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2009-12-23-bk-decade_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

List:
1. Twilight (Stephenie Meyer)
2. The Da Vinci Code (Dan Brown)
3. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (JK Rowling)
4. New Moon (Stephenie Meyer)
5. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (JK Rowling)
6. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (JK Rowling)
7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (JK Rowling)
8. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (JK Rowling)
9. Eclipse (Stephenie Meyer)
10. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (JK Rowling)

I really dont think it should have been number one. Although its a really good book, it definitley shouldnt have been number one, there are other books that were better.

definately should not have been number one. don't get me wrong it's a fun book but I don't consider it to be a work of art or breath-takingly genious at all.

scottishtwilightfan wrote:

definately should not have been number one. don't get me wrong it's a fun book but I don't consider it to be a work of art or breath-takingly genious at all.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I guess it depends on how you define 'top'...

Personally, I can say with little doubt that there are no other books that I read more times than the Twlight Series this past decade...and maybe even beyond that. Even though there are other books that are my all-time favorites, I think that says a lot.

They are my favorite comfort food, so I'm okay with honoring them as some of the top books of the decade.

I have read all of those books, most recently The Da Vinci Code. I loved them all. My most read is probably the Half-Blood Prince, or another HP book, but Twilight has been read quite often.

I just don't think that a book like Twilight is the best book. It's fluffy and a fun read, but when you compare it alongside the Da Vinci Code, which is an insanely intelligent thriller, Twilight falls short. (In my opinion). Yes, it's good, but those other books on the list (and hundreds not listed) took so much more time and effort and research, and are better pieces of literature. (Again, my opinion.) I'm not dissing Twilight, it's just that it seems really shallow and silly compared to many other books.

It scares me that Twilight is top. In my opinion, it should be beaten by a lot of books, especially all Harry Potters. It's crazy to conceive that Twilight would be considered bigger than Harry Potter. Harry was a phenomenom; Twilight is a fad.

Twilight is good but not great. Can you imagine historians studying our time period and looking at this list? Goodness gracious.

Missy Skywalker wrote:

It scares me that Twilight is top. In my opinion, it should be beaten by a lot of books, especially all Harry Potters. It's crazy to conceive that Twilight would be considered bigger than Harry Potter. Harry was a phenomenom; Twilight is a fad.

Twilight is good but not great. Can you imagine historians studying our time period and looking at this list? Goodness gracious.

Yes, indeed. Twilight has been starting to um, scare me too.