Wish they had a dedicated RSS feed for just the bestseller list updates. That would be peak efficiency. Until then, manual checks to latimes.com it is. Bookmark the specific page, not just the main site, to save a click.
The poetry bestseller lists, when they exist, are fascinating. A poet hitting the NYT list is a rare event, usually tied to a moment of cultural tragedy or a celebrity poet. The LA Times list might, in theory, be more open to a popular local poet or a small press sensation because of its regional focus. But poetry sales are so often at readings and through direct-to-reader channels that both lists probably miss the true picture entirely. The 'bestseller' framework might be fundamentally ill-suited for some art forms.
I miss the days when a truly weird, experimental novel could become a bestseller. Does that ever happen now? Or is everything too polished and market-tested? The list feels safer than it did in the 70s or 90s.
They probably have different lists for different formats—hardcover fiction, paperback nonfiction, etc.—and each has its own selection pool. A mass market paperback thriller isn’t competing against a glossy hardcover art book. This segmentation is part of the process. It ensures a diversity of books can make the cut. The editors have to oversee each of these mini-competitions every week, ensuring each list is a valid representation of its category’s sales landscape.
I’m just here because I saw the question and realized I have no idea. I mostly get book recs from friends or random internet deep dives. Lists feel a bit formal for me, but maybe I’m missing out.
So I end up reading a lot of their longer-form reviews. They have this distinct voice—not quite snobby, but definitely coming from a place where literature is taken seriously as an art form. I’ve noticed they often dissect a novel's political or social ambitions, especially with historical fiction or literary thrillers. It's less 'is this a fun read?' and more 'what does this book attempt to say about our current moment, and does it succeed?'
For example, their review of 'The Candy House' by Jennifer Egan was less about the sci-fi concept and more about its commentary on memory and data privacy. They praised its structural ingenuity but questioned whether the emotional core was as strong as in 'A Visit from the Goon Squad.' That's typical for them: placing a new book within the author's entire body of work and the broader literary conversation.
They're also not afraid to be critical of popular darlings. I recall a review of a Colleen Hoover book that was essentially a cultural analysis of why her novels resonate, while being pretty clear that they weren't endorsing the prose. It’s a useful counterbalance to the sheer volume of five-star fan reviews on retail sites. You go to the Times for the 'why,' not just the rating.