Tina Jordan, the deputy editor of the New York Times Book Review, recently appeared on KPBS Midday Edition to discuss a curated list of the 50 best thrillers of the 21st century. The conversation detailed the essential components of the genre and the wide-reaching collaborative effort used to select the titles.
The 50% ballot return rate for the NYT's top thrillers
The process of selecting the 50 best thrillers of the 21st century was designed to be a democratic exercise in literary taste. according to the KPBS report, the New York Times Book Review reached out to a diverse array of industry professionals, including librarians, bookstore owners, editors, podcasters, and authors, to solicit their votes. this inclusive approach ensured that the final list reflected a broad spectrum of perspectives rather than a narrow editorial preference.
One of the most striking aspects of this curation process was the level of engagement from the literary community. As reported by KPBS, the New York Times Book Review saw a 50% return rate on the ballots sent out, a surprisingly high figure that suggests a deep passion for the thriller genre among professionals. This high participation rate lends significant weight to the list's legitimacy as a representative snapshot of the century's most impactful suspense fiction.
Propulsive writing and the broad umbrella of the thriller
During the interview, Tina Jordan described the thriller genre as a "broad umbrella" that covers a vast array of storytelling styles. This umbrella encompasses everything from high-stakes spy thrillers and gritty police procedurals to the more intimate settings of cozy mysteries and psychological thrillers. By framing the genre this way, Jordan highlights how the thriller is less a rigid set of rules and more a shared emotional goal: creating tension and anticipation.
Regardless of the sub-genre, Jordan argues that a truly great thriller relies on specific technical strengths. The New York Times Book Review editor emphasized that propulsive writing, unexpected plot turns, and well-executed twists are the non-negotiable elements of the form. These tools are what transform a standard mystery into a thriller, shifting the focus from a simple "whodunnit" to a high-pressure race against time or a psychological battle of wits.
From Agatha Christie to literary fiction crossovers
The influence of the thriller extends far beyond the dedicated genre section of a bookstore. Tina Jordan noted that the hallmarks of the thriller—suspense and pacing—are frequently integrated into literary fiction and historical fiction. This trend reflects a broader shift in modern publishing where the boundaaries between "high art" and "genre fiction" are increasingly blurred, allowing authors to use thriller mechanics to elevate complex character studies or historical narratives.
Jordan's own affinity for the genre began in childhood, sparked by the works of Agatha Christie. This connection to the "Queen of Crime" underscores the enduring legacy of the classic mystery and how it paved the way for the 21st-century iterations found on the New York Times Book Review list. The transition from Christie's structured puzzles to the more fluid,psychological tension of modern thrillers marks the evolution of the genre over the last century.
Which specific titles made the New York Times Book Review's top 50?
While the KPBS segment provides a fascinating look at the methodology and philosophy behind the list, it leaves seeral concrete details unaddressed. Most notably, the report does not name any of the specific books or authors that earned a spot on the list of the 50 best thrillers of the 21st century. Readers are left wondering which "newer writers" were hgihlighted alongside the classics and which specific titles were deemed the most propulsive by the voters.
Furthermore, the source does not clarify the specific criteria used to differentiate between a "great" thriller and a merely "popular" one. While the New York Times Book Review involved a diverse group of voters , the exact weighting of those votes—whether a professional critic's ballot carried more weight than a podcaster's—remains unknown.
Comments 0