This almost slipped by me. As 2009 drew to a close, The New York Times posted two annual lists. First, its list of 100 Notable Books and then its 10 Best Books of 2009. 5 Fiction. 5 Nonfiction. It’s a pretty good distillation of the better works published last year. But enough about ’09. What’s coming in 2010? The Millions has previewed the most anticipated books (all fiction) set for publication this year.
Looking for more good reads? Check out the collection of Life Changing Books assembled by our readers.
The New York Times finally got it right. I just read “The Liquid City” by Curtis J Hopfenbeck and it was touted to be…funny, smart, suspenseful and uplifting. The wittiest and most compelling story-telling and character development I’ve read in years. As a woman, I finally got a chance to laugh, cry and fall in love all in the same book. As far as I’m concerned, The Liquid City is the best book of the decade! And the author is equally as compelling…Wink! Wink!
I agree whole-heartedly. The Liquid City by Curtis J Hopfenbeck was the most fun I’ve had reading a book in decades. Just when I thought all the great American Humorists were deceased, Hopfenbeck gives me faith once more in the literary regeneration that is Fiction. If you love smart, funny, tough, fast-paced fiction then this is the best book you’ll ever read. Finally, a book that isn’t about violence, human woe or vampires. Just an extremely well-written ride down the humor/mystery avenue! This is one time when the critics are correct… The Liquid City is the best fiction of the year!
If you want a list of good books in 2010 you should check this http://blog.bitlogic.biz/2011/01/best-books-2010/
There is much praise for Liquid City to be found online. On the strength of this, I ordered some sample chapters from Amazon … and was aghast at how bad the writing was. This seems to be a terrible book, badly written, cliched and clumsy. So what gives? I suspect the author is engaged in writing as many words in support of his horrible book as he used to pen it.
Oh yes, re: the above comment, none of the author’s citations checks out, either — GQ, NYT etc. A silly con job, I fear