A good read about a young woman's struggle to adjust to an arranged marriage and immigrating to a new country, the USA.

this is totally the year of beauty and the beast!!!!

I don't understand why some people are rating ACOWAR before they've read it? Am I missing something - not meaning to sound like a (swear word) :)

The system found and removed 1 duplicate.

How do the books get chosen for this list? Im surprised by some on and off.

Janee_dark&eroticreads4me wrote: "How do the books get chosen for this list? Im surprised by some on and off."
The person that invents the list puts his or her favorites on to start it rolling, and writes the title and parameters as a subscript to tell us what is allowed and what isn't. After that, anyone can add a title. Above the list and slightly to the right, there's a tab that says "Add Books to This List." When you click that, your own list of shelves becomes available to you on the left.

Some lists--and happily, this is one--have an automatic system that lets you know which of the books you've listed on your shelves are eligible (first published in 2017) and which are not, so that you don't vote for a book that doesn't qualify. For those that read advance copies for review, there is a bit of a lag time before we can vote for books about to be published, but otherwise it works well.

Removing books from the lists can be done by librarians. We are volunteers. There are strict rules, however, and anyone that thinks to remove a title because they dislike the choice rather than because it falls outside the list's parameters--in this case, if a book first published in an earlier year snuck in, for example, I could remove it--can lose her membership; we are a careful lot. We can also have the system check for duplicates on some, but not all of the lists. (Don't even ask; it's a sore spot for many of us!)

The rest is mostly democratic. People vote for the titles they like in their order of preference, so your very favorite book of 2017 (so far) gains 100 points in the total votes; second choice 99, and so on down to 1 lonely point if you use all 100 votes. I have read more than one book based on its tendency to linger at the top of a lot of these lists. Were it not for Listopias (though not this one), I would probably never have read The Glass Castle.

A list in progress the way this one is proves especially interesting, because as more excellent books are published, I revisit my votes, demoting some titles on my current list in order to bump up my new favorites to the places I believe they rightfully deserve. By the end of the year, the list will be a lot meatier and more interesting.

So go for it. If you don't see books you like, go ahead and add the ones you think deserve to be here. If you get excited about the chance to promote a book or two that you aren't seeing publicized, invite friends to vote. I find these lists to be a strangely relaxing form of recreation, which is how I come to be typing this at 12:33 AM.

Go ahead and give it a shot. You only live once. It's free. If you decide later you don't want your choices posted, it's easy to remove a whole set of votes with one click of your button. What could possibly go wrong (wince). But seriously, these are just pure fun. Nobody gets rich off them, and it's fun to see your favorites ascend.

I would like this list a lot more if it had less of those dime-a-dozen chick-lit romances with shirtless dudes on the front and innuendo-y titles.

Margeau wrote: "I would like this list a lot more if it had less of those dime-a-dozen chick-lit romances with shirtless dudes on the front and innuendo-y titles."
I tend to agree. The only way I know to alter it is by voting for really good books of 2017, and by adding the good ones that aren't here yet. Romance and erotica are the vogue right now, which is irritating to those of us that prefer other types of literature. Sooner or later people will get sick of it, and then it will be something else, hopefully something more appealing to cranky Boomer women like me.

Donna wrote: "The system found and removed 1 duplicate."

Can you do a duplicates check again? I tried and it wouldn't work for me.

Lobstergirl wrote: "Donna wrote: "The system found and removed 1 duplicate."

Can you do a duplicates check again? I tried and it wouldn't work for me."
Apparently I cannot either, at least not tonight. Drat. I will try again after the weekend has ended.

Pamela wrote: "I wanted to add a couple books, both were published in 2017 - and not prior - however, it wouldn't allow it, saying it wasn't published in 2017. One in particular is: [book:And Then You're Dead: Wh..."

I can see your point. There are no other editions listed. I have had this happen before and have given up; sometimes I come back later and find the system has caught up with itself in some way and I can add them.
This is not particularly helpful, I realize, apart from that misery loves company. My only possible solution is for you to take this issue to the super-librarians (actual employees, apart from us humble volunteers) on the librarians' thread. That said, since Amazon purchased GR, the listopia has become a low priority, and it may take awhile (or forever) for someone to get back to you. There are elements out there that are dying to make all of these lists finite, along the lines of "Pulitzer winners" or (*shudder*) Amazon employees' top 20. This sort of threat makes me uncharacteristically timid; I want to protect the ability of all GR readers to add books to lists, and to start new ones.
I hope this is helpful in some measure.

Note: in addition, The Half-Life of Remorse; Amish Guys Don't Call; and Watching the Detective all show up as not published in 2017, and all were published for the first time in spring 2017. This doesn't even account for the myriad strong DRCs that I can usually add to a listopia, but cannot enter here. *sulking*

Check duplicates is still broken. I don't know why, since the bug normally kicks in on lists much larger and with many more voters than this.

Can someone report this bug in the Feedback and Librarians Group? I would except I've been banned from both.

Pamela wrote: "I wanted to add a couple books, both were published in 2017 - and not prior - however, it wouldn't allow it, saying it wasn't published in 2017. One in particular is: [book:And Then You're Dead: Wh..."

You should report that in Feedback Group as a bug. It definitely appears to be a bug as the book's listed publish year is clearly 2017.

Lobstergirl wrote: "Check duplicates is still broken. I don't know why, since the bug normally kicks in on lists much larger and with many more voters than this.

Can someone report this bug in the Feedback and Librar..."

Broken still.

Lobstergirl wrote: "Pamela wrote: "I wanted to add a couple books, both were published in 2017 - and not prior - however, it wouldn't allow it, saying it wasn't published in 2017. One in particular is: [book:And Then ..."

lol why were you banned"?