In doing behind-the-scenes work on Literary Kicks' book pricing discussion, I have recently spent some time paying attention to things that would normally fly right by me. One being The New York Times Book Review bestseller lists.

Crain's New York Business recently reported NYTBR's intended split of its paperback fiction list into two parts: trade and mass market.

Earlier today, I finally had a chance to take a look at the revamped lists and immediately noticed the appearance of Richard Powers's The Echo Maker at number 20 on the new trade paperback list. Despite having won the 2006 National Book Award and recently being released in paperback, it was nowhere to be found last week and obviously benefited from the change.

Although viewed by Crain's as a move to increase ad revenue, New York Entertainment's Vulture Blog has this take:

TBR editor Sam Tanenhaus points out that the addition of a trade paperback fiction list means that more books that are actually reviewed in the Times will appear on the best-seller lists. Meaning, of course, literary fiction, not that shameful mass-market pop-fiction crap that the American people keep insisting on buying in large quantities. Good for the Times for making a bestseller list that keeps the riffraff out!

Oh, go fark your sarcasm, Vulture Blog. Some people wouldn't mind having a barometer of what's worth reading in paperback besides "mass-market pop-fiction crap." I'm not a book snob (Well, maybe just a little.) and have nothing against genre since I read my fair share of mysteries, thrillers, and romance. But if you've been through one Bourne installment, you've been through them all. And—before fans send hate email—I also have nothing against Robert Ludlum even though he's the Tupac Shakur of commercial fiction.

The new trade paperback bestseller list is a good thing for books. It will surely bring attention to worthwhile reads that might otherwise be buried under the massive sales of James Patterson's latest thriller he didn't write.