I was going to follow my tradition of posting lots of meaningless wibble just before my final exam, in the form of 10 top 10s for 2009, or better yet, the entire decade.
…And then I actually looked at some of the top 10 lists out this year, and aside from these two lists about books, they were all pretty shotty. And TIME this one would probably win anyway. Which brings me to:
The problem with best-of book lists.
Looking at the last decade, I’m automatically discounting any list that doesn’t mention The Original of Laura, even though it is not technically a book (for the year or the decade, Nabokov wins). Or Middlesex, because it is so awesome, or American Gods, which I cannot believe was published only in 2001 because it seems as if it has existed forever. (Let’s name seven more: The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, White Teeth, the complete Harry Potter series, Fun Home, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime, Thinking with Type). (And that’s not even counting the ones that are undoubtedly wonderful that I haven’t gotten to yet, like Orynx and Crake, or The Road, or anything Jonathan Safran Foer has ever written).
This means that there are very few lists to actually choose from, and I’m not even including issues of gender scandal or debates around author nationalities.
And what value is there, really, to listing off “best books”? The list above is 100 per cent subjective and based entirely on whim (except for the Nabokov. And Michael Chabon. And – see?). The way you experience a book is subjective. Making a list of the best books more or less depends on having read them all from an objective standpoint while giving equal time to appreciate each, and if you can read that quickly and thoughtfully, I’d like to talk to you about an eyeball/brain transplant.
Even apparently objective criteria is problematic. Seamus Heaney’s translation of “Beowulf” was arguably an essential text that provided an up-to-date verse version of a classic work – but it was hardly promoted on the talk show circuit. Should bestsellers count? The Twilight series was hardly a model for literary achievement, but it sold well and arguably influenced pop-culture, but also, gross. Do you consider poetry? (I would say no, but I am biased). Or non-fiction? The way that people interact with something like No Logo or Fast Food Nation has very little to do with the way they interact (or fail to interact) with something by John Updike. Genre is ultimately an issue, since comparing steampunk to erotica to a cookbook results in very little common ground (though no doubt somewhere there is a book that fits into each of those genres, and it is no doubt awesome). And how does a novel compare against an anthology? A travel guide against a self-effacing memoir that turned out to be fiction? The best book in the world for the under two crowd against Going Rogue?
The issue isn’t even comparing apples and oranges. It’s comparing apples and spaceships. If apples were also capable of going to the moon.
To illustrate by example how unrelated lists about books can be, the following is an example of reinvisioning movement in public spaces via wearing a wicked suit covered in wheels, set to a remix of Kanye West’s “Stronger.” Please observe the causal illustration of the term “non-sequitur.”
Amazing as always