Book Scene: The Globe Top 100 List

I've never understood the point of wanting major newspapers to make a quasi-political statement with their lists. That's not what newspapers do in this day and age; it's not their function. When they put together a list of books they feel you should look at, chances are good those books will have been given stellar reviews (the thought that they would promote a book that slipped through the cracks is interesting, but the fact that it slipped through the cracks probably means nobody in the office really cares) because, if nothing else, putting a book on the list that didn't get a good review is tantamount to changing their position or declaring a lack of faith in their review staff.

To expect a major paper to be genuinely egalitarian is to be naive of how major papers operate. And while I agree that there are often mid-list books or smaller presses that don't get the attention they deserve, my experience has been that in most cases, they stay mid-list for a reason.

If poetry is dead, I definitely have the wrong hobby.

By the way, some good reads on the NYT 100 notable books of the year.

I find that by and large, bestsellers are crap. (Da Vinci Code? Ok for a beach read but hardly worthy of the bazillions it's raked in). Why shouldn't the book section of a newspaper provide something more insightful?

As to what is the purpose of a newspaper? Dissertations could be written, but by and large, I'd say it's to inform , and/or present informed opinions on a variety of current topics/events/happenings.

I never said I expected the list to be egalitarian, politically correct, etc.

It's just a shame that it isn't.

This list is hardly simply regurgitating best-sellers (and it's interesting that your own example won the Booker, and was *not* of Da Vinci Code calibre).

I suppose the question becomes, what do you want from the only national paper in the country that continues to run a books section at all? They will not *ever* spotlight local or small-run books, because, despite all appearances to the contrary, they are not a Toronto paper, and as someone who spent most of their life living in parts of the country other than Southern Ontario, it's safe to say that an enormous percentage of their readership would not have access to those books if they did.

What would qualify as insightful?

There's no listed criteria for what qualifies as a top book, but given that it's a national paper I'd say that good sales and reviews plus national availability would be good places to start.

As for egalitarianism and political correctness, well, there's no room for that in art. If you're recommending me a book because of the author's ethnicity, sexual organs, or income bracket (which seems the common cry among many who view such lists with disdain) you are doing both myself and the author a disservice; you are insulting the author by refusing to deal with the book based on its merits, and causing me irritation by suggesting that I waste my time reading a book that you don't even feel confident enough in to recommend me based on those merits.

The list may perhaps be dull, but it reflects a process, however flawed, based on a criteria of merit. That merit may not even be artistic, but rather financial in nature, I don't particularly care. Sales are far more valid than what the author has between their legs or how much melanin is in their skin, as neither those nor similar factors reflect the quality of the book in even oblique ways.