It’s that time of year again, when everyone creates their lists of best “whatever” of 2006. The New York Times announced theirs last night. Frankly I found their list underwhelming (Absurdistan? Really?). The Christian Science Monitor has both a non-fiction and a fiction list. I’m sure over the next few weeks everyone else will be releasing their lists. I’ll try to keep you informed. Mostly I like looking at them to remind me of books, but I mostly find the exercise silly. How do they matter really? They’re arbitrary and subjective. Perhaps that’s the point. Regardless, the lists will keep on coming.
Bookdwarf
Come fall into a book hole!
Bookdwarf 
You quote ‘Absurdistan’ as the underwhelming part of the list? I think it was the only daring pick. Reading the rest of it made me fall asleep. No Powers? Pynchon? One of the best NYTBR reviews for the entire year was for ‘Against the Day,’ and somehow it misses the list. No Fiasco? Hempel? That was a reprint. Not one book from a small press. Not one book that was translated. Not one book that wasn’t labeled as such all year long (besides ‘Absurdistan,’ which was great.) Entirely predictable, entirely forgettable.
LikeLike
I don’t mind them. They don’t mean anything beyond possible recommendations. And they’re fun to read (and make).
LikeLike
Ok, CS’s fiction list was even more boring than NYTBR’s if that’s humanly possible.
LikeLike
The ‘boring list’ seems to be the theme this year. No one is in a daring mood, at least among the gatekeeping publications. Hopefully someone decides to be interesting before the year is out, or I’ll start falling asleep reading their daily reviews.
LikeLike
I just didn’t like Absurdistan, but that’s not the reason I think the list is lame. I found all of the books boring for the same reasons you all list. They seemed to leave off a lot this year.
And Imani, you’re right. The CSM’s list is so-so too.
Why are all the lists so boring? It’s not like there weren’t some great books published?
LikeLike