i’m in a fight with the new york times
they don’t know
maybe you’re already actively jacked into the book world and have heard a million opinions about the nyt 100 best books of the century so far. maybe you don’t want to hear one more goddamn opinion about the nyt 100 best books of the century so far. but just in case you do, here’s mine.
it’s garbage. it’s garbage and the editors should be fucking embarrassed.
this isn’t about the books that are on the list. well, it isn’t about most of the books that are on the list. (certainly the list contains more female authors, authors of color, and books in translation than I would have expected.) no, it’s about the curation of the list—or, i should say, the absolute lack of curation.
here’s what they should have done. it’s not a complete list, but it is all stuff that i thought of in about ten minutes, which should add pretty severely to the embarrassment of the editors who couldn’t come up with this for their job.
the list should have come out a year from now. books from january 1, 2000 to december 31, 2024 would actually cover the first quarter century, and they could have used the first half of 2025 to issue and collect ballots and spend several months curating a list from those ballots. there’s no reason for it to be a democracy. the most votes should only be one consideration. (and truly, when has the new york times ever cared about democracy?)
the new york times employs incredible authors to write their romance and sff columns. why were their recommendations not considered crucial? there is not a single romance title on the list despite romance outselling every other genre, and the sff titles that made the grade are the very most literary ones.
(at this juncture i must again emphasize that this is not to say anything bad about the books that did make the cut! i’m not going to argue against the fifth season and you couldn’t pay me to. nor am i going to pretend station eleven doesn’t count.)
it’s embarrassing that no one thought to limit the list to one book per author.
it’s embarrassing that credibly accused sex pests were allowed to remain on the list, let alone in the top ten.
it’s embarrassing that someone thought this was an important enough topic to take the time and space for, but not important enough to give it any fucking thought.
i already do not subscribe to the nyt. in fact, i do what i can to ensure they get no money from me, offsetting my carbon footprint from ads i am served when i view via gift links by using software to get around the paywall on the food section and save recipes. i don’t play the games. i’m the last person the nyt would have any reason to listen to.
nevertheless, we are in a fight. even if they don’t know.