A modest proposal for best books of the year list makers
"Halloween hadn't even ended this year before Christmas decorations made their appearance. Not even that progressive holiday creep-back, though, prepared me to see lists of the year's best books start coming through in early November, with no apologies to those few unfortunate authors with books scheduled for release in the final sixth of the year." -- Rebekah Denn, "The Christian Science Monitor," November 15, 2010
Most savvy publishers know better than to release cutting edge books after October because those books are destined for oblivion. Oblivion Day is earlier this year than it was last year.
Unlike movie moguls who can release a mega-movie 20 seconds before year's end in hopes that members of the Academy will still remember the film when it's time cast Oscars votes, publishers don't have that option. List makers claim "it's all been said and done" before it's all been said and done.
Within a few years, we'll be seeing the best books of the year lists coming out in October and then on Labor Day or during the Dog Days of August. Soon, there will be no labor at publishing houses after Labor Day because the fat ladies who create the lists will have already sung, off key or otherwise..
Clearly, a child of three can see where things are headed.
To keep that from happening (and you do know what that is) list makers and publishers should meet January first every year in a wink-and-nod conspiracy session and choose the prospective best books of the year in advance.
Then, publishers can release those books at their leisure without the insane rush to get them off the press prior to Oblivion Day. Even if some of the lists are published before the books are published, it won't matter. Readers will just assume the list makers got galleys, advance reader copies or slept with somebody.
Some readers will smell a rat that they haven't bothered to smell up to now. They will cry "foul" or "what the hell" or "the damn thing's rigged." But they won't be able to prove it. Publishers will be interviewed on Fox and list makers will be interviewed on CNN.
All the talking heads will proclaim that the lists are as pure as the driven snow, but that if they (the lists) are being tinkered with, then they (the publishers and list makers) will investigate and report back.
After the "investigation," the American public will be told "everything is okay." They will also be told that "according to informed sources, the accusations all came from writers who were more insane than usual and thought they'd gotten screwed when really they probably hadn't."
Since the Best Books of the Year lists already look like a fraud, wouldn't be easier just to make them fraudulent from day one? Like half-assed jobs, well-intentioned fraud saves time and energy. Then, when it comes to the best of the best of the best, we'll be worry free. The lists will be pure, but authorized, hooey.
Finally, we'll be able to take a grain of salt for what it is.
Most savvy publishers know better than to release cutting edge books after October because those books are destined for oblivion. Oblivion Day is earlier this year than it was last year.
Unlike movie moguls who can release a mega-movie 20 seconds before year's end in hopes that members of the Academy will still remember the film when it's time cast Oscars votes, publishers don't have that option. List makers claim "it's all been said and done" before it's all been said and done.
Within a few years, we'll be seeing the best books of the year lists coming out in October and then on Labor Day or during the Dog Days of August. Soon, there will be no labor at publishing houses after Labor Day because the fat ladies who create the lists will have already sung, off key or otherwise..
Clearly, a child of three can see where things are headed.
To keep that from happening (and you do know what that is) list makers and publishers should meet January first every year in a wink-and-nod conspiracy session and choose the prospective best books of the year in advance.
Then, publishers can release those books at their leisure without the insane rush to get them off the press prior to Oblivion Day. Even if some of the lists are published before the books are published, it won't matter. Readers will just assume the list makers got galleys, advance reader copies or slept with somebody.
Some readers will smell a rat that they haven't bothered to smell up to now. They will cry "foul" or "what the hell" or "the damn thing's rigged." But they won't be able to prove it. Publishers will be interviewed on Fox and list makers will be interviewed on CNN.
All the talking heads will proclaim that the lists are as pure as the driven snow, but that if they (the lists) are being tinkered with, then they (the publishers and list makers) will investigate and report back.
After the "investigation," the American public will be told "everything is okay." They will also be told that "according to informed sources, the accusations all came from writers who were more insane than usual and thought they'd gotten screwed when really they probably hadn't."
Since the Best Books of the Year lists already look like a fraud, wouldn't be easier just to make them fraudulent from day one? Like half-assed jobs, well-intentioned fraud saves time and energy. Then, when it comes to the best of the best of the best, we'll be worry free. The lists will be pure, but authorized, hooey.
Finally, we'll be able to take a grain of salt for what it is.
No comments have been added yet.
