Re: Number 64

Tim O'Connor (tim@roughdraft.org)
Wed, 22 Jul 1998 21:16:51 -0500

>  I recently read where Salinger's Catcher in the Rye was number 64 in the
>20th
> centuries greatest books. I do believe this is extremely low but I do applaud
> the list for putting James Joyce so high.

The facts of this "100 best" list -- along with so much else the publishing
industry does to pat itself on the back -- are enough to make us all just
ignore it.

For example, think of the "Discover New Writers" program you see at one of
the big U.S. book chains (Barnes & Noble, I think, but possibly B. Dalton;
who bothers to tell the difference?).  At a glance, you think, "Ah, how
good of them to scour the new releases and pick out the best for customer
attention."

The reality of it is that publishers PAY to get books listed in there, just
as they pay for where the books are placed when you walk in and scope out
the front of the store.  It's plain, old-fashioned graft, exactly the
approach that works so well in American politics, where you get results by
making "contributions" to the politicians you want to have in your pocket.

The best thing we as readers can do with this millenium-mania is to ignore
it.  The industry has the attention span of a six-month-old baby, and half
a year from now they will have moved on to other brilliant schemes to
peddle things.

--tim o'connor (cynical today; can you tell?)