Everyone's been writing about this year's meta-literature standout, The Top Ten, edited by J. Peder Zane, book review editor for the Raleigh News & Observer. It took me a while, but I finally managed to get my hands on a copy.
The book comprises 125 lists of “the ten greatest works of fiction of all time,” as provided by American and British authors, as well as several essays interpreting the possible significance of the selections. Naturally, we have to take a package like this in good humor, since we’re inundated by “Top Ten” and “Best Of”, of dubious importance, from all corners of the media. (Remember 1999?) Personally, I doubt that anyone is really deluded into thinking such things are important; he reason books like this are published, and the reason we pick them up, is that they're fun. They provide an abbreviated intimacy between all of us who love books so much that we love books about books.
Whenever I see “top” lists, I’m curious to know the criteria actually specified. As David Orr points out in his essay, “Reading the Lists” (p. 31), there may be several interpretations of “greatness”:
- “Great” means “books that have been greatest for me.”
- “Great” means “books that would be considered great by the most people over time.”
- “Great” has nothing to do with you or me – or people at all. It involves transcendent concepts like God or the Sublime.
- “Great”? I like Tom Clancey.
In this case, the authors were free to interpret “greatest” however they desired, and their responses populated the continuum from subjective to objective. In total, the contributors named 544 individual books, but the most popular weren’t surprising. Topping the list were Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, and War and Peace.
The interpreters, in their essays, search for commonalities among the listed books, ideas crucial to their selection, and, perhaps most importantly, the possible meaning of the exercise. The recurring conclusion is that writers are compelled to see greatness in their influences, in those works which best represent the forerunners of their own craft. Norman Mailer provides himself as an example when, in a preface to his own list, he claims, “I find that the books I think of as great were read when I was still a young and unpublished writer." Sven Bikerts concludes in his introductory essay, “If [the list] didn’t tell us about greatness, it certainly said something about how writers read.”
Yet, the selected works dated from classical times to the present – twentieth century authors on the list included DeLillo, Garcia Marquez, Morrison, Ishiguro. (Though, indeed, some contributors excluded more recent works from consideration, because, as Mary Gaitskill put it, “I can’t see them clearly enough to judge their greatness.”)
One appealing feature of this book is that many of the contributing writers offered brief essays in appreciation of a book on their list – generally a little-known work. So if you’re looking for the secret gems of literature, this book offers many for consideration. I added a title or two to my own list.
So, is their any meaning or purpose to this “reader sport,” as Bikerts dubbed it? As banal as the “top ten” concept has become, why does it continue to appeal? George Saunders concluded in his list’s introduction: “We need a concept of greatness so we can know in what direction we should morally aspire.”
You can read more about the book, read some of the lists, or create your own list at http://www.toptenbooks.net/list.html.