> OK, but the thread and list were titled "150 Best
Hardboiled/Noir" - it
> seems "My Favorite 150 Hardboiled/Noir" would have
made more sense,
> and while "best" will always be subjective, one
would also assume the
> author of such a list would have read a certain
amount of titles and
> authors
> within the genre, if they are going to undergo to
make a list with such a
> lofty title - the list just seemed absurdly limited
in scope.
Yes, your point is good that the creator of the list would
have to have read a certain amount, a considerable amount, of
books to compile such a list. And you're right, "best" is
always subjective, but then it's the list of someone who has
read hundreds of books in the genre, which makes such opinion
valuable in and of itself.
The compiler of such a list would have to have read
extensively in the genre to have the confidence to post such
a list and take on all critics. Would he have to qualify it
by calling it "My Favorite . . . " or "The Best in My
Opinion"? It's understood it's his opinion--not yours--we
haven't seen your list. We've only seen mine and Allan's and
those are two guys whose opinion I respect.
As I pointed out in the preface to the list, the availability
of titles is one of the biggest factors in determining what
we here on the list read. And as another critic of the list
pointed out, in case I was being too subtle, that it was
heavily weighted in favor of books that have been reprinted.
Well, these books have been reprinted with good
reason--they're great books.
Jeff
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 08 Jan 2008 EST