<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[the feminist librarian]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://thefeministlibrarian.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Anna Clutterbuck-Cook]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://thefeministlibrarian.com/author/feministlib/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[&quot;Best&quot; Books?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>While I&#8217;m unashamed of my love of lists, I&#8217;m always skeptical of lists that attempt to assign the status of &#8220;best of . . .&#8221; in any genre, whether it&#8217;s a vacation destination, restaurant, or the artistic value of a movie or book.  For example, take a look at this <a href="http://neilbowers.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/a-unified-list-of-the-best-100-novels/">Unified List of the Best 100 Novels</a> (<a href="http://www.aldaily.com/#notabene">via</a>), which merges the &#8220;top&#8221; lists from the UK, US, Australia and Canada. In a personal sense, I&#8217;m happy to see that personal favorites <em>Possession</em> (#59), <em>A Passage to India</em> (#55), <em>Anne of Green Gables</em> (#38), and <em>The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe</em> (#14) made it on to the list . . . but find myself slightly irritated that, for example, my favorite Austen novel (<em>Persuasion</em>) only squeaked on at #94). &#8220;Why did they pick X over Y?&#8221; I find myself thinking impatiently.  I would argue that in the end such lists are intimately subjective, and I wish they would acknowledge that (&#8220;favorite&#8221; rather than &#8220;best&#8221; anyone?).  Yet at the same time they&#8217;re compulsively readable, and the bookworm in me can&#8217;t help noticing how many I can or cannot check off as already read . . . </p>
]]></html></oembed>