Yes, of course I noticed GalleyCat’s conspicuous absence from the NYTBR-approved blog commentary of its “best American fiction” list—not that it comes as any surprise. You didn’t really expect them to acknowledge the observation that the feature “appears to have reduced the section’s credibility among public intellectuals,” did you? Instead, the anonymous editors assigned to cherry-pick the blogosphere stick to less stinging criticisms about the inherent silliness of trying to pick great books, how they missed the boat on so many contemporary writers, and the idea that Beloved is really, really good so people should stop their complaining.
They also give a brief nod to the critics who have attacked the list for only including one other woman besides Toni Morrison—but what they don’t acknowledge is the much more damning underrepresentation of women on the selecting committee—an issue for which the only explanation ever proffered has been, to paraphrase, “Well, we tried.” (In all fairness, though, that BookExpo discussion was disrupted by an argument over, of all things, brownies.) It’s only natural that the Review would want to spin the debate surrounding the list so that it looks like people are arguing more about the results than the actual process. If you stick to arguing about the books, it’s easy to wave your hands and call the whole thing an intellectual exercise, or even a parlor game. Once you start looking at how the game was played, though, the questions become less fun to answer…far easier, then, to just pretend they don’t exist.