The holidays are here, and now it's time to say our thanks.

I'm thankful for each of these books for different reasons. They aren't all favorites per se, but have all made a positive impact on me.

Danse Macabre, Stephen King

This one got me into genre-specific reference books and pointed me towards several books that became favorites. I may never have discovered Harlan Ellison were it not for this, and that would've sucked.

Early Autumn, Robert B. Parker

This was the first Spenser novel I read, at my mother's request. After this, PI novels became one of my go-to subgenres and Spenser one of my favorite PI's. This one also had many solid lessons on how to be an adult male, something I needed at the time. It holds up, too.

Devil in a Blue Dress, Walter Mosley

Another PI novel, but this one showed me that genre fiction was super-flexible and able to tackle almost any theme or issue. It also introduced me to another favorite author and series.

Guilty Pleasures, Laurell K Hamilton

I'm not a fan of this series anymore, but this book introduced me (and may others) to the Urban Fantasy genre, which was one of my faves for years. I liked the first few (heavy on the horror, light on the sex) best, and walked away when the series became, essentially, Erotica. Still, this one had a tremendous impact on my own reading as well as the industry as a whole.

Game of Thrones, George R. R. Martin

I'm not caught up with the series (got tired after binging the first three), nor have I watched much of the show, but this book got me back into traditional fantasy and introduced many to GrimDark. I will come back to these... eventually.

The Great Movies, Roger Ebert

These books introduced me to many, umm, great movies while giving me new perspective on many I'd already seen. Ebert has shaped how I watch and think about films, and his beautiful prose helped me see what criticism should be.

A Song for Arbonne, Guy Gavriel Kay

A very literary semi-historical stand-alone that introduced me to one of my new favorite authors. It also had an effect on what I look for in fantasy. It's awesome, and not even Kay's best.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit of a geek. Like many geeks, I love lists; reading them, making them, debating them or flat disagreeing with them, I love it all. As such, I have quite a few books that are, basically, "best of" lists. I love these because they point me at good stuff I haven't experienced yet.

It struck me that there are many different ways to compile such a book, each with it's own benefits and drawbacks. So, here are a few different ways of doing it, with examples.

1. Utterly Subjective, Single Author

Example:   The Great Movies - Roger Ebert,Mary Corliss  

This style is probably the simplest: You list your favorite examples of a thing and explain why. This is the style I employ on this blog, and the style Ebert employed in his Great Movies series.

Benefits: Ease of writing, pleasantness of experience, enthusiasm, easy to organize.

Drawbacks: No data to fall back on, personal exposure, not authoritative.

You don't have to watch, read, or listen to anything you don't want to, but people can attack you for your opinions (risky in the internet era). Still, it's a lot of fun to just gush about the stuff you love.

2. Attempted Objective, Single Author

Example:   Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels: an English-language selection, 1949-1984 - David Pringle  

Here, the author makes their best stab at an "official" list, compiling examples because of importance, influence, quality, or other criteria based on their own judgement.

Benefits: More comprehensive and authoritative, helpful creative/critical exercise.

Drawbacks: "Why this one and not...", exposure to works that one finds unpleasant, "important" works that don't hold up.

This kind of list is great for the author in two ways: They have to step outside of themselves, and it's a chance to dig into classics they haven't gotten around to (and any purchases are tax-deductible, because it's "research"). Still, they have to slog through some works they don't like, and will still be open to accusations of bias. Hell, they will be biased, no matter how hard they try to avoid it. This will also affect the passion in the writing. And they still don't have concrete data backing them up.

3. Subjective Take on Objective Data, Single Author

Example:    The Top 500 Heavy Metal Albums of All Time - Martin Popoff  

Gather data from various polls, interviews or other outside sources, compile a ranking, and then express your opinion of the various works, their placement, etc.

Benefits: Opportunities for snark, exposure to new works, not having to dredge your own brain.

Drawbacks: Frustration, works you may find awful/offensive, disappointment when some of your favorites are low on the list or absent altogether.

This one is just too much work for me, although it would be interesting to, say, watch and review every Best Picture winner, in order. Watching Crash again would be a chore, though.

4. Utterly subjective, Multi-Author

   Horror: The 100 Best Books - Stephen Jones,Kim Newman  

Get a bunch of people to talk about their favorite works. What could possibly go wrong?

Benefits: Less writing, lots of discoveries, high enthusiasm.

Drawbacks: Logistical nightmare, missed deadlines, explaining the concept repeatedly.

Now I just need to find 100 people in the field who have enough time to write a piece, make sure there are no double-ups (two people picking the same subject), editing each piece, communicate with various agents/publishers, etc. If you prefer organizing to writing, not a bad choice, but keeping your ducks in a row can be a bear. Plus, there will be classics/"essentials" that no one picks, but you can blame your contributors for that.

5. Attempted Objective, Multi-Author

   Fantasy: The 100 Best Books - James Cawthorn,Michael Moorcock,James Cawthorne  

You and a cohort come up with a list of classics, then divide and conquer.

Benefits: Lessened workload, interesting conversations, a united front.

Drawbacks: Arguments, resentment.

Doing an SF list but hate Heinlein? You can have your friend write that piece while you review that Ellison collection. Great, but what happens if one of you has a personal crisis? The other has to step up, leading to a potentially unbalanced workload. And the hashing out of the actual list can be both fun and frustrating, while dealing with each other's criticism of your writing styles just might suck. Just kidding, it'll be fine!

6. Subjective Takes on Objective Data, Multi-Author

Example:    Thrillers: 100 Must-Reads - David Morrell,Hank Wagner  

Gather the pertinent data to compile a list, then get other people in the field to discuss their favorites from said list.

Benefits: Enthusiasm, less writing, hard data.

Drawbacks: Logistical issues, unpicked subjects.

Here, you have the same issues as #4, except you're backed up by data. But what if nobody really wants to write about something on the list? That falls to you, and can lead to some entries having all the verve of a high school book report.

Anyway, thanks for reading this list about books of lists.

I used to read Ebert a lot while he was still alive. It's not that I necessarily agreed with him all the time - I find that he both overrates some well-made children's movies, and falls into that typical critic's cliche of thinking the values of his generation are universal (more on that in a second) - but rather that I appreciated his sense of film history. To anyone looking to really get into 20th century cinema, Ebert's list of 'The Great Movies' would be a fine entry point.

That being said, we should recognize that, though Ebert is probably the most famous movie critic of all time, he's hardly considered a great one by his contemporaries (despite the Pulitzer). For example, I have a compendium of American film criticism: Ebert gets a couple pages out of 400 or so. I never really thought about reading the first version of this book (I Hate...Hated This Movie) however I found this one for a dollar, so i read it.

On the whole, it is very entertaining. If you enjoy Ebert's reviews, then you will enjoy these. I find Ebert's criticisms of the way films fail to be very instructive when thinking about how I express myself about movies, and in thinking about movies in general.

But, as usual, Ebert has some real surprise reviews. Two films in particular he hated which I really liked. (One of which would be on my short list for best movies of the 2000s.) Sometimes, Ebert seems morally opposed to a film, rather than critical of the film as a film. And those are the times I cannot agree with him, nor even take him seriously. Sometimes he sounds like a cantankerous old mad, railing against the moral failings of kids today. And unfortunately it's those reviews that make this book a bit of a disappointment.

*sigh*

I miss Roger Ebert. That is all.

Is it wrong that I actually want to see a couple of these movies? Sometimes really, really awful movies can be fun. Especially if you're expecting it to be a fantastic failure.

*sigh* How I miss Roger Ebert. I just don't keep up with movie reviews as much as I used to. I used to love checking his latest reviews every Thursday. I didn't always agree with him, but I always loved to read his take on things.