Good Morning Flower.
It's the time of year when visions of top ten book lists dance in you head. I love those lists. I'm fascinated by how similar they can all be except for the one odd ball. The one title that separates the New York Times list from the L.A. Times list. Within the usual suspects: Freedom, Room, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks you can find a title that you were unaware of which is nice or a title you thought was crap which is fun. It also amuses me that nowhere in conjunction with these lists can you see a list of all that the list makers read. These are your top ten but compared to what? You didn't read everything published, who could? Maybe I would like a base line. A this-is-what-I-thought-was-excellent-out-of-what-I-read-this-year list.
I have never tried to do a top ten list myself. There are two reasons for that. First I don't keep a list of all the books I have read in a calendar year. Second I feel cowed by not reading enough new releases. I feel like if I make a top ten list it has to be culled from any books I read that were published in this calendar year. Looking back just at the blog that is only 40 titles. There were probably more that I read and didn't write about but even if that brought the title up to 100 (and I don't think it's anywhere near that high) it doesn't seem enough to base a top ten list on, does it?
What I would really, really like to see are lists of titles that you and critics wanted to read this year but for whatever reason didn't get to. What peaked your interest but not your time making capabilities? Lists like that would be different, interesting and potential shopping lists.