Coloured Opinion

Why we will not bring you a Best Books of the Year list in 2016 (and, possibly, ever again)

Comparisons are bad enough. To limit them to the year of publication of a book is capricious.

A calendar year seems an utterly arbitrary period for which to determine best – or worst, for that matter – books. Comparisons, as we know, are odious to begin with. But if at all such comparisons have to be made, why should a book published on January 2, 2016, be compared with one published on December 2 of the same year, rather than with a book that came out on, say, December 2 of the previous year?

Does each calendar year bring with it its own set of parameters with which to judge books published in that particular period? And are the merits of a book only to be considered in the year in which it is published, and not thereafter? If the best books live for decades and even centuries, the whole purpose of competitive evaluation in the year of publication seems self-defeating.

How can individual experiences be compared?

Then there is the whole question of how to decide that one book is better than another. When an individual or a jury announces that these were the seven, or seventeen – or, increasingly, in this list-based world, seventy-seven – best books of the year, they are, obviously, only talking of some books they liked.

As for the word “best”, it is meaningless unless the judge is confident of having read, and weighed, every single book during the year. Since this is impossible, the whole idea of compiling a list of the best books of the year, no matter how many, is an exercise in ego and deception. (This, of course, is applicable to any work of art: films, plays, songs, videos, installations, paintings, you name it.)

In this context, we might as well also point out that literary awards are doomed to fail for this very reason. It would be honest if an award were to be given for a book (or books) that these specific members of this particular jury liked a great deal, without them – or the award itself – making any claim to have identified the best book.

Indeed, there is, obviously, no such thing as the best book. There are books that some people liked – and there is no way to actually quantify to any reasonable level of approximation – leave alone accuracy – the number of those people. And yet, there is a great deal of excitement among both writers, editors and publishers when their books feature in one of the ‘best of the year’ lists that so many newspapers, magazines and websites feel obliged to put out near the end of every year.

Then comes another question: why is it necessary for a book to be liked by a large number of people – or even by those discerning individuals who are asked to compile these lists, or serve on juries for awards? Is a book not an intimate, personal dialogue between a text and its reader, leading to a unique experience in each case? Can the quality of this experience possibly be predicted by a broad stroke list of ‘best books’ or ‘the best book’?

What’s sacrosanct about a year?

Now for another fallacy. When we refer to the best books of 2016, as they are commonly considered, are we talking only of books published in that year? The publishing date of a book is often a business decision, determined by the strategic and operational considerations of the publisher.

Very few books are written specifically for being published in a particular year, unless, perhaps, they happen to be commemorating an anniversary of some kind. (One also cannot rule out the influence of numerologists consulted by writers, especially in India.) But the (presumably) artistic merit of certain books are considered together only because they were published in the same 12-month period, which bears no relevance to when the books were written.

What’s more, is a book that was published in, say, 2015, but read widely in 2016, not to be considered for inclusion in the list of the best books of the year? To shift the focus from when a book is read to when a book is published seems extremely peculiar when it is the reading experience that is the arbiter, not the publishing process.

The lifetime of a book is not limited to the calendar year in which it was published. Some books will live on year after year. Some will die within weeks, or even days. Some will go into a coma, and be rediscovered years later as a forgotten classic. How meaningless is it, then, to judge – if at all a book can be judged – on or around December 15 (because who wants to work after Christmas)?

And so, if any of our readers are looking for one or more lists of the best books of 2016 from Scroll.in, they will be disappointed, for there will be no such list. It is an insult to every book to stuff it into a basket based on date of publication, and then to apply an arbitrary set of standards to create a hierarchy of quality.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Children's Day is not for children alone

It’s also a time for adults to revisit their childhood.

Most adults look at childhood wistfully, as a time when the biggest worry was a scraped knee, every adult was a source of chocolate and every fight lasted only till the next playtime. Since time immemorial, children seem to have nailed the art of being joyful, and adults can learn a thing or two about stress-free living from them. Now it’s that time of the year again when children are celebrated for...simply being children, and let it serve as a timely reminder for adults to board that imaginary time machine and revisit their childhood. If you’re unable to unbuckle yourself from your adult seat, here is some inspiration.

Start small, by doodling at the back page of your to-do diary as a throwback to that ancient school tradition. If you’re more confident, you could even start your own comic strip featuring people in your lives. You can caricaturise them or attribute them animal personalities for the sake of humour. Stuck in a boring meeting? Draw your boss with mouse ears or your coffee with radioactive powers. Just make sure you give your colleagues aliases.

Pull a prank, those not resulting in revenue losses of course. Prank calls, creeping up behind someone…pull them out from your memory and watch as everyone has a good laugh. Dress up a little quirky for work. It’s time you tried those colourful ties, or tastefully mismatched socks. Dress as your favourite cartoon characters someday – it’s as easy as choosing a ponytail-style, drawing a scar on your forehead or converting a bath towel into a cape. Even dinner can be full of childish fun. No, you don’t have to eat spinach if you don’t like it. Use the available cutlery and bust out your favourite tunes. Spoons and forks are good enough for any beat and for the rest, count on your voice to belt out any pitch. Better yet, stream the classic cartoons of your childhood instead of binge watching drama or news; they seem even funnier as an adult. If you prefer reading before bedtime, do a reread of your favourite childhood book(s). You’ll be surprised by their timeless wisdom.

A regular day has scope for childhood indulgences in every nook and cranny. While walking down a lane, challenge your friend to a non-stop game of hopscotch till the end of the tiled footpath. If you’re of a petite frame, insist on a ride in the trolley as you about picking items in the supermarket. Challenge your fellow gym goers and trainers to a hula hoop routine, and beat ‘em to it!

Children have an incredible ability to be completely immersed in the moment during play, and acting like one benefits adults too. Just count the moments of precious laughter you will have added to your day in the process. So, take time to indulge yourself and celebrate life with child-like abandon, as the video below shows.

Play

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of SBI Life and not by the Scroll editorial team.