Not so well-guarded

This list of the 100 best books of all time was prepared by Norwegian Book Clubs. They asked 100 authors from 54 countries around the world to nominate the ten books which have had the most decisive impact on the cultural history of the world, and left a mark on the authors' own thinking. Don Quixote was named as the top book in history but otherwise no ranking was provided.

This was the limited background provided on a list of 100 books from history that was put together by The Guardian such that it reflected some kind of... awesomeness. But that it contains Rowling and not Tolkien is the first indication that the list is not to be trusted (the second is that it assumes "from 54 countries" is the same as "from around the world").

Moreover, I hold that any article that runs such a list shouldn't contain the following elements:

1. An explanation at the bottom as opposed to one at the top


2. Misleading headline and lead (which, in this case, advertises a list of the greatest books when in fact it's one long opinion of a Norwegian establishment)


3. A selection by Norwegians of 100 books written in the English language


4. Two very subjective parameters for assessing candidates that easily number in the thousands, one of which welcomes only 100 authors to judge on the subject (which means 100 were chosen out of 1,000 - who decided which 900 should be left out and how?)


5. The opinions of authors who consider J. K. Rowling to have left a mark on their writing

Perhaps it is not The Guardian's fault that many are taking this list seriously despite its shortcomings (one of which is that the list is still in circulation despite having come out in 2002). However, the onus also rests on The Guardian's shoulders to run only those stories that have what it takes (in a journalistic sense) to bank on the newspaper's credibility.