Every December, as an early Chrismukkwanzmadan gift, book editors everywhere (i.e., in major US cities and London) release lists attempting to enumerate the best of the literary year. I'm captivated by these lists, so this year I decided to conduct a little meta-analysis.
Ergo, I announce the creation of the Entirely Arbitrary Laris Index, or EALI, an utterly unscientific formula, devised under the influence of alcohol, intended to calculate a sort of all-star team of the year's literary offerings. Admission to the EALI rankings is limited to works of fiction. Why? Because I said so! Also because I'd defenestrate my laptop if I had to make another Excel table. Now, shut up and listen.
The EALI is based on lists from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, the LA Times, and The Sunday Times, because these were the lists I found during the brief window of my attention span. Points awarded for appearing on these lists were weighted based on the overall number of books included, such that inclusion on a longer list would merit fewer points. Bonus points were bestowed upon books cracking the NYT's or the WAPost's Top Ten list, the Booker shortlist, or the slate of finalists for the National Book Award.
Drumroll, please!
The hands-down, runaway winner of the EALI Pissenlit d'Honneur** is Zadie Smith's On Beauty, with an Index score of .456. (For some context, the highest possible rating on the EALI was .606., although, for all you know, the scale could have a minimum of harmonica and a median of orange. The fruit, not the color.) Rounding out the top five are E. L. Doctorow's The March (.356); John Banville's Booker Prize-winning The Sea (.330); Salman Rushdie's Shalimar the Clown (.256); and William Vollman's National Book Award winner, Europe Central (.256).
The primary beauty of lists, of course, is the dissent they engender. I've done the hard work. Now, go to it, find something to fight about.
**French for "Dandelion of Honor." Just like the Cannes Film Festival's Palme d'Or, see?