[Hereford Eye]

I'm curious about the interest in deciding what is the best ... or worst ... you have read/seen/heard/imagined/heard rumors of? This question inevitably appears in every forum and folk always respond and I wonder (1) why? what need is being satisfied and (2) how they manage to decide?
For example, making the last first, what is the best sf book I ever read? What's the criteria? Which book unsettled my world more than other? Which book stayed in memory longest which would bias towards the books I read first? Which book did I consider the best written?
When you have been reading for many years and you read a book-a-month then you have finite number of possibilities. Once you set your criteria, then you could work your way through them and find which best fits the criteria...I suppose. But, I can't.
When I was young, I read two books a week. I stayed at that pace through my 30s. I've noticed I have gradually slowed to where it takes me a week to read a China Mieville's Iron Country. Still, that's 52 books a year. Of that, roughly half are science-for-the-masses kinds of books like Bill Bryson's The History of Everything. Okay, that's 26 books of which roughly 1/3 are not sff, 1/3 are sf and 1/3 are fantasy. So, now I can work with 8.66 books and tell which book from the last year was my favorite read.
Those books are still very fresh in a memory not known for its meticulous character. If I go back to last year, it becomes more difficult to do the same process. If I go back to my youth, it becomes damned near impossible.

Then, I wonder what it proves. If my choice matches the most other people's choices, does that mean we are all smarter than everyone else? Better educated? More literate? Or does it mean we simply have more in common than anyone else has with everyone else and, if so, so what?
If no one matches my choices, does that mean they are wrong or that I am wrong? Does it mean I have stepped out of reality and am living in a dream world where my opinion is not shared by anyone else and, if so, should I be worried?

Is the whole exercise an attempt at consensus? If we can all agree on the best sf book ever written, then is there suddenly hope we can agree on something less important, like greenhouse emissions? If we can agree on the best sf book ever written, what happens when one of us writes a better book? Or does our consensus mean that it cannot be done?

Am I the only one who sees these questions and gets wrapped up on the side effects?

[Dawnstorm]

In part, I think, it's a social game. We like to go to the movies with friends, and, preferrably, with ones who are likely to enjoy the same movies. Have you ever watched a movie you liked for the second time with a friend who watched it for the first time? Did you watch her reactions? Were you curious to see if she laughs at all the right times? Did you hope to get a new perspective on the movie?

(It's also feasible that you enjoy forcing people to sit through movies that you know they won't enjoy. So you've got something to bicker about.)

You see, the beauty about watching movies together is that it helps you (a) get to know your friend better, and (b) get an enhanced perspective on the movie.

Now, reading is more solitary in nature. But you can still communicate about the book. Not all the appeal in such threads lies in establishing a hierarchy. It's probing the boards for people whose PoV you profit most from.

***

As an aside, I've always wondered about the "worst book" threads. Certainly, I haven't read bad books with enough attention to make a fair comparison. After a certain level of crappiness, reading just to figure out which book is worse borders on masochism.

I harbour the suspicion that the worst book you've ever read is a book you were forced to read for some reason, or were led to spend money and time on, and consequently you felt cheated by. Social games again, I s'pose...