I don’t want to be curmudgeonly about our modern lust for lists. Culture and language sometimes evolve in slatternly ways, and today’s guilty pleasure can become tomorrow’s fresh new aesthetic. I understand the lure of lists. I recently found myself sitting in my parked car, unable to turn off Jian Ghomeshi’s cbc radio show, 50 Tracks—a public debate about who belongs on a list of the fifty most important Canadian songs ever. And although critics scorned The Greatest Canadian, I thought the show at least nudged our celebrity worship in the direction of history and public figures whose accomplishments go beyond putting their hands up the vaginas of cows (an event I regret catching on The Simple Life).
So I’m curious about what our trust in lists means—from the New York Times’ “100 Notable Books of the Year” and the Fortune 500 to the endless gush of long and short lists for book prizes. Why are we such suckers for numbers? To me, numbers flaunt a kind of bogus, unearned power, like border officials or the doormen of trendy clubs. They are tiny tyrants who don’t have to earn their authority: Hey man, I’m a seven. I come after six. Who are you? I think our childish investment in numbers and ranking reflects a cultural anxiety—a mistrust of ambiguity, real debate, and complexity. To the American public, for instance, John Kerry was both too wordy and too much like a word—too open to interpretation, fluid, unfixable. But George Bush, with a blunt self-confidence unfettered by knowledge, comes across blank and solid, like a good ol’ digit. (And he is a digit—George II). Kerry was old-fashioned text; Bush is proudly inarticulate and numerical, a president with a tidy to-do list of imperial chores.
Writers tend to hate lists, with their collective, unauthored look. They especially hate the short lists for book prizes. They moan that juries are “political” and they shudder at the concept of ranking books like seeded tennis players—unless they land on a short list themselves, when suddenly the idea of competing with others takes on a noble burnish.
Well, I’m a writer too, fonder of words than numbers. I like a nice indented paragraph. I was looking forward to using long, silky sentences, full of Jamesian subordinate clauses and “on the other hands” to explore this topic. I wanted to build a swell of curvy, nostalgic dunes of “running text” (as the editors of Us Weekly magazine sometimes refer to prose) to create an argument against the pandering primacy of numbers.
But . . . prose is so boring! And you have to figure out what you think about things and stuff. Better to take advantage of the crisp Armani tailoring of a list. Yes, it flatters your intellectual posture right away, just like a uniform!
So here is a list of thirteen possible reasons why, for better or worse, human beings love to list:
1. A list turns information into technology. We’re all too busy to contemplate, for god’s sake. We need to prioritize. A list is about the bottom line: Tell me what I need to know, fast.
2. A list conveys authority, hierarchy, and a sense of order. This is comforting in a world of falling towers and bad TV. A list implies that someone is in charge. A list is also post-postmodern. Everything is not relative! But we’re busy, so we need an intellectual valet—a list.






Comments (2 comments)
trollerboi: Marni - Hate to be a frightful bore but it was wonderful bumping into you at the WWW party, and I had to get this off my chest. The areticle that I referenced but could not place was from this piece. Here's where I used it [click on link] . June 24, 2007 20:01 EST
trollerboi: Oops - the link didnt go across http://trollerboi.blogspot.com/search/label/lists . Another try. June 24, 2007 20:02 EST