But people like lists!

Via Andrew, I saw Mark Athiakis’ riff against lists. A taste:

Lists are lazy criticism. The person making the list is rarely inclined (or given the opportunity) to expound at length about a work’s virtue except to say one likes it. … Lists contribute to a culture of filthy linkbait whoring that just plays into Arianna Huffington’s greedy goddamn hands. Every person who gets access to a Web site’s stats knows that lists bring in traffic. This is naturally seductive, but ultimately contributes to an online hivemind of short attention spans, which is death on sustained commentary.

I don’t really disagree with much of this. But there’s a reason they bring in traffic: People like lists. People like arguing over the relative superiority of films, music, literature, whatever. And a good list –Glenn Kenny’s top 70 films of the decade, for example — manages to succinctly name a piece of art’s successes and place it within the continuum of artwork from that year/decade/century. A good list is deeper than “I liked ‘A Serious Man’ more than ‘Inglourious Basterds.'”

A good list is also malleable; again, I’ll point to Glenn’s best of the decade list, that he amended after the first one had a few slights. The Internet has made lists infinitely more interesting. The back and forth between readers and listmakers is one of the great joys of modern day listmaking. Lists! They’re great!*

*I mean, they’re great if they’re done well, just like anything else.