I have been a fan of the Book of Lists<\/i> series since my middle school days, when I bought the first Book of Lists<\/i> as a paperback at a flea market just up the hill from the trailer park in which I lived. I’ve even read The People’s Almanac<\/i>, for crying out loud.<\/p>\n
From a name that includes The People’s Almanac<\/i>, you can guess that the authors lean a little left of center. Now that they’re flogging more recent history, it becomes more apparent. For example, the following list:<\/p>\n
Presidents of the latter half of the 20th Century who were The Devil:<\/b><\/p>\n Well, perhaps that<\/i> list didn’t appear in the book, but it could have. The authors rely a lot more on Exclusive for Book of Lists<\/i> as their source material, which means that now that people have heard of it, the authors could send out a questionnaire instead of doing research. Not that all of the lists are like that; just a lot more than in previous editions, as I recollect.<\/p>\n For those of you not familiar with the concept, essentially the authors come up with chapter titles and then coalesece lists around them. Or vice versa, they come up with a bunch of trivia lists and make chapters to reflect it. Regardless, it’s just a pile of trivia on a bunch of topics.<\/p>\n The book best serves as a sort of brainstorm for further research, as it’s probably foolish to cite this book as a comprehensive or even correct source. Which could serve, ultimately, as the beginnings of many, many essays or articles if I don’t just throw the book on my read shelves and forget about it.<\/p>\n\n