This isn't a serious question---or maybe it's more of a comment instead---but what in the heck dictates inclusion on the NY Times Bestseller List?? I looked this up the other day, and I know it's based on a secret formula that tallies weekly sales at bookstores (both chain and independent), and I know it's also been criticized in the past because it is possible to buy your way onto it. However, this week I read a book that was far and away (without question) one of the worst I have ever read, and its author is a permanent fixture there. Now, I don't mean to sound crabby (though I guess I do now, ha ha), but what is the worth of these lists when the quality of their offerings seem to belong in the landfill?? I mean, I realize it's an indication of popularity, but I guess I am just frustrated by the fact that popular quality has sunk this low. USUALLY--though it's not carved in stone either---the books on the Times list are decent. At least decent enough to make people want to buy them. This one that I read was horrendous. It had typos, amateur writing errors, insane amounts of repetition, and a story that was too ridiculous to be believed. I mean, I know there are different tastes in books and I shouldn't disparage a thing that so many people seem to like. It could also be, of course, that my personal judgment of quality stinks. It's just that the writers here and elsewhere spend so much time honing their craft that coming across an aberration like this is like an unexpected slap in the face. Ugh! Does anyone else feel this way about this list??