Sure, there were a few good books in each category, but there were also books that were not very good, either stylistically or ideologically. If their list had been "the 100 most influential non-fiction" I would still take issue with the list, but perhaps not as much. However, they said "best", thus opening themselves to criticism. In most categories I would probably jettison 75% of the books and put in others.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
Another list from the Guardian: the best non-fiction books
- 15/06/2011 10:23:34 AM
807 Views
Interesting list. Some were a bit obvious (as they should be). A few I might have to pick up.
- 15/06/2011 01:30:51 PM
633 Views
I think that was a terrible list on balance.
- 15/06/2011 02:21:09 PM
545 Views
Yeah, I think we'll all have our personal list of books that should've been there. 
- 15/06/2011 09:10:08 PM
500 Views
- 15/06/2011 09:10:08 PM
500 Views
Dump Thoreau's self-aggrandizing ramblings and replace it with the Hagakure. *NM*
- 15/06/2011 10:02:03 PM
241 Views