The bestseller list has been the subject of recurring criticism for over a century. The criticisms have been more useful than the list's defenders sometimes acknowledge; the list has been more durable than its critics sometimes acknowledge. Both halves matter for understanding what the list has always been for.

The list's actual function

The list's actual function, on the longer view, has not been principally to identify the best books. It has been to track what is being read, to support the broader reading culture by surfacing the books that are already in circulation, and to provide the bookstores and libraries with the information they need to serve their patrons.

The criticisms that miss

The criticisms that miss are the ones that fault the list for not being something it has never claimed to be. The list is not a quality assessment; treating it as one produces complaints that reflect the misreading more than they reflect the list's actual content.

The criticisms that land

The criticisms that land are the ones that engage with the list's actual function and ask whether the function is being performed well. Have the methodology changes over the past several decades produced more or less accurate tracking of what is actually being read? Have the categorical choices kept pace with how reading has changed? These criticisms are useful.

What the list is becoming

What the list is becoming is, like most cultural institutions, an evolving thing. The methodology continues to be refined; the categories continue to adjust; the broader role of the list in the reading conversation continues to be negotiated.

The honest read

The honest read is that the bestseller list is doing what bestseller lists have always done, slightly better than past versions did. The criticisms that have produced the improvement deserve acknowledgement. The list will continue to be criticised; that, too, is part of what the list is for.