Worst year-end round-up ?

       There are an endless number of year-end literary round-ups, some of which are of some interest, and many of which aren't. And then there are the few which are .....
       I hesitate to mention this one, because it's so feeble. And even though a mere blog post, by someone who tends to post very short posts (i.e. he doesn't take the space to explain himself (and justify his nutty opinions) at any length) ... well, it's at a reasonably well-known magazine-site, and I'm sure it gets some traffic, so it seems fair game.
       The post is F.H.Buckley's, at The Spectacle Blog (at The American Spectator) -- claiming it was: Not a Great Year for Books.
       I can live with that claim -- but not with this reasoning.
       Buckley begins:

Not a great year for books, was it ? Still there were standouts. Radley Balko's Rise of the Warrior Cop told us why we shouldn't trust our local police: Because they're liable to kill us (and then get away with it).

       This seems an odd title to choose as a stand-out -- but maybe Balko did a superior job of putting together a book about something that doesn't really sound like news, so ... okay, whatever ....
       But then Buckley continues:

And just when we thought things couldn't get any worse, Charles Murray comes along in Coming Apart (2013 reprint edition) to tell us how the rot has spread throughout the underclass, white and black.

       Never mind the politics at issue here -- as the 'reprint edition'-mention suggests this isn't a particularly new book: Murray came along with it in January, 2012 -- so it's kind of odd to bring this up as an example when you're (supposedly) discussing the year in books, 2013 .....
       Those are his two non-fiction mentions -- so how about the year in fiction ? No discussion of how that went wrong -- but at least:

Of novels, there's the new Michael Connelly Gods of Guilt.

       Should we take his word for it ? Well, there's the slight problem that he admits:

Haven't cracked it, but it's got to be great

       Seriously ? Denounce an entire year in books and then pick, among the few you're willing to say weren't half-bad, one you haven't even looked at ? Way to take this exercise seriously .....
       His other fiction mention ?

And let me not forget cousin Jonathan: Jonathan Buckley's Nostalgia.

       Because there's never enough nepotism in this world, right ? (It probably does his cousin an injustice -- the novel sounds reasonably interesting -- but come on ......)
       So that's his 'year in review' -- but he doesn't stop there: he has advice, too:

So let me let you in on a secret. The trick to finding books you'd enjoy reading is look for an author you'd like to have a beer or a coffee with.

       I can't imagine worse advice. I guess if you mainly read non-fiction, and you want your whacky world-view affirmed in your reading (personally, I don't -- I like my whacky world-view challenged, but maybe that's just me ...), then it makes a bit of sense. But as far as fiction goes -- god, most of the stuff I love is by people I would pay to avoid, and many of the writers who I think I'd find good company write execrable crap. Writing -- especially creative writing -- and personality have nothing to do with one another.
       I assume some of this is meant as 'humor' -- I'm not a regular reader of The American Spectator, so I have little sense of the 'tone' of the magazine and its contributors -- but I'm damned if I can tell what is and what isn't. Does Buckley want nothing more than to share cocoa with: "preening, smug Jonathan Franzen, the literary equivalent of Pajama Boy" ? I honestly don't know.