25 thoughts on “This week’s New York Times bestsellers: why are these things different from the others?”

  1. I find the success of the Burpo book the more disturbing of the two. It’s hugely popular, and I’m not sure what the proper response to it should be. Has Time or USA Today eviscerated it? Has it been ripped apart by a Sunday gasbag? No. And therein lies a larger problem.

    1. When I first read the phrase “the Burpo book”, I assumed Burpo was a new name for Bill-o. Somehow it seemed fitting. It was only when I went back and looked at the original post again that I realized it was the actual name of the author of the other (execrable) tome.

  2. Whoever at the NYT Book Review presumes to be so qualified perhaps ought to rule the world.

  3. Whenever I see that book about heaven, my brain automatically reads it, “Heaven is for Realz!”. 😀

  4. ‘Who decides which book goes into which category, anyway?’

    Dear NYT Book Section editor: Please post an answer to the above question on this thread. Don’t make me sic Mankoff on your ass. Signed
    Still A Friend (for now)

  5. Call me a skeptic, but I have to wonder @ Mr. O’Reilly’s fluency in Ancient Greek (esp. the koine), Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and various modern languages, which are absolutely necessary to write knowledgeably about early Christian history.

    1. Well, he his BILL O’REILLY. Who is anyone to presume to be worthy to critique him/

      (For the record, sarcasm, what with writing being SO one-dimensional. 😉 )

    2. What’s next? Killing Abel ?

      (Although honestly Killing Baldur would be a better book.

      1. I’d be interested in O’Reilly’s take on the Hindenburg. You know, an insiders perspective on the phenomenon of flaming gasbags.

  6. The categoraizationof “Heaven is for Real” is repellant. Imagine a purely secular society where someone writes a book like that. It would clearly be in Christian/Theology/Religion. No one would be offended, no one would think twice. The book may still sell (maybe not well). But no one would have a problem with it next to Zeus, the Kraken, and Medusa.

  7. I do my small part at the local Barnes & Noble. I move John Polkinghorn’s Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion from the Physics section to the Religion section. I’m such a subversive!

    1. Hmm . . . I guess B&N would have a problem with that. Would they have a problem with moving a book from the Religion section to the Science section? 😉

    2. I did that with Signature in the Cell at a local bookstore. I consider myself a vigilante!

      1. So do we all, at least concerning arbitrarily oriented spools of soft tissue.

        I don’t do that, though I can imagine myself at Whole Foods applying labels to boxes of Oscillococcinum: “THIS IS QUACK MEDICINE, containing merely the conjectured memory of a duck liver.”

        (Duck goes quack, fish goes blub, and the seal goes ow-ow-ow …)

    3. I can’t approve. Mostly because I’ve had the misfortune of seeing Ray Comfort’s bastardization of Origin of Species snuck into the Biology section of my local used bookstore even though a glance at the sticker revealed the store had filed it under Christian Apologetics.

      Really, all you’re doing is creating unneccesary work for stockboys. It’s not their fault or even the store’s and they can’t be expected to correct for a problem that originates at the corporate or publishing level.

      1. More work for the clerks, indeed! Searching for a book’s location is ultimately dependent on the computerized inventory system. Moving books around without a corresponding change to system’s inventory can deep-six them for a long, long time.
        B&N had The God Delusion located in Biology. When I informed them that its proper location should be Religion/Atheism, they said they would inform headquarters to seek a change, otherwise it would just be ‘lost’ to a computer search.

    4. I do not think it is subversive. It is non-violent noncooperation. It is a non-verbal protest that promote the following message:

      This is not not correct. It is important that we categorize knowledge appropriately. Children are taught ordering and as adults we should not delude ourselves of the same logical methods. If something is clearly not factual, it does not belong in the non-fiction section.

  8. The question how books are assigned to categories is a fascinating one. For an example of the opposite happening, I have just been to a charity book fair and found in the Fantasy and Science Fiction section a book by Johannes von Buttlar arguing that humanity has been visited and influenced by time travellers. Another time I was at the same fair, I found Left Behind in the same section but also creationist books in the Science section. Sigh. Interestingly the fair organizers place atheist books in the Interfaith section.

    1. I know someone who is an enthusiastic “Left Behind” reader, an evolution-denier, and lifetime member of the U.S. National Rifle (Weapon) Association. A rather potent combination – it all “seems” to go together.

  9. Why read a book called Killing Jesus when the christians already have the bible??? I thought he had to be sacrificed?

Comments are closed.