Modern Library, which has for years published what it considers the best of the best in fiction and non-fiction, picked a panel of literary "experts" to vote on their faves. The panel included Christopher Cerf (son of Random House founder Bennett Cerf, who was better known as a TV quiz show panelist), novelist A.S. Byatt (who wrote a wonderful novel called "Possession"), Gore Vidal (do you need to be told who he is?), William Styron (his "Sophie's Choice" made the cut) and others.

Two days later, writer Alain de Botton composed an Op Ed page article in the same newspaper that made the charge that such lists essentially point out books that "one doesn't have to bother with." De Botton, whose books include "How Proust Can Change Your Life," points out correctly that great books "always fail to capture the idiosyncrasies of our reading tastes. We do not rank our favorite books in linear fashion; we hold them like planets around us."

In checking over Modern Library's 100 best English language novels, I couldn't wait to sift through the selections to determine how many I had devoured. I was proud that my reading over nearly six decades included 46 of the titles on the list, although I admitted to myself disappointment over some of the titles which had remained on my list of "must reads" for far too many years.

Later the same day, I walked over to the library on the campus of Marietta College in search of books about that Irish wonder James Joyce, particularly scholarly tomes that explained what the hell "Ulysses" was all about.

In the past thirty years, I've made several stabs at reading this intense, ribald, confusing novel, never getting more than 100 or so pages into the nearly 800-page creation. I found four books which I thought would help me decipher Mr. Joyce's admittedly history-heavy and semi-autobiographical novel, which was the subject of a fierce battle over censorship when it was declared obscene back in the days when written evocations of sexual matters tended to stir the fire of Comstock adherents.

I am now making another effort to wallow in the spectacular word extravaganza that makes up "Ulysses." Wish me luck!

Gripes have been fierce from outraged readers across the country whose personal favorites weren't amongst the 100 chosen by the panel. Personally, I am disappointed that Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" didn't qualify. I have read it five times, have the Gregory Peck film on videotape, and my youngest son once played the visiting kid Dill in a Columbus theater production of the play. "Mockingbird" -- the only novel ever written by Lee -- must rank as a great book by anyone's standards.

The list doesn't include newer books, since several panelists believed only books that had "stood the test of time" should be included. Other than Joyce the list contains not one writer from outside the U.S. and Britain. Another complaint is the lack of representation by women writers, since only eight made the list, including Virginia Woolf (at no. 15 with "To the Lighthouse") and Carson McCullers's "Heart is a Lonely Hunter," which ranked 17th.

Actually, any list of great whatevers is silly, since unless a poll of every literary expert in existence was taken, such designations are worthless as they represent a handful of opinions. Judging what's best against what's popular also is dicey. If sales counted, Danielle Steel would be one of the great writers of the century. I don't think so . . .

In my humble opinion, the 100 Best Books should be taken for what it is: a starting point for conversations and perhaps a reason for reading enthusiasts to take a look at books they're always meant to read, but somehow dipping into the new Stephen King hasn't left time for.