[qcrisp]

Tastes, of course, change, to a greater or lesser extent over time. I think it's natural to be more open-minded in some ways when younger and more narrow-minded in others. Case in point: I think in my twenties, I would have thought the Analects is something I 'should' read but would find tedious, and that Anne Rice would be something I enjoyed reading. Now, the Analects is something I enjoy reading, and 'should' read, and Anne Rice is likely neither.

I've noticed in recent years when I try to read the 'blockbuster' style fiction that what was exciting to me when I was younger - this kind of designer panoramic sweep of action - now seems to me stodgy and artificial and I can't work up much of an appetite for it. (Even some of the more prestigious names writing in such a style.)

I have actually read Anne Rice, by the way. I went through an Anne Rice phase, I suppose in the late eighties. I remember particularly enjoying The Vampire Lestat.

Similarly, I have enjoyed a couple of books by Poppy Z. Brite. A lot of the names on the list, I can't comment on at all, not having read them.

If I were snowed up in the middle of Greenland, in some sort of isolated cabin/bunker/lair, and the only books on the shelves were by the authors listed, I think the ones I would be most likely to pick off the shelves would be Clive Barker and Poppy Z. Brite.