With all due respect, Ms./Mr. S, I find it fairly typical of our literalistic age for someone to respond with a tautology that completely misses the point. Of course, it would be relevant if your mechanism for selection is, by definition, also your criterion for relevancy. A book beginning with an "A" is probably relevant if your criterion is alphabetic, but then you'd just be an absurd caricature in Sartre's Nausea.
Your first statement is of variety I often encounter, and, thus, I am led to believe that it is what passes for wit or humor in the age of Twitter, which will perhaps sound rude, but is not meant to. However, the statement strikes me as more likely to be the sort of deflection common to public school teachers, for whom ideas are interchangeable, so long as one really, really believes them. Of course, to me, the aforementioned phenomenon sounds about as false as reading all the books designated by this or that committee as being Culturally Important or King Book of 1995, which might not be so bad if the committee's track record wasn't so dismal as that of the Pulitzer or Man Booker. Still, I'm sure you can dazzle the attendees at some fabulous party with your impressions of Olive Kitteridge, which will likely seem as unimportant to an American living in 2060 as Guard of Honor seems to me now.