Oh, EW's feature is definitely designed to cash in on the current explosion of the vampire genre. And if the lists that are on their Web site were the ones included in the print issue, I'd wholehearted agree EW is simply pandering to a supposed fad by focusing mainly on the current crop of "hot" vamps. (Read "hot" however you will.
) But the list in the print issue focuses on much more than what currently may be appealing to hormonal teens. It spans a good 70+ years, with nearly every decade in those years well represented - and by doing so they're aiming to give their list actual legitimacy. But what sort of legitimacy can a list without Barn actually have? That he is overlooked is at the very least bizarre - especially considering that several of the vamps on the list owe their very existence to Barn in one way or another.
(And I agree that the criteria/logic for their rankings - particularly placing Lestat at #1 for the reasons they did - is definitely a bit skewed.) Though it's not that I think in any way that EW is intentionally slighting Barn/DS. What it is is that the compilers of EW's list quite obviously didn't do adequate enough research...