Michael, at www.2blowhards.com offers his usual astute commentary on the possibilities for the new editorship at NYTBR. Here is some of his advice:
“# I’d de-emphasize new books somewhat, especially new literary books. Have you ever looked at a copy of a year-old Book Review Section? Nearly all of the lit-fiction that was reviewed so earnestly at the time — as though the books, and the evaluation of them, were really important matters — is impossible to recall.
# I’d spend more time covering the activities of bookmaking and of interacting with books. The making, reading and enjoyment of books is a fascinating cultural adventure that deserves much notice, IMHO.
# I’d pay much more attention to the fiction people really read.
# I’d open the geographical focus up. I’d make regular efforts to connect with other parts of the country, and even (though not so often) other countries.
# I’d provide coverage of many more kinds of books — kids’ books, “graphic novels,” art books, reference books, inspired trash books …
# I’d talk to bookpeople: designers, printers, bookstore owners, jobbers and warehousers, managers of print-on-demand shops, the person who buys books for Costco, people who write porn online, publishers, the queen of knitting books, copyright lawyers, the editor of the “For Dummies” series, people who take part in slash-fiction sites …
# I’d run provocative and controversial thought pieces.”
I especially like his discussion of how covering books should be more like covering cooking. But his first and best point is: “I don’t care.” I don’t care either, but for different reasons. I look forward to the Review every Sunday morning, but I hardly read the reviews themselves. Instead I use it for the advertisements alone. I care much more about who runs the ads than who is editor. The bottom line: most intellectuals don’t spend much time with NYTBR, and those that do usually have their own standards for deciding what they want to read.
Comments are closed.