The New York Times is bemoaning the loss of the newspaper book review, and I join them in mourning the loss. Not that I read whatever is listed on the NYT Top Ten. Whether or not a particular book is popular or has garnered rave reviews does not matter. I am looking for something new to read.
I can't afford to buy a lot of books, so I can't justify stopping in at the local indie book seller and using up the owner's time to get recommendations, only to walk out the door empty-handed. The librarian is a fine source, and will often comment on something I've pulled off the shelf. That's very good, she might say. This one bogs down in the middle, but the ending makes up for it, he might note. But often times, I've selected the book because I remember the title from reading a book review.
As I said, I don't read the reviews for content. I'm looking for the story, the plot, what sort of characters are to be found. If the reviewer hated the writing, I don't care, because I'll make up my own mind. Through information gleaned from the review, I can decide if I want to read the book or not. Saves time at the library, reading book flaps to see if the intriguing title matches up with what's on the inside.
It's the bloggers that are taking the blame for the end of the book review as we know it. Non-professional writers are putting out the coverage, like some democratic movement in literature. Michiko Kakutani might be the big name in reviewers, but without a book reviewer in the newspaper, readers may find out about new books from some anonymous blogger who has an entirely different perspective than the famed New York Times columnist. Is that a good thing? Has the blog replaced the local, and has the Internet become the discussion group to talk over something you've read and want to recommend to your mates?
The main problem with bloggers, of course, is that they are out there in the ether somewhere, and it's not all that easy to find what you're looking for. The benefit of the weekend book section is simple. It's right there in the newspaper you picked up off the driveway. You can find it easy enough, turn the pages, scan through the material and make up a list of books you'd like to read when they're available at the library. As Oscar Villalon of the San Francisco Chronicle has pointed out, the newspaper review is going to reach a lot more people than a blog, no matter how popular the website may be.
People don't much read newspapers anymore, or so goes the notion to explain away the decline in sales. Costs must be cut as ad revenues decline, so where does one chop? The features are the first to go, to keep the hard news stories and editorials available, so the book review editor gets the axe and some nationwide feed gets substituted for local coverage. But does the avid reader in Macon, Georgia really benefit from a review out of Los Angeles? Wouldn't someone at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution have a better feel for what books will be preferred by the local populace? Or does none of that matter, because someone has to go to get costs down.
The Chicago Tribune is modifying their book section, wrapping it up into the Saturday paper, the least read edition in the week. Will it help their bottom line to put the reviews in the smallest print run, thereby saving paper? It can't be that they expect book readers to start buying the paper on Saturday to get the review section, to boost circulation. The editors promise great things, but the jury's still out. If they find a way to publicize new authors, focus a bit on the local scene and not try to be the New York Times, the new version could be better than the old.
You'd think that people who read newspapers regularly like to read, and would most likely be reading books as well. Why are newspapers trying to make it more difficult to combine the two?
No comments:
Post a Comment