Should Book Review Sections Be Covering Books?

Hi Margo,

Just when you thought book review sections were all about books, The New York Times Book Review takes issue with the premise. At least, that was the message sent by the March 6 edition, in which four pages?a big chunk out of the 15 or so available for standard-length reviews, essays and the like?contained Franklin Foer's essay on federalism and a roundtable on the future of liberalism. Whoa, baby, what's going on?

A whole lot, based on my follow-up conversation with Barry Gewen, the NYTBR editor who put together the roundtable. As Gewen tells it, the inspiration was the extensive Internet and print response to Peter Beinart's December essay in The New Republic, entitled "An Argument for a New Liberalism." Keen to put their own stamp on the discussion, Gewen and his boss, Sam Tanenhaus, tucked their little time bomb into last weekend's paper.

But don't interpret their move as evidence of political bias. Gewen says that a "major conservative" is working on a piece that would give balance to last weekend's package.

Sure, the roundtable included a sidebar of book recommendations from the participants. But that doesn't fool anybody. The politically inclined Tanenhaus wants to make his review a journal of ideas, not just book reports. "He's conscious of wanting to stir up debate," says Gewen. And indeed he has: The roundtable discussion was one of the most e-mailed items in last Sunday's Times.

So, Margo, what does this tell you? Should more book sections break with their usual patterns and venture into the Zeitgeist?


Hey Ellen,

The roundtable discussion in the NYTBR certainly was jarring, but unfortunately, I think it fits into a larger pattern. Not in book reviewing per se, but in the newspaper and communication business in general.

Newspapers are acting strange these days. Stories about Britney Spears once reserved for feature sections are making their way on to front pages. Word puzzles and cartoons are cropping up on op-ed pages. The news, as it used to be defined, in newspapers is often hard to find. What gives?

I think the reason one of the country's leading book sections would venture into the kind of political commentary typically found in perspective sections or on op-ed pages is the same as for the other sections that move beyond traditional borders: They are desperate to attract readership, especially young readership. The percentage of Americans who read a daily newspaper has dropped from 81% in 1964 to around 54%, a dire statistic offered by business consultant Vin Crosbie at the Associated Press Managing Editors convention last fall and cited by Evan Cornog in the January/February Columbia Journalism Review.

In his insightful essay, Cornog makes a refreshing suggestion to newspaper editors who are busy beating themselves up over the need for new content and new packaging in order to lure audiences. "Blame the readers,'' he says, pointing out that our society no longer fosters the same kind of intellectual curiosity and thirst for knowledge as in the past. "Journalistic attempts to follow readers in their changing interests may lead down a rabbit-hole of ever-diminishing returns. . . . As journalism tries its best to chase this increasingly recalcitrant public, it risks losing sight of its own fundamental purpose."

I guess it boils down to this: While the other sections of the newspaper are busy reporting on and considering the implications of the Michael Jackson trial or letting readers know where to buy the latest gadget, book review sections may be the last best place for the thinking reader, an ever dwindling lot, to go. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.


Don't be so sure, Margo!

Book sections can't become the last bastion of critical thought in any newspaper, unless you think the tail can wag the dog and the dog will say thank you. As you know, book coverage in any newspaper suffers from lower readership than main news, sports or features. These are the sections that must set the pace. Book editors then respond and react, presumably gearing the level of their coverage to the kind of audience that the rest of the paper attracts.

Newspapers could blame the readers, but for the fact that their own decisions have contributed to the intellectual decline that you mention. Enter former CBS newsman Tom Fenton's book, Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News, and the Danger to Us All, the latest diatribe against America's newsgathering priorities. Maybe right-wing bloggers think they have the market cornered on criticism of the press, but as Fenton shows us, journalists may be their own toughest critics, and not without cause.

But back to our subject: What responsibility do book sections have to cover books?oh yes, that . . . Or should they put more emphasis on building readership, and expanding their base, with whatever methods work for the kind of reader they're after?


Dear Fellow Book Critic (or is that now an outdated term?),

What do we mean by the term "covering books''? Do we mean that they should report on the industry that produces books? Do we mean that they should interview the authors who write books? Do we think that their primary role is to let readers know of the existence of new titles?

Or is it the job of a book critic to discuss, dispute and/or deliberate over the ideas contained in books?

Most of us who call ourselves book critics would emphasize the latter, believing a book section's primary raison d'etre is to critique books. And by that definition, "covering books'' really is all about covering ideas. In other words, book sections are in the business of offering up critical thought. They are one of the few sections?except the editorial and op-ed pages?where opinion is not only accepted but expected.

Unlike the editorial and op-ed pages, however, the book page's starting point is, by definition, one would think, a book, an entity that by its very nature has allowed some thinker a certain length and latitude to discuss some idea or ideas. This is a crucial and essential distinction, and it's what makes what happens in book sections so unique: a book review is not someone's opinion about an idea; it's someone's opinion about someone else's opinion about an idea. The format of the colloquium on the future of the Democratic Party didn't provide the unique level of discussion that critiquing books do. Now if those editors had been asked to critique the books they recommended, that would have been worthy of taking up such valuable real estate.

Book sections should stick to covering books?as imaginatively and innovatively as possible, but not with everything except the book.


Margo,

I see what you're saying: It's the same as finding a news peg for a story, except in this case it means finding some wave in publishing or some theme in a book to galvanize coverage. I believe that's what readers expect: to at minimum find out about the books that are out there and that are worth buying; at maximum, to see the intellectual life through the prism of books.

But every once in a while it's a good idea to shake readers up, to push the boundaries enough that you have their attention. The quality of book reviewing in this country isn't as good as it should be. But that, my dear, is a subject for another column.