![]() |
||||||||
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - July 23, 2001 | Read the story. I'm the book editor at the Seattle Times. I thought the article on incredible vanishing book reviews raised some good issues. But it said that the Seattle Times' book review space had been trimmed, while failing to note that most of that space has been restored. We got most of our section back on May 27. This represents a commitment on the part of the management to books coverage in a very uncertain economic situation.
Most of us who have been in newspapers for a long time have experienced the wax and wane of space and resources. Things come, and go, and then come again. Any newspaper editor who has two brain cells to put together knows that you don't want to alienate your avid readers. As far as the current squeeze on books sections, I believe that this, too, shall pass. -- Mary Ann Gwinn It's an honor to be included among the Boston Globe, the San Jose Mercury News, the Seattle Times and the Chicago Tribune in any discussion about newspaper trends. But in this particular case, when the subject is the "disappearing" book review, I don't think we belong. We haven't decreased the amount of space that we devote to book coverage at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. We've actually gained a little ground in the past year, moving out of the weekly Arts section (where we had a page and a half of book reviews) and into a perspective-style section called @issue (where we have a full two pages almost every week, along with some space on the cover). Also, we've continued to produce two special book sections a year (in the spring and the fall) that are about eight broadsheet pages. And in addition to the weekly space, we've begun running occasional reviews and author interviews in the daily Living section, and we plan to do more of that. No one knows what adjustments newspapers will have to make in the future to survive and thrive, but we're still very committed to books coverage as part of the mix. -- Teresa K. Weaver, Book editor, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution As a lifelong newspaper reader and consistent book buyer, I might be one to decry the reduction of space devoted to books in major newspapers. I do understand that a newspaper should increase readership, which must come from those who are not already subscribing. If the book review became more representative of the market the paper is trying to reach, it might get a more positive response in market surveys. Every week I throw aside the Los Angeles Times Sunday book review in frustration because the reviews are written to give you the least amount of information about the book, and give you no desire to actually read them. The reviewers seem to be more interested in making themselves sound good rather than the books. The review sections primarily appeal to a small elite that will always subscribe to the paper anyway. Why not include some books that the average reader might enjoy? I don't mean trash fiction, there has to be some room in between Jackie Collins and Salman Rushdie. -- Peggy Powers I am a regional book publisher. For us, it is impossible to get books reviewed in national media such as the N.Y. Times, Library Journal and Publishers' Weekly. But what astonishes me is that I can't get regional papers such as the Charlotte Observer interested in North Carolina books either. Although I am a regular subscriber to the Observer, the newspaper's editor told one of my authors she doesn't care about news from Blowing Rock, N.C.! I have a feeling that most of the reviews published in some of these local and regional newspapers are downloaded from news services. -- Rao Aluri The continued shrinking of space for book reviews is distressing. But much of this comes from the inability of "book review" editors to acknowledge the reality of today's book business and find a middle ground. The disparity between what is reviewed and what the public is reading is enormous. Equating "popular" with "not worthy of attention" only guarantees a growing irrelevance that will spell doom for book reviews. Imagine movie reviewers ignoring the top 10 grossing films. Would anyone expect newspaper publishers to allow that to continue? And reading the head-in-the-sand professions of staying the course from Chip McGrath and Steve Wasserman lets us know what the end result is ultimately going to be. How sad -- and how culturally destructive. -- John Cunningham
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Maya Angelou reads from "The Heart of a Woman" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Life | News | People
Politics | Sex | Tech & Business and The Free Software Project | Audio
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus | Salon Gear
Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited
Copyright 2005 Salon.com