We have always detested the Los Angeles Times, almost from the moment we set foot on California soil nearly 20 years ago. It's a big, fat mess, jumbled, disorganized - wading through the Sunday paper can make one suicidal - and it's generally written at about a middle school level. But we subscribed last November - for Sunday delivery only - so that we might start paying closer attention to the Book Review.
The editorial side of the paper, however, is Nirvana compared to the absolutely deplorable customer service side.
We called today to find out why we received no paper. We were told that the subscription had expired and there was now a balance due. Now, we remember very specifically purchasing a full year back in November - one of those intro offers - but we were advised that no, that was only a six-month introduction. Which is utter hogwash. A classic bait and switch.
So we told them to keep their paper, that we were not interested in renewing. And there it stands. So what does that portend for the Thumbnails? We're unsure. We'll probably try picking up the paper on Sundays on newsstands like normal folks and see how that works out. Or we might alternate that with focusing critiques in depth on a single review. Or we might just let it go altogether. We're not quite sure. But either way, as noted, no Thumbnail this week. Stay tuned for further developments.

NO! Keep doing it, pick it up on the newstand or I'll send you mine! You can read them all on-line for free too. Look at the daily reviews as well, some of them are better than the Sunday ones.
Posted by: Terry | August 23, 2005 at 07:11 AM
Mark: Much as we all enjoy thumbnails, you are under no obligation to do so. Ever since my Tanenhaus Brownie Watch hiatus, my blood pressure has gone down. :)
Posted by: Ed | August 23, 2005 at 07:22 AM
I agree - why not just read it on-line?
Posted by: Brady Westwater | August 23, 2005 at 08:28 AM
Does the Daily News have a Sunday book review?
Posted by: Scott | August 23, 2005 at 08:29 AM
We had exactly the same problem with the billing dept. You'd think they would have called if the bill was so overdue they were cancelling the service.
Posted by: Ken | August 23, 2005 at 08:50 AM
I grew up with the LA Times and so have retained some affection for it, flaws and all. Especially after spending 14 years with the Denver Post, and 2 with the Oregonian. But, really, if you're sick of doing the thumbnail, set yourself free!
Posted by: Karen | August 23, 2005 at 11:54 AM
I remember about a dozen years ago David Bowie announced he wouldn't be singing any of his old hits in concert anymore and so I rushed out to get tickets to see him at Dodger Stadium. It was a great show. I spent too much money on tickets but I felt, at the time, that this was my chance. My last chance. He'd made his announcment and I took him at his word.
But then the fucker went back on tour about a year later and decided, "ah, well, I sorta like singing Ashes to Ashes," and I felt cheated. So what's my point here? I say you don't need to review the review until it actually has a new editor, until it has that new direction and all that and if it goes back to singing the old hits -- ie, Eugen Weber still collects a paycheck --you can say, yeah, yeah, I heard it all before and said my piece.
Posted by: Tod Goldberg | August 23, 2005 at 12:33 PM