WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CHANGE (PART 2)

NBCC President John Freeman recently invited me to write a post for Critical Mass on the Campaign to Save Book Reviews.  I agonized long and hard over this one and ended up with a lengthy essay - so long that it couldn't be run intact at the NBCC site.  What runs below is the concluding half of my answer to John.  The first half is presented at Critical Mass, and can (and should) be read here.

It's a business: Now, I'm not some market force devotee, not by a long shot – I'm merely a devotee of living in the real world. I once knew an actress who lamented the ugly realities of Hollywood, resented that it wasn't all Art and Pure, and resisted playing in reality. She doesn't act today. As much as I might agree in my heart with notions of a newspaper's cultural obligations and the idea of reading as an ennobling act (and I surely do), I think it's a losing tactic in a fight, and I like to win. As newspapers are consolidated into the arms of mega-corporations, the only consideration is bottom line. And if readers don't make newspapers feel a financial impact for their choices, they will have only themselves to blame.

Similarly, publishers will need to start supporting book sections through advertising revenue. This notion that there's some entitlement to book coverage isn't a real world model. Scale back some of those money-losing mega-advances, open up the pocketbook and place some ads in newspapers. Even if you don't think the ad will sell books, it will help preserve your book pages – which will, in turn, sell books.

Not all book reviews are created equal: There's been an unspoken sense in this discussion that Book Review = Good. It doesn't always – there are plenty of mediocre to lousy reviewers out there, alienating (or at least boring) readers, but I detect very little soul searching in all this, almost no self-examination. Too many reviews are dull, workmanlike book reports. And every newspaper covers the same dozen titles. (Check Publishers Lunch's weekly tally of most reviewed titles to get a taste of the repetition.) Why would we be surprised that people are turning away from them – and not crying when they disappear? Finally, what – exactly – are reviews really for? Are they merely glorified shopping lists? Because if all we're finally doing is telling people what to buy, who says that a newspaper is the best possible vehicle for doing that? There's much talk about the thoughtful "literary criticism" on offer in book reviews but you don't get much of that literary criticism in 850 words, so can we stop kidding ourselves? (Speaking for myself, I'm much more likely to turn to the New York Review of Books or Bookforum than a daily newspaper for "literary criticism.") Which leads me to:

Embrace change: Here's the part I can't get away from: As I suggested above, how people get their information has changed. Book reviews are dying because newspapers are dying. Historically speaking, it's hard to turn back the clock once obsolescence is in the air. But while newspapers might be dying, information is still traveling. The need to know does not disappear but the form it takes changes, and newspapers can either capitalize on that – by, for example, revitalizing their web presence as the New York Times has done, and the Los Angeles Times is trying to do - or they will, in my opinion, eventually disappear.

So, for example, why stop at urging the AJC to simply restore Teresa Weaver's position? It's a great start but why not use the hour meeting to offer a detailed proposal on how an online books section of the paper might work, one that consumes less overhead but opens up more space for thoughtful book coverage? As I said before, it's a business, and it's worth remembering filmmakers' reactions when Hollywood began closing doors on them. Those who had something to say went off and said it themselves, fueling the rise of independent cinema and we all know that story's happy ending. Why not launch online book sections with little production overhead costs? (Spend the money on the writing!) Great reviewers could still find work (as Laura Miller observes they have at Salon) and not be limited by column inches or distribution costs.

The old models are broken and dying. I think we, as reviewers, can decry the awful way things are going or we can extend ourselves to influence and shape what the web offers in the way of book criticism. The one unattractive quality on display by too many print journalists seems to be a desire to lecture – they wish to merely pronounce and not necessarily interact with the readers they claim to be serving (or be held accountable for their judgments). The internet has given readers a new hunger for participating in a discussion rather than simply being dictated to, and, if that raises overall enthusiasm for books, it's not a bad thing, however unruly it might become. Critics will have to learn to bear with being criticized, just as writers have learned over the centuries.

I'm unmoved by the argument promulgated by some that internet access is somehow this elusive thing available only to a few. (And before anyone calls for a prerequisite of 100% internet accessibility in Atlanta, let's ask if 100% of Atlanta residents were AJC subscribers, because that's your apples-to-apples comparison.) The people without internet access (and, honestly, how many informed newspaper readers – the NBCC's target audience – can plausibly be assumed to be without internet access?) are a daily decreasing minority. I suspect the majority of internet holdouts are generational and will eventually shuffle off this mortal coil. A new generation of readers with no internet access is unimaginable, except for socioeconomic reasons, and those people aren't buying much contemporary fiction. Taking the paper into the bathtub, while charming and restorative, feels, finally, irrelevant – if that's the strongest argument for keeping a print book review, then maybe their time really has come.

Please don't get me wrong. I love a great, vital, thoughtful review. And I love cracking open the Sunday NYTBR – it's no less talismanic for me than for many of you. And I'm well aware of the need for certain kinds of separation of Art and Commerce. But this is like global warming – the change has begun and is already upon us, and we can resist and refute it and change nothing, insist on old models and be swept away, or we can work to influence the outcome now. As I said at the outset, I think the efforts on behalf of Teresa Weaver are deeply laudable and I sincerely hope they are successful. But it's the tip of the iceberg and the next steps must include widening focus to take in the voice of the readership and the reality of how business is conducted and the changing face of newspapers and technology. And that's a storyline worthy of a bestseller.

Comments

[shauna]

I'm not finding the GalleyCat post, but I recall one allegation in this whole brouhaha that seemed especially significant -- that newspaper publishers haven't dedicated the same resources in selling advertising as they have for other sections. I've witnessed the difference that a good salesman makes, so if the claim is true, it really does speak more to business mismanagement than an unwillingness of the book publishing industry to support its own content.

If newspaper publishers have shorted book review sections, the failure of those sections is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It sounds like it would be a hard case to make to management to put renewed energy and the resources of a media overhaul to save something that's already been written off.

[Chuck Leddy]

Thanks, Mark, for these insightful and thought-provoking remarks on the present status of book reviews. I'm in complete agreement that the landscape is changing/transitioning, but it may take years for "new realities" to emerge. I hope there will be healthy, vibrant discussions about books in both print and online media, but I suspect book lovers will have to raise their voices and begin demanding that. As you said, we get the book coverage we deserve & will fight for. Keep speaking up and speaking out!

[John]

One key question: are book reviews a tool to help people make wise reading choices, or are they themselves something to be read for pleasure? The best, of course, are both. The arguments being waged in this dicussion, however, seem to put them squarely in the latter camp. If so, then perhaps the general interest newspaper book review section(save for the big dogs like the LAT and NYT, et al, which, as always, are what people are really talking about when they talk about "the media" or in this case, "book review sections") are not the best place for what we are seeking to save.

As a former arts writer who wrote book reviews at a smallish Midwestern daily metro paper, I can say that my pieces rarely involved "thoughtful literary criticism." What I did offer was what I hoped was a summary that didn't give too much away, some analysis of plot, setting and characters, and enough personality in the piece to make it clear whether I thought the book was worth a reader's time. I grappled with many of my choices: Does Michael Connelly really need another review? Perhaps not, but just because I'm a fan and had tracked down dozens of other reviews doesn't mean that someone who relies on a general interest newspaper has done so. I chose, perhaps unwisely, to assume that I was among my readers' sole outlets for book news and reviews. That meant handling some mainstream fare and pushing at those boundaries to recommend a few things that would otherwise fall through the cracks.

On a larger scale, that's what I want as a reader. I want to learn about books I might want to read, and I'm helped much more by simply seeing that a review has been done - and by who and in what tone - than by the review itself. Too much "thoughtful literary criticism" gives too much away, and I'd rather not know too much going in. I may turn to BookForum or the NY Review of Books after the fact to amplify points or help me to better appreciate what I just read, but I seriously doubt more than a fraction of the people who read with any consistency slog their way through several thousand words before deciding to pick up a book.

If I want to know what to read, I can consult thousands of blogs and web site, skim book review sections or (gasp) talk to friends. If I want to be entertained by reading about books and literature, I'll usually go to very different places. So, perhaps people who want the former should fight for book review space to remain in papers as just one tool among many, while those who want the latter should support outlets that already exist for such things (and perhaps suggest that the more successful newspaper book reviews be spun off as separate publications).

[Diana]

This is really well put. To put one more environmental metaphor out there: there needs to be an ecosystem of information wherein all these resources can exist together.

[TEV]

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, folks. I hope this discussion will continue to widen.

A few additional thoughts are brought to mind by your comments, especially John's. I think your point is well taken - I often take great pleasure in reading a well-crafted review of a book I know I'll never read. But for the most part - NYTBR being one of the exceptions - I don't find these at newspapers. In addition to the ones I mentioned above, I find these kind of thoughtful pieces in places like The New Yorker, The New Republic, the Atlantic and others - in short, places that cover fewer books but do so in more depth.

I'd also argue that we've sacrificed something chasing after newspapers' reach. The argument - offered, for example, by Oscar Villalon (a find book editor) - is that a newspaper reaches X-hundreds of thousands people. But there's an underlying presumption that all, most or many of these people read the book reviews. I think that's a real fallacy. People interested in books read book reviews, and I'd venture the wager that the traffic at a site like this one or Maud Newton's or Bookslut is a much more accurate indicator of how many people are reading newspaper book reviews.

If we can accept that possibility, then it really rams home the notion that we're trading depth, thoughtfulness and variety for a "wide readership" that essentially is chimerical. I think it's important to remember that though numbers don't lie they can be spun, and they only tell a part of the story.

I do think your notion about wanting to be kept aware of books is a very important one, one that probably speaks for a lot of readers, and again, I think newspapers might learn from blogs about how to do that better, and they might utilize their web presences more effectively to shine as wide a light as possible.

[Darby]

"Too much 'thoughtful literary criticism' gives too much away, and I'd rather not know too much going in. I may turn to BookForum or the NY Review of Books after the fact to amplify points or help me to better appreciate what I just read, but I seriously doubt more than a fraction of the people who read with any consistency slog their way through several thousand words before deciding to pick up a book."

John, you had me at hello.

[grackyfrogg]

i really liked this piece. you articulated very well a lot of the thoughts i have been mulling over since the NBCC started their campaign. in particular, i liked what you said here:

"The internet has given readers a new hunger for participating in a discussion rather than simply being dictated to, and, if that raises overall enthusiasm for books, it's not a bad thing, however unruly it might become."

i fully agree. i have wondered if that fear of potential "unruliness" is part of the critics' reactions to the changes in the book review industry... the idea that people who are not "experts" on literature might have opinions of their own about what they are reading--opinions they want to express (for free--yikes!) through blogs, etc. but after all, why shouldn't they? the more discussion of books, the better, i say.

but of course, that is not to devalue the opinions of people who do study literature (being an English major, i could hardly do that! :) ). there will always be a need for learned critics who can help to guide, and give a big-picture context to, the cultural and literary discussion... but what does it matter if they do it in print, or online, or in podcasts, or some other medium? as you say, the change is not coming, it is already here. what is important is figuring out how to adapt to this new world in a way that both readers and writers can benefit.

anyway, great post... thanks.

[Jack Pendarvis]

Two things about your penultimate paragraph: 1) This may stun everyone, but I personally know some poor people who are smart! Sometimes they buy books instead of clothes! 2) These old people on whom you are counting to die soon, well, don't worry, they all have computers. I know this because they send me hundreds of forwards about not sticking my hand in a payphone change slot because I will be poisoned by a deadly hypodermic needle that someone has hidden inside. So this actually works in favor of your argument. The old are manning their computers this very minute! You have, if anything, underestimated the numbers of the computer-savvy "old-timers" of our land. Also, they are not dying. We have lots of good new medicines! And we love our old people; they are very nice to us. Full disclosure: I am poor and old.

[TEV]

Hey Jack. My 79-year-old Dad is on the internet, too. But I think we can eliminate outliers and agree that the "set" of interested book buyers probably very neatly overlaps the "set" of people with internet access (if I can wear my math hat).

By the way, I encourage you all to cross-post your comments at Critical Mass. They will appear after moderated, and I think the conversation should be held there, too.

[Erika D.]

Great posts, Mark. Thanks for taking the time to synthesize so many important points I know many of us have been thinking of these past few weeks--and for doing it so gracefully and graciously.

[grackyfrogg]

by the way mark, when i clicked on the link to the LA Times article (in the first half of your post, on Critical Mass), it took me to an article about Book Critics Circle nominees... i'm thinking that's probably not the one you are referring to?

[TEV]

Thank you, Erika! And grack, those links aren't mine - you should leave a comment over there. They chose those links.