News reaches us via the newborn blog of Tod Goldberg that Steve Wasserman is considering stepping down from the helm of the LA Times Book Review.
I consider myself a fairly well read person and I figure that most of the people who read the LA Times Book Review are as well. On any given Sunday, however, I can flip through the pages of the Review and not recognize the majority of the authors or books, and this is from a person who typically stays abreast of these things. Perhaps Wasserman wants his reading public to be smarter; there's no harm in that, certainly, but at some level the Review should resemble the people who read it. And in Los Angeles, I believe that means fiction.
Well said, Tod. Now, since Wasserman's apparently only "likely leaving", we'd like to urge Wasserman in the strongest possible terms to follow your impulses and skeddadle. We'll even help you pack your books. Really, the door's that way.
The fact is that once a week, the LA Times hits our doorstep with a truly sickening thud (we only take it on Sundays), and once a week we extract this limp, anemic, gasping thing that claims to be a Book Review. But it isn't really, hasn't been one for as long as we've been reading. Whether it's to do with Wasserman's well documented self-importance or these newer accusations of cultural tone-deafness, the end result has been the same. A dull, tepid and uninspiring weekly pamphlet that's utterly discardable and forgettable.
It's a golden opportunity for the LA Times to seize and to refashion this section into something that reflects the vibrant and burgeoning literary culture in this city. Given their track record, we're not terribly confident that they'll rise to the occasion, but we're here for consulting.
UPDATE: The considerably more professional L.A. Observed reports that we may have rejoiced a bit prematurely. But we're keeping hope alive.
Touche. Damn, I can't get my keyboard to add proper accents! I pull out that Book Review every Sunday and like Tod, find that there is minimal fiction and often many authors, I've not yet heard of. I too, consider myself to be well read but end up second guessing that when I look at the LA times Book Review.
It'd be great to get a fresh look at some literature that is worthy of reviewing.
Posted by: Angela Stubbs | January 31, 2005 at 01:04 PM
Somewhat ashamed, somewhat pleased to say I don't even read it anymore unless someone links to it. I haven't seen an ink version since the Orwell centennial. Does it atill arrive upside-down in the Calendar section? This is not a catty question, merely an honest one...
Posted by: joseph | January 31, 2005 at 02:26 PM
Agree about Wasserman. Met him a few times and he was as condescending as his section.
Posted by: Michael | January 31, 2005 at 03:05 PM
The paper up the road (so to speak) the SF Chronicle has a worthy book section, if that helps...
Posted by: birnbaum | January 31, 2005 at 07:01 PM
As someone outside of LA (and for whom the Times stands walled behind registration) I'm wondering if there are examples of the type of fiction the section is covering?
At this point I'm just curious as it sounds like it is disappointing so many good readers.
Posted by: CAAF | January 31, 2005 at 07:26 PM
CAAF...fiction? Only if there isn't another history of Hollywood to review. Actually, this week was good for fiction -- it was time for the monthly crime fiction page o'reviews (hey, did you know Dashiell Hammett wrote this stuff? Four re-releases reviewed). The cover story is on females and boxing (the LAT is all over this story this week).
The sad thing is, except for the Hammett stuff, I totally forgot what I read just a few days ago. I couldn't even begin to guess what was reviewed the week before.
Posted by: booksquare | February 02, 2005 at 01:38 PM