We're too slammed to respond to the NYTBR list that's making the rounds but Ron does say more or less precisely what we were thinking.
But let's consider how the NYTBR reached this decision. They say they reached out to 125 "writers, editors, and critics" for nominees, but if you look at the names on that list, there are only a few I'd call critics rather than writers who've written book reviews over the course of their careers—and even fewer editors. (If you read a bit further, you can see if my rough calculations make sense to you.) Furthermore, almost every one of those critics is old school media. Why not include voices from the blogosphere like Laila Lalami, Maud Newton, or Mark Sarvas? Heck, Lizzie Skurnick has even written for the Review already!
The absence of literary bloggers from the list of consultees has much to do with the staid nature of the results. (Although we are on record as considering Underworld the best American novel of the last 25 years, so perhaps we wouldn't have added that much.) It's more to do with taking the usual narrow approach to literary tastemaking. What a considerably more interesting list Mr. Tanenhaus might have ended up with ...
Agree through a bullhorn with your estimation of 'Underworld.' Am on my 5th proper-sequence read-through...though I also like random, almanac-like dipping with this great book, too...
The time is coming,I'm sure, when 'old school media' will come cap (and toupee) in hand to the Online Hegemony. You won't need the patience of a redwood to see that day's dawning. I'm not saying that all current bloggers will suddenly become relevant (or even coherent)...but the best will soon have that head-spinning sensation of going from being the cave-dwelling insurgency to suddenly becoming 'The Man' (adjust for gender). Don't pull a Stalin on us! (laugh)
Posted by: Steven Augustine | May 12, 2006 at 12:41 AM
I've decided to conduct a survey of the blogosphere along the same lines. Please
participate.
Posted by: mapletree7 | May 12, 2006 at 08:48 AM