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.