If this isn't a case of déjà vu all over again, I don't know what is. The announcement last week that the Hartford Courant is laying off its books editor and that the Los Angeles Times will no longer publish a freestanding Sunday book review evoked a reaction that was more than a little familiar. In fact, it was identical to how the book world responded a year ago to the news of changes at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and other papers: it's the death of intelligent criticism! It's the death of the book business! Or worse yet, proof that the book business is already, if not dead, well on its way out.
Yes, there has been, understandably, plenty of wailing. “I have been extremely anguished about this,” said David L. Ulin, the longtime L.A. Times contributor who took over the L.A. Times Book Review in October 2005 and who will continue to edit the newspaper's new book section. “WILL THE LAST BOOK REVIEW EDITOR TURN OUT THE LIGHTS?” read the scary headline atop postings on the NBCC site last week. As for me, well, the thought of any journalist—bookish or not—out of work makes me very nervous (and not just because it raises the question, “When me?”); any reduction in coverage of books that matter is particularly hard to swallow.
But here's the reality. Complaining and worrying aren't going to make a difference. The newspaper business is in free fall and book coverage is only a tiny part of the problem. If you want to get really depressed, consider what it means that, say, the New York Times had massive layoffs earlier this year and that the reorganization at the L.A. Times is paper-wide. It's not just “book culture” that is endangered, it's culture in general—political, economic, social, ethical.
On the bright side, Ulin points out that the L.A. Times book coverage isn't going away entirely. Beginning on August 3, book reviews and possibly some features will appear in the second part of the Calendar section, to be named Arts and Books. He anticipates three full broadsheet pages of reviews (admittedly just over half of the space he used to have); he also says some columns—including Susan Salter Reynolds's “discoveries” —and the bestseller list will remain. “Editorially and aesthetically, we are going to be producing the same kind of work,” says Ulin. “We are generating our own content and are not reducing the quality of the reviews.” In addition, Ulin will continue to edit and “grow” the book coverage on the Web site; the paper will continue to award its annual book prizes and sponsor the very popular Festival of Books in the spring.
Is this an ideal situation? Of course not. Would Ulin and other book editors do it differently if they could? No doubt. But in case you haven't noticed, the world is changing, and like it or not, more people are getting their information elsewhere than in print newspapers. Which means building a good Web site, welcoming (and pitching to) bloggers may be more effective in communicating with readers than reviews are now, and maybe ever were. Yes, it is a loss to have fewer pages of anything as intelligent and interesting as the L.A. Times Book Review has been, but I feel about these changes the way a 90-year-old laments another milestone birthday: it sure beats the alternative.
Agree? Disagree? Tell us at www.publishersweekly.com/saranelson
