Should the New York Times review self-published books?
For the most part, New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus did a fine job answering reader questions in the recent "Talk to the Newsroom" feature.I was impressed with his response when asked about the mission of the Book Review:
[T]o publish lively, informed, provocative criticism on the widest-possible range of books and also to provide a kind of snapshot of the literary culture as it exists in our particular moment through profiles, essays and reported articles.I was a lot less impressed when Tanenhaus was asked why the Times excludes self-published books from review consideration. Here's his rationale:
Our thinking, which may be old-fashioned, is that with so great a volume of books being published each year by traditional publishers, and with so many imprints available, every book of merit is almost certain to find a home at one or another of those presses.Excuse me, that's not old-fashioned thinking; it's brain-dead thinking. It's just patently false, today more than ever. So many authors are self-publishing by choice, not because they couldn't sell the book to a publisher.
Why couldn't he just say what everyone knows is the truth: "We'd rather not go to the trouble of reading any self-published books. We might miss the next great American novel, but that's OK with us."
I'm not arguing that the Times is obligated to read every damned piece of slush that comes over the transom. They can exclude anything they want. Just be honest about it, that's all I'm asking. If you don't have the staff, just say it. If you only review books from publishers who advertise in the Times, just say it.
But don't perpetuate this fiction, that a book is only worthwhile if it's been sold to a corporation. The average Times reader is a lot smarter than that.
Labels: book reviews
posted by Steve Weber at 4:23 PM
7 comments
links to this post
7 Comments:
You said it! The New York Times' explanation of why it ignores self-published books is numbingly disingenuous. But I'm afraid it's the excuse of major media nationwide.
Laura Miller wrote some years ago that every book that deserves to be published is published by the big houses. It struck me at the time as a smarmily self-serving remark, since her career benefitted from promulgating the party line.
I'm a retired newspaper editor. I was once the book review editor for The Winston-Salem Journal, one of our best mid-sized dailies. I had a page and a half in which to review books once a week. That was surprisingly generous for a newspaper that size. Like most other editors, I couldn't possibly review every book that seemed even remotely worthy. But I certainly understood, as I do today, that the next Ulysses or Moby Dick might well have been published and been ignored. That's the nature of the beast, and as you so succinctly point out, it doesn't behoove a great newspaper devoted to public enlightenment to be dishonest about its reasons for not reviewing such a large and growing number of books.
The Times, like other newspapers, has simply seized upon a seemingly plausible rationale. It just happens to be a dishonest one, and they all know it, as I did when I was a book review editor.
We live in a time of overheated commerciality. Instead of adopting
visionary ways to make more money, the newspapers have chosen a cost-cutting business model to serve their shareholders in the short run. As a result our political and cultural life is at risk.
Even many of the small reviews, among them the counter-cultural reviews, disdain reviewing self-published books, because they're wannabes. They think their credibility and authority will be diminished if they review such work. They lack the self-confidence and daring necessary to make such choices. The daring, in fact, of many self-publishers.
Of course the vast majority of self-published books is inferior. But the vast majority of books published by the Big Six is inferior, and getting worse by the day.
And it gets even worse: only rarely are small press books reviewed in the major media.
To say we don't review self-published or wee-press books because, by definition, by virtue of the fact they weren't brought out by the biggies, they're bad simply flies in the face of the history of self-publishing, and if those newspapers editors who make this claim don't know that, then they're not qualified to be book review editors.
In all cases, the beleaguered book editors, who can't handle the volume of material they're receiving, grasp this consensual nonsense that The Times just handed out. You were right, more than right, to say we deserve a discussion, we deserve honesty from people who claim to be keeping our leaders honest.
The fact is that more than 170,000 books published last year. If each reviewer can read 2 books a day, 7 days a week, the NY Times would still have to have more than 30 full-time reviewers just to read each of those books. Since books aren't published in equal numbers throughout the year, there will be months when reviewers will need to read 3 or 4 books a day. And that's not allowing time for reviewers to write even superficial reviews, much less thoughtful ones. It's a little more complicated than an arrogant NY Times' not wanting to go to the trouble.
They need to have some basis for weeding through all the books, and whatever they do is going to be arbitrary in one way or another. I've spoken with Sam about this. He tells me that small press books are indeed part of the Times' reading list. But that's neither here nor there. The book review section is sustained mainly by advertising, not good will. If I were its editor in this business climate, I would also look at the bottom line and look for books from publishers who can afford to spend money on ads. It's that or lose my job and the book review section at the same time.
If you want a chance to be reviewed in the Times, don't just send them your good book. Everyone's book is good. Give them a real reason why your book is going to sell and make the chains and bookstores happy. Then they might give you a read.
On the other hand, reviews in newspaper book review sections are not all they're cracked up to be. Get Maureen Dowd or Thomas Friedman to plug your book in their columns. You'll be a lot happier with the results.
Considering some of the less than brilliant books I've picked up at BEA over the years, that later have been turned into boring Hollywood movies, this comment is thoughtless and completely untrue.
The only reason you advertise as a publisher in a trade journal or newspaper is NOT because you think it will sell books, (when is the last time you purchased a book because you saw a print ad about it?) but because it gives you more leverage when buttering up the reviewers and getting your books discussed in the review section.
Excellent posting, tks. I wonder though if those of us excited by the new publishing possibilities wouldn't do best to simply start covering them ourselves, and let places like the Times be left in the dust.
Anyway, you might enjoy a posting I put up recently. Great minds thinking similar thoughts!
The "Times" is not alone in ignoring self-published books. But the paper's excuse is typical. I suspect, though, that the "Times" is not immune to book-biz buzz and probably won't review many books from any publisher that aren't considered politically correct, literarily expedient, or linked to a publisher's ad/PR blitz. This approach is part of the same arrogance that leads many writers to ignore the so-called mainstream publishers and agents.
Tenenhaus may overstate, but the fundamental point that self-published books are worse on average is consistent with my experience. If that premise is correct, then it is at least possible that it makes sense not to spend resources screening them. No conflict-of-interest explanation seems needed here.
As a a book reviewer myself (www.reviewyak.com), I understand being inundated by too many great books and needing some way to screen them. But I AM open to self-published books, especially if people approach me correctly and, of course, their book is actually good. Which you can tell pretty quickly.
As a publishing consultant (www.wordstoprofit.com), I often advise people to self-publish, for several reasons. The main one being--something's very wrong with publishing these days. It's everyone is paralyzed. I shopped around a client's book proposal for 2 years. One editor "lost" it 4 times; I finally gave up. Nobody gets back to you. And these are people I know personally (I've been in publishing for nearly 3 decades). Traditional publishing is undergoing HUGE changes (witness what's happened recently at HarperCollins and Zondervan), and I think it's going to end up moving in the direction of "self-publishing" anyway. (HC has a new division that is experimenting with giving no advances, but higher royalties on the back end to authors.) Morgan James is already using a sort of "hybrid" model, a cross between self-publishing and traditional, that may well become the standard eventually.
I agree that the majority of books --self-published or not--are not very good. The clutter is great. But let's let QUALITY (and the initiative of the author) be the criteria for what gets ink.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home