NYTBR Interviewed

There is a LOT of food for thought here, where the Lit Saloon responds to an interview with four prominent members of the NYTBR staff. (Also see Ed’s close reading of Tanenahus’s remarks.) This caught my eye:

We’re also not only in the business of reviewing books, but presenting what we hope will be interesting journalism to readers. It is easier to get a good piece of analysis and writing, a better essay, a better report, whatever you think a book review of being, on non-fiction than fiction. Novels and short stories are very hard to write about.

This, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong with the culture at the NYTBR. I’m 100% with the Lit Saloon–it is the New York Times Book Review, and so for the most part I want book reviews, not journalism.

Also, the assertion that "novels and short stories are very hard to write about" strikes me as completely off-base. If you are concerned about literary aesthetics and culture, then they are in fact very easy to write about. The fact that even with our culture’s diminished respect for literature, I can still read good, meaty pieces on new fiction virtually every week tells me that there is a lot of note to say about fiction.

I think what Tanenhaus means by his quote is that if you are trying to comment on the (primarily political) news of the day, then fiction won’t get you that far. I have my own reservations about that, but I do agree that it’s generally unwise to tie fiction too much to hard news.

But, anyway, I think this is very representative of the culture at our current NYTBR. They want journalism, or at least the kinds of writing that does not lend itself to being spawned by fiction. Moreover, and this is what really bothers me, there seems to be a perception that you can’t even derive very good, interesting criticism from fiction.

Regarding the culture there, perhaps the Lit Saloon puts it best:

Tanenhaus has tried to explain the fiction/non-fiction disparity, but we’ve never found the explanations satisfactory or convincing.

That’s precisely it. It makes perfect sense to Tanenhaus, but to us it’s wholly unconvincing. Two different worlds.

Recent Posts

Criticism Isn't Free

CR is dedicated to thoughtful, in-depth criticism without regard to what's commercially appealing. It takes tens of hours each month to provide this. Please help make this sort of writing sustainable, either with a subscription or a one-time donation. Thank you!

You could also purchase one of my acclaimed ebooks.

1 Comment

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


I think it is a real problem that the most high-profile book review has a stated preference for non-fiction because they want to write about issues. Wouldn’t it be nice if they reviewed fiction with the same depth, the same analysis of the text’s place in the current culture? This sort of thought isn’t only relevant to graduate school courses. I want some emphasis on the importance of reading fiction. But that’s just me.


The Surrender is Veronica Scott Esposito’s “collection of facts” concerning how she embraced her true gender.


Two long essays of 10,000 words each on sex in—and out of—literature . . .

The first essay dives in to Nicholson Baker’s “sex trilogy,” explaining just what Baker is up to here and why these books ultimately fail to be as sexy as Baker might wish.

From there the book moves on to the second essay, which explains just why Spaniard Javier Marías does right what Baker does wrong . . .


5 essays. 2 interviews.

All in all, over 25,000 words of Latin American literary goodness.

3 never-before-published essays, including “The Digression”—a 4,000-word piece on the most important digression in César Aira’s career.

Shop though these links = Support this site

Copyright © 2019. Powered by WordPress & Romangie Theme.