Secret Workings of the NYTBR Revealed!

Well, not quite that thrilling, but there is some useful info here.

The part I find most interesting is that the Book Review "winnows down" from 1,000 books per week. I don’t know how common this is, but I submit that if a large amount of the time of you and your assistant editors is spent tossing out books you’re not interested in reviewing, then you’re losing out on time that could be well spent making the Book Review a better product.

Again, for all I know this is SOP at all major papers nationwide, but it would seem that they could find a better way to pick books, or at least a better way to get rid of the books they don’t want to review.

Also, I’ve really got to say, if they actually do run through 1,000 titles per week, it’s amazing how few substantially interesting books make it to their pages.

More from Conversational Reading:

  1. 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....
  2. Loathing the NYTBR Over at LitKicks, Levi writes As I draw the last thin gray page closed with a sigh of appreciation, I’d like to take a moment...
  3. Vollmann in NYTBR Vollmann’s been tapped by Tanenhaus for a review of Exit A by Anthony Swofford. Vollmann is not pleased. “Imagine my satisfaction,” reads the Scribner publicity...
  4. Salvayre in NYTBR Well, I guess it’s something of a victory that a book by Lydie Salvayre gets reviewed in the NYTBR. Unfortunately, the review is pretty blah....
  5. Authors Rebel Against Crappy NYTBR Reviews Not only bloggers can dis the Times’s bad reviews: But these guys are just a warmup act. The viciousness really begins with David Thomson, who...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.


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!





2 Comments

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published.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

*

” I submit that if a large amount of the time of you and your assistant editors is spent tossing out books you’re not interested in reviewing, then you’re losing out on time that could be well spent making the Book Review a better product.”
So, the product could be improved by *limiting* its scope?

No Sebastian. Let me try to explain this to you. There are better and worse ways to find books for your book review. Shuffling through the 1,000 books that are randomly sent to you every week sounds inefficient and rather narrow to me. (What about the publishers that can’t afford to send books? What about the publishers that choose not to? What about the books that are tossed out before they even reach the editors? Why only let a small circle of a few editors pick the books week after week after week?) I think there are much better ways to pick books, ways in which the NYTBR can both be more efficient and that widen its scope.

Shop though these links = Support this site

Copyright © 2015. Powered by WordPress & Romangie Theme.