My copy of Collosus is on the way from Tertulia, which is an online bookstore that is a great alternative to Amazon. I so enjoyed Glass Century that I made it a point to order a copy of your latest, knowing it will be a great read. And I must admit, I am a sucker for plots that are NYC based. Regarding your critique of Garner, I think it’s valid. I will also note that the NYTBR reviews have become far thinner, as has the Review itself, and this is not a positive development. The loss of the WAPO book review is a tragedy. Ron Charles is brilliant and I am glad he has started his own Substack. Regarding the rise of Substacks that review books, this is all fine and well, but there is a limit to what one can spend subscribing to substacks, not to mention a limit on one’s time to actually read them. Anyway I wish you great success with the new novel. I hope it becomes a NYT best seller, although I’m not naive; I know that’s a tall order for a book published by a small press. I also see that a non-fiction book about the rise of Mamdani is due out in September. You’ve been quite busy! Looking forward to reading that also. You should take credit for being on the ground floor of Mamdani’s rise. He is a singular political talent. It’s a shame the Constitution prohibits him from running for President.
Thanks, Ross. Your question "What if there were multiple Times book review columnists who wrote on, each week, three books?" goes to the heart of a huge problem with the NYTBR: It isn't reviewing enough books. I'd expand your question to say: "three books on a wider range of topics than it does now."
The Times just added a regular column on fantasy when it already has columns on mysteries, thrillers, romance, historical fiction, and horror. Why add another genre fiction column instead of one on books on any of the many topics, especially in nonfiction, on which it has no column, such as politics, business, sports, finance, or science?
The answer seems obvious: Romance is the bestselling genre in America, followed by mysteries and thrillers, and that's where the Times stands to earn the most from clicks on affiliate referrals. The NYTBR no longer treats its print or digital book space as a place to cover most important or newsworthy books but as a money-making venture. In other words, it's no longer in the business of journalism or literary criticism--it's in the business of sales or marketing for books. Times executives might argue: We're just trying to bring in money to keep the book section alive. But that's a smokescreen. The Times doesn't say: "We need to earn money on affiliate referrals to fire departments to cover fires." It just doesn't see books as "news" in the way it once did. It's sad, and it adds to that sadness that we no longer have journalism reviews or trade publications willing to call out the NYTBR on what it's doing.
There’s truth in this, but I’m not sure criticism can afford to choose. Doesn’t it need to face both ways, Ross? Back towards the books (or art) that shape our sense of what “great” is. And forward towards the ones that might challenge it or move it forward. Without that tension, we either risk nostalgia (as you point out) or cultural drift. Personally, I’m looking forward to reading the new Robert Harris later this year and writing about ‘The Sun Also Rises’ for its birthday.
The Times book review's days as a stand alone section are surely numbered. I can practically feel it disappearing in my hands each Sunday. Given what's inside each week, I no longer view this as a totally unfortunate prospect.
I do have to agree. At this point the hundreds upon hundreds of pieces with the primary theme of depression over a lost literary past no longer hold the slightest bit of interest.
My copy of Collosus is on the way from Tertulia, which is an online bookstore that is a great alternative to Amazon. I so enjoyed Glass Century that I made it a point to order a copy of your latest, knowing it will be a great read. And I must admit, I am a sucker for plots that are NYC based. Regarding your critique of Garner, I think it’s valid. I will also note that the NYTBR reviews have become far thinner, as has the Review itself, and this is not a positive development. The loss of the WAPO book review is a tragedy. Ron Charles is brilliant and I am glad he has started his own Substack. Regarding the rise of Substacks that review books, this is all fine and well, but there is a limit to what one can spend subscribing to substacks, not to mention a limit on one’s time to actually read them. Anyway I wish you great success with the new novel. I hope it becomes a NYT best seller, although I’m not naive; I know that’s a tall order for a book published by a small press. I also see that a non-fiction book about the rise of Mamdani is due out in September. You’ve been quite busy! Looking forward to reading that also. You should take credit for being on the ground floor of Mamdani’s rise. He is a singular political talent. It’s a shame the Constitution prohibits him from running for President.
Thanks, Ross. Your question "What if there were multiple Times book review columnists who wrote on, each week, three books?" goes to the heart of a huge problem with the NYTBR: It isn't reviewing enough books. I'd expand your question to say: "three books on a wider range of topics than it does now."
The Times just added a regular column on fantasy when it already has columns on mysteries, thrillers, romance, historical fiction, and horror. Why add another genre fiction column instead of one on books on any of the many topics, especially in nonfiction, on which it has no column, such as politics, business, sports, finance, or science?
The answer seems obvious: Romance is the bestselling genre in America, followed by mysteries and thrillers, and that's where the Times stands to earn the most from clicks on affiliate referrals. The NYTBR no longer treats its print or digital book space as a place to cover most important or newsworthy books but as a money-making venture. In other words, it's no longer in the business of journalism or literary criticism--it's in the business of sales or marketing for books. Times executives might argue: We're just trying to bring in money to keep the book section alive. But that's a smokescreen. The Times doesn't say: "We need to earn money on affiliate referrals to fire departments to cover fires." It just doesn't see books as "news" in the way it once did. It's sad, and it adds to that sadness that we no longer have journalism reviews or trade publications willing to call out the NYTBR on what it's doing.
Thank you Richard! I appreciate the kind words
There’s truth in this, but I’m not sure criticism can afford to choose. Doesn’t it need to face both ways, Ross? Back towards the books (or art) that shape our sense of what “great” is. And forward towards the ones that might challenge it or move it forward. Without that tension, we either risk nostalgia (as you point out) or cultural drift. Personally, I’m looking forward to reading the new Robert Harris later this year and writing about ‘The Sun Also Rises’ for its birthday.
Fine to face both ways. Just dangerous to only look back.
The Times book review's days as a stand alone section are surely numbered. I can practically feel it disappearing in my hands each Sunday. Given what's inside each week, I no longer view this as a totally unfortunate prospect.
I do have to agree. At this point the hundreds upon hundreds of pieces with the primary theme of depression over a lost literary past no longer hold the slightest bit of interest.
Maybe it’s a slightly tangential point, but expecting critics to also offer solutions created generations of bad critics.