Criticism is and has been circling the web the last several weeks. Until now, I’ve chosen to remain quiet and just listen. There are such strong feelings on both sides of this debate, like so many. I can see some of what both sides say, but I can’t align myself with either side. I’m pulled in several directions here.
Once I completed my coverage and analysis of this discussion, I decided to break it into three parts for the sake of length. This first part is an introduction to and overview of the situation.
First, let’s set the stage.
The subject: Will the death of newspaper book review sections hurt books and the literary community in general?
On the one hand: The literary guard.
On the other: Quite a few book bloggers.
Disclaimer: I never could really get into the reviews in newspaper book sections. They’re long, and so many of the books they review are books I’ve never heard of, I most likely can’t get at my library, and I may not be interested in reading.
The back story: Major newspapers have been closing down their respective standalone book review sections, sometimes eliminating the content and related positions entirely, other papers eliminating some positions and crowding the book reviews into another section with less space. [This hasn't been happening at smaller newspapers because they didn't have standalone book review sections to begin with.] Part of this issue, although not really discussed alongside, to my knowledge, is how major newspapers’ collective future has been in question for quite awhile now. The logical question is, then, what will replace these reviews in the collective? Stated another way: How will readers learn of new, quality books? It’s the answer to this question that the current controversy stems from.
