Washington Post to close Book World
Another newspaper's book section is disappearing. The Washington Post said today that it will end its standalone Book World tabloid on Feb. 15, melding book coverage into the Sunday Outlook and Style sections. That follows similar moves at other papers, including the Los Angeles Times, and leaves the New York Times with the only free-standing section.
What's behind the move? When newspaper revenues fall, budget-cutting often focuses on two major expenses: people and paper. By reducing the number of pages devoted to book coverage -- the Post plans to publish about three-quarters of the roughly 900 reviews it now carries annually -- it can save a pile of money.
Here's the larger, underlying problem, in my view: Newspapers' book coverage has been slow to react to changes in society. Millions of Americans are in book clubs, but book sections have done little to focus on their needs -- other than to note interesting books. The Post does have a book blog, Short Stack, which helps build a community of readers, but many papers don't even go that far. (And even now, hours after the Post announced Book World's demise, the blog has not noted it.)
Meanwhile, an army of bloggers has filled the vacuum of book coverage. That's a good thing -- there are more and more independent voices offering opinions about books. Bloggers also create a sprawling conversation on every topic associated with reading -- just look at the dozens of comments on Read Street about polygamous readers or the inaugural poem. As book sections vanish, that is the future.
Comments
75% of 900 annual reviews = 675 reviews for the 300,000 new titles published each year (0.225% if I calculated properly...I barely made it through Poly hence the career in literary arts). "As book sections vanish, that is the future." I agree with you, Dave, but how do you answer the old riddle:
"What's a book reviewer's least favorite sound?"
"The BEEP BEEP BEEP of a UPS truck backing up...because it's just another load of books to consider."
And there's the on-line version of that BEEP BEEP, what AOL use to call "You've got mail." There's still so much volume to handle and vetting to be done so that critical reviews get to the readers who would be interested. Bottom line, there is a lot of shaking out still to be done to see where book reviews and traditional print media wind up.
Thank goodness for blogs like this that keep the dialogue alive and help readers sift through the process.
Posted by: Gregg Wilhelm | January 28, 2009 7:47 PM
I'm glad y'all are here.
Posted by: Mary | January 28, 2009 8:24 PM
I'll miss Book World. Jonathan Yardley just issued a welcome denunciation of "presentism" in historical writing. So it goes out on a high note.
Do you think Book World was ever profitable?
Posted by: Tom | January 28, 2009 10:44 PM
One common problem with book sections is that they don't draw a lot of advertising from publishers. I bet it was not profitable, but few sections are money-makers, because the bulk of ads are in the A section of the paper.
Posted by: Dave | January 28, 2009 10:58 PM
I'm glad you're here, too. I've looked at the Post's short stack; they don't seem to understand the nature of blogging. Read Street does. You offer lots of news, ask questions of your readers that invite participation, post often, offer an opinion now and then. Thanks, Dave and Nancy, for not only keeping a good book blog going but for offering a model for good blogging in any subject.
Posted by: Michael Downs | January 28, 2009 11:09 PM
The Times (UK) just lost it's dedicated book supplement, which is now squeezed into a general review supplement.
Posted by: Jodie | January 29, 2009 4:09 AM
Well, while there is a massive army of bloggers reviewing books (I prefer talking about books, less reviews...), many publish similar/same things. Most review the same books, read the same books for their book clubs, and write similar opinion summary reviews. It's quite repetitive and not particularly impressive. Yes, the sheer number is surprising, but the quality is at times unsurprisingly lower. I'd personally prefer fewer challenges, kitches, and reviews, and more things like this: comments on the reading world, book ideas, and general literary thoughts.
Posted by: Biblibio | January 29, 2009 8:42 AM
+1 to Michael Downs's comment. Read Street has quickly established itself as one of the go-to sites for all things "book" in Baltimore. The eclectic coverage and opportunities for reader participation are terrific.
Perhaps you could establish a new section in Resources for links to book review sites? I'm sure Read Streeters would have lots of recommendations. (Or maybe you've asked for this already and I missed it.)
Posted by: Paul Lagasse | January 29, 2009 9:52 AM
Thanks for all the kind words. In starting Read Street, we wanted to create another spot for book lovers to come together, and to support Baltimore's literary community. Your readership -- and comments -- make it what it is.
Paul, I checked the blogroll and realized that it hasn't been updated in some time. I'll see if we can create a separate section for review-heavy blogs, or at least include more on the roll. And to Biblibio's point, I'll include a range of blogs, from those that focus on light reads to more literary blogs.
Posted by: Dave | January 29, 2009 10:40 AM