There was a time when I religiously read the New York Times Book Review. I didn't subscribe to the paper but I bought the Book Review every week at the book store across the street from my office. One day at lunch it turned out that everyone at the table had read the Book Review that week and someone, tongue in cheek (kinda), suggested that we start a Book Review Book Club where we never read the books, just the Book Review. I remember having lists of books that I made after reviewing the Book Review of books that I wanted to read.
These days I digitally subscribe to the NYTimes and occasionally read the "Books" tab. Over the last 10 years or so, I only occasionaly found a book that I was interested in reading. Was that a change in me? Or a change in the Book Review? Maybe both. But I do know that I found most reviews boring - more like book reports than real reviews. I can get that kind of writing from book blogs, I don't need the NYTimes for that.
I have been reading more of the reviews in the last few months. I actually didn't realize this until I read this Publishers Weekly article and learned that there is a new editor (and that my disinterest in the Book Review was pretty much the entire tenure of the last editor). I started to think about it and realized I've been finding that the book reviews to hold more interest for me. (Not much more, but some more.)
Is that a good sign for the future? Maybe. This gave me pause though:
Under Cruz, the Book Review is also streamlining its coverage. It no longer runs “double-reviews” (two reviews by different critics of a single book), which Cruz felt “sends a mixed message to the reader.”
I like mixed messages. It tells me that this is a book that can be DISCUSSED. And argued about.
So, we'll see how things go under the new guy. But I still miss the old Book Review.
