On Feb. 15, the Washington Post printed its last Sunday "Book World" section. One week later, it premiered a combined Outlook-book review section, with a somewhat expanded book review section the following Wednesday.
The Post claimed this was "good news" for Book World fans, and I guess it's not all bad news. Ron Charles' reviews on Wednesday are as lively and intelligent as they ever were for the old "Book World"; Jonathan Yardley continues to publish his periodic essays on once-popular or unfairly forgotten books (his most recent essay was on Irwin Shaw and "The Young Lions"); the Monday mystery-thirller reviews of Patrick Anderson continue to appear every Monday, and on Friday we can still count on Carolyn See's always-delightful, wide-ranging reviews of current fiction and non-fiction. There are even book reviews on Saturday now, which never happened before "Book World" was laid to rest.
And yet I cannot help but feel that the role of both books and ideas has been much diminished at The Washington Post. On Sundays before the change, we could count on sixteen pages of incisive literary commentary in "Book World" and eight pages of inslightful political and cultural essays in "Outlook." Those were always the sections of the Sunday paper that accompanied my first cup of coffee that morning. Now, in the combined section, we have five pages of political essays and three pages of reviews. How the Post could consider this an even trade, or hope to maintain its reputation as a national paper of record after this, can only be considered an exercise in self-delusion. Blended together, "Outlook" and "Book World" look gray and unprepossessing; though it would be unfair to say the quality of the writing has diminished, the current presentation of the essays and reviews makes them appear much less significant. (That isn't even considering their reduced number.) With "Book World" ceasing publication and the San Francisco Chronicle poised to go under, this means that the New York Times will be the only newspaper in the country with a dedicated Sunday book section. Gore Vidal once said the United States is about as signficant culturally as Albania; why are the nation's newspapers so hellbent on proving him right?
The Post complained that "Book World" hemorrhaged money for years, and that publishers just weren't buying ads. Maybe so, but I know a lot of people on the verge of canceling their Post subscriptions for the want of "Book World." Does the paper's management really consider that a good trade?
When I was a kid in Ohio, the commentary and book review sections in the Sunday papers were always combined, and always uninteresting. I guess the Post wants to be Washingtonians' "local" paper, in more ways than one.
Comments (2)
Count me as one subscriber who has consisdered canceling his subscription since the end of Book World. But the Washington Post has been in a death spiral for several years: the paper has shrunk physically, some sections have been abbreviated (have you noticed how short the front section is now? often only 15 or so pages, when it used to routinely run 25), and now, no more Book World. It seems to me that the only thing that can happens when a paper steadily cuts back on actual product is that fewer and fewer people will have any reason to read it. A death spiral.
I don't know what the answer is. But I suspect that we're moving toward a world in which most American cities will not have any newspaper at all. I wonder if in ten years there will be only half a dozen major metropolitan papers in the whole country. We Washingtonians will end up having to subscribe to the New York Times....
Posted by Chris Conlon | March 7, 2009 11:26 AM
Posted on March 7, 2009 11:26
Or, the Los Angeles Times!(heaven, Rachel Maddow, and the new Kepler satellite help us!)
Posted by Arthur Meiselman | March 7, 2009 1:02 PM
Posted on March 7, 2009 13:02