I did inform you what I was doing with this report in person, as I am wont to do, and, without violating the private nature of our conversation, you seemed to agree with me at the time that what I was reporting represented a valid perspective.

I’ll only say this. Excitement is, of course, relative. People have told me that they love what I do, only to slag me off later. That’s the human condition. But if people are getting excited over dull copy, which I am not necessarily suggesting that yours is, then I think that’s fantastic. The real excited readers, however, are going elsewhere and they’ll continue to go elsewhere. And the NBCC will wonder why people aren’t excited anymore. But then, as you probably know, I’m not someone who settles. Neither, for that matter, are the readers that reviewers are desperately trying to attract without any interest in what actually gets them excited.

I’d also take issue with your statement that there was no excitement in the panel. At least a dozen people told me afterwards that they appreciated my passion and enthusiasm, and they and others also told me that they were glad to hear me say that I am proud to write book reviews.

The panel wasn’t perfect. But I know that I contributed more than mere presence.

Thanks for covering the panel; I hope next year’s NBCC program will benefit from your comments as well as those from the LAT Jacket Copy, etc.

Some in publishing hew rigorously to centralized authority, with a handful of entities for “making a book.” The idea that there are any number of larger, more disparate nodes of impact seems terrifying enough to require disparagement.