• Ian Rankin describes a week in his life, and it’s about as routine as Rebus.
• The rights to Nick Hornby’s A Long Way Down have been sold. Hornby has earned enough to add a west wing to his home. Will he remember the little people?
• Ms. Chicha deconstructs the strange trend of legs and shoes on current covers.
• Forget historical integrity. There’s a plan in Salem to erect a Bewitched statue at the busiest intersection. Residents are understandably miffed. After all, the least this statue can offer is a twitching nose.
• Maybe this is the literary video game folks are championing: Sony has one in the works based on The Tale of Genji.
• Librarians are employing comics to get kids to read. It was either that or free ice cream.
• John Updike reviews Mo Yan’s Big Breast & Wide Hips. We’re positive the title had nothing to do with his selection.
• Search Engine Watch compares the current book search engines.
• Ed Levine scarfed down 1,000 slices of pizza to research his book. He also filed a petition to change his last name to Pepperoni.
• More on Wasserman: He’s heading back to publishing. The gang at LA Observed also has the memo issued.

Mitch Albom has apologized for fabricating his column. Where other columnists would be sacked on the spot, Albom, by contrast, has been permitted to continue his career. What’s particularly interesting are the parallels between Albom’s apologetic column and Richard Nixon’s famous “Checkers” speech from 1952:

STEP ONE: Repeat An Adjective Three Times for Emphasis

NIXON: “I say that it was morally wrong if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given and secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made.”
ALBOM: “I felt terrible for the mistake, terrible that my newspaper had to take heat, terrible that my editors were besieged.”

STEP TWO: Acknowledge Yourself as a Public Servant With a Clipped Sentence

NIXON: “I come before you tonight.”
ALBOM: “I write for you.”

STEP THREE: Declare That the Battle Isn’t Over With a Stunning Statement of Personal Strength

NIXON: “But let me just say this last word. Regardless of what happens I’m going to continue this fight.”
ALBOM: “And know this: Just as you can’t assume the future, you can’t always assume human nature.”

STEP FOUR: Underplay the Sin

NIXON: “Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States. It was not a secret fund.”
ALBOM: “I made a careless mistake in a column. It wasn’t malicious. It didn’t harm the subjects. But it was factually incorrect in four paragraphs.”

STEP FIVE: Refer to Past as “Dark”

NIXON: “I remember in the dark days of the Hiss case…”
ALBOM: “The last three weeks have been the darkest yet most enlightening of my professional life. The dark part is obvious.”

STEP SIX: Respond with Subtle Libertarian Ethical Statement

NIXON: “Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States.”
ALBOM: “Besides, in 20 years of doing this column, I have never written for those people.”

Laila notes that Michael Standaert’s book-length examination of the Left Behind series will be published by the good folks at Soft Skull.

It was too hot to handle for Tanenhaus, but Maud has the goods on a Chris Lehmann essay on Houghton-Mifflin’s “best of” collections.

We haven’t performed our Tanenhaus Brownie Watch yet, but since we’ve discovered that Tanenhaus isn’t interested in critical essays that offer clear arguments and bare a few teeth, we apply a Brownie Bitchslap Factor of -.5 points towards the next test.

Steve Wasserman has resigned from the Los Angeles Times. Wasserman edited the weekly book review section.

The Times staff was informed on Friday. Apparently, Wasserman was upset about not being able to flex his independence and issued an ultimatum. He was particularly concerned with the scrutiny being applied by top brass. His last day is reported to be May 13.

But the question here, given Wasserman’s temperament, is whether this was a fait accompli, albeit a slow one. What’s amazing is that Wasserman has remained something of an outspoken rabble-rouser over the years and yet until Mark started holding Wasserman’s feet to the fire on a weekly basis, I don’t think any of us outside of Los Angeles really had a sense of how little of Wasserman’s fire ended up on the Times‘ pages. If it really was an internecine battle that Wasserman couldn’t win, then the big question was why Wasserman stayed on board like some masochist? And the bigger question is whether Wasserman’s replacement will be able to have a less tempestuous relationship with the managing editors.

Is the Los Angeles Times‘ book section a lost cause? The time has come for Mr. Sarvas weigh in on this question.

RELATED LINKS:

• The Elegant Variation: Home of the LATBR Thumbnail.
• 1996 interview with Wasserman during happier times: just before he landed the LATBR gig.
• Wasserman two years in: facing criticism from many sides.
• Wasserman on the LATBR bestsellers list.

(lead via Sarah)