Comments on: Litbloggers and the NBCC: “Separate But Equal”

By: Rebecca Skloot

Rebecca Skloot — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:34:52 +0000

PS: I tried to post the above comment on King’s blog, where he’s written a screed about me, but ironically, he doesn’t allow comments on his site …

By: Rebecca Skloot

Rebecca Skloot — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:28:09 +0000

For the record: I’m not the sole person in charge of moderating comments on Critical Mass. Everyone who blogs there moderates comments. Despite King’s claims, I’ve never deleted any comments from him. In fact, so far, the only comments I’ve ever deleted are spam.

By: Barkingkitten

Barkingkitten — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:30:26 +0000

Excellent post. Couldn’tve been more pissed off myself.

These people (sigh, shaking head).

By: King Wenclas

King Wenclas — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:48:01 +0000

Sorry, but the NBCC is a total joke. They flee from the very thing– the noise, contention, and exchange of ideas– which would rescue book review sections.
Several weeks ago I posted a comment on their blog about why sports sections are flourishing while book sections are dying. There was nothing vulgar or anonymous about my post. Did Ms. Skloot post it? Of course not!
These are critics?
No, they’re apparatchiks, not critics. That they can’t handle debate or dissent is proof of this.
NBCC is an organization consisting entirely of book “critics”– yet where has been the exchange of conflicting ideas on their own blog?
By contrast, check the posts on my blog earlier this year when I was allowing comments and you’ll see every topic covered, no holds barred. Fireworks– though the posters were of course anonymous demi-puppets. (I’ll be enabling comments again shortly.)
Why are book review sections dying?
Because they by-and-large offer NOTHING which would interest for five seconds the general public. The NBCC crowd write as if this were sixty years ago– the same standard book review make-no-waves pablum. (Except sixty years ago there were still some great essayists around.)
You know all this, Ed, but to make your way in their world you pretend not to know it.
You’re doing the very things with your podcasts et.al. that literary people are supposed to not do, because it might somehow dilute the purity of the art form.
(Literature will be very pure when no one any longer reads it– when it’s completely dead.)
This whole uproar about book review sections is an admission of failure. It’s a discussion of failure. It’s hysteria about failure. One has to at least recognize this– and then start looking at reall change in order to rescue the art.
(I’ll be posting more about this on my own blog. My colleagues and I aren’t afraid to compete with anybody in this culture. We’ve surrendered to no one. We’ve been putting on shows– readings, celebrations of the word– as exciting as any baseball game or rock concert.)
Contrary ideas. Are you afraid of them, NBCC??

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:31:17 +0000

Keir- Thanks for the correction. I don’t read Chicago papers much (I live elsewhere in the Midwest), and I’ll admit that my exposure to Mariotti is mostly through his ESPN scream-fests, but I’ve read enough of his columns online to stand by my judgement of his writing.

By: Keir

Keir — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:46:28 +0000

Tom, I hate to quibble, but Mariotti writes for the Sun-Times, not the Trib. And the Trib already doesn’t have a resident book critic. But yes, that’s the economics of newspapers. If memory serves, the Trib last week announced that books coverage would move from the feeble, failing stand-alone Sunday insert to something on Saturday…where it will be even easier to hide.

Enjoyed your post, Ed. I’m a paid, pre-pub reviewer who gets a very unthoughtful 175 words per book — and also a blogger. So I agree with everybody. But I think you’re right: it’s important to see this as an evolution.

By: Matt Ellsworth

Matt Ellsworth — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:35:06 +0000

I guess Tom is right about that–it’s self-preservation by the folks fortunate enough to get paid to review. As someone who really admires a well-written review, and recognizes the skill it takes to write one, I’ve generally been amazed by the litblogs; there are so many well-read, thoughtful people writing about literature and the business of. I’ve been excited to begin dabbling myself, and do in fact see the whole continuum of reviewers, from the casual dabblers like me, to Ed, to the rotting-but-still-hallowed bones of Alfred Kazin as a group that should be a mutually supportive community, or at least a team. Thanks, Ed, for doing your part.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:32:53 +0000

Why exclude litbloggers? Because you’re not in the guild, at least most of you. You guys don’t get paid, and the NBCC wants to stay paid. How many layoffs were announced today at the LA Times? The Chicago Trib? The critic at the Trib is probably sweating bullets right now, but that jerkoff Jay Mariotti will still have his barely literate column in the sports section, because the sports section can still sell ads for tire sales and 2-for-1 drinks at the local strip club. I don’t like it either, but that’s the economics of newspapers.