Sunday morning, praise the dawning
It’s just a restless feeling by my side
Early dawning, Sunday morning
It’s just the wasted years so close behind
Watch out, the world’s behind you
There’s always someone
around you who will call
It’s nothing at all
— Lou Reed, “Sunday Morning”
The litosphere has been furiously debating what it means that Washington Post’s Sunday literary supplement Book World will cease publication in two weeks. The overriding opinion, at least from the chatter I hear online, is “let it die”. This is not unanimous, of course — Steve Wasserman and Douglas Brinkley are asking for action, and the National Book Critics Circle is trying to scare up a petition to save the weekly publication. Theatre critic Terry Teachout, meanwhile, says the decision to kill Book World “means nothing to me, not because I don’t like Book World but because I read all newspapers (including the one for which I write) online”.
Many literary bloggers and critics I know feel similarly blase about Book World’s fate (though I have to honestly wonder if these bloggers and critics would feel differently if they’d been able to break into Book World themselves). Well, we’re all biased. I am in the DC area often and have spent many an enjoyable Sunday morning reading Book World, and I will surely miss the print edition. I love digital formats, but I also love good print publications — why should there be a contradiction there? It’s a simple shame that the pleasure of reading an appealing print-edition Sunday literary supplement over breakfast and coffee will be denied to the readers of the Washington Post.
The readers, the readers … oh yeah, remember them? The National Book Critics Circle apparently doesn’t remember the readers, since they put out an open call for their petition, and then reported this hilarious result more than a week later:
“Within a matter of hours, more than 100 authors and critics who had contributed to the Washington Post Book World signed a petition and sent letters of support to save Book World as a stand-alone book section. A hundred or more readers signed, as well.”
A total of 200 signatures?! Are we protesting the closing of a local library here, or a decision by one of the largest newspapers in the world, a newspaper with a circulation of 670,000? Does the National Book Critics Circle even know where to find readers?
200 signatures, after a whole week! I’m sure the Washington Post is quaking in their freaking boots. The NBCC’s failure to generate any type of public reaction at all only proves (as if this needed any more proof) how solipsistic and impotent our fine Ivy-League educated literary intellegentsia has become.
I wish our community of talented book critics had tried something more effective than a tired old petition, because the cause is a good one. Newspapers are in financial trouble right now (the New York Times too) and they will have to drastically cut costs and shift quickly to online formats. But that doesn’t mean the decision-makers on the executive boards of companies like the Washington Post or the New York Times can be easily trusted to make the right decisions about what to cut (my own experience working for major media corporations like Time Warner has shown me that top publishing executives are capable of making horrible decisions, often and repeatedly).
I believe the Washington Post is making a big mistake in choosing Book World as one of their first sections to cut. I bet many loyal readers value the supplement highly. I don’t know if the Washington Post executives have based this decision on actual research into how their customers feel about Book World (my guess is that they haven’t done any significant research) and my guess is that subscriptions will gradually and steadily drop as a result of this loss. The Washington Post just kicked many loyal readers where it hurts — they took away Sunday morning.
Naturally, I’m worried that the New York Times Book Review will be the next casualty, especially since the New York Times Company appears to be in financial free-fall and is shedding real estate and other properties. Meanwhile, there is no longer a Sunday literary supplement in Los Angeles, Chicago or Washington DC. Of course, the New York Times Book Review has always been the leader in the field, and I truly believe — I hope I’m not wrong about this — that the NYTBR’s special status and high out-of-town subscription rate will guarantee the print edition a longer life. I love digital formats as well as the next guy, but destroying the print edition of the New York Times Book Review would be like destroying Penn Station.
Then again, they did destroy Penn Station.
Either through kismet or a good inside joke by Sam Tanenhaus, this weekend’s NYTBR features three articles on Charles Darwin and “survival of the fittest”. I particularly like Anthony Gottlieb’s coverage of Denis Dutton’s The Art Instinct, a study of “evolutionary psychology”, though Frank Wilson doesn’t. The cover review is Joanna Scott on T. Coraghessan Boyle’s The Women, which tries to do to Frank Lloyd Wright what his Road to Welville did to John Harvey Kellogg. This brainy and biographically-minded Book Review also features Luc Sante on Susan Sontag’s posthumous Reborn: Journals and Notebooks 1947-1963.
John Wilson walks us through Donald Worster’s promising biography of John Muir, Alex Beam stirs my interest in Henry Alford’s book of elderly wisdom How To Live, and my favorite article is probably Leah Price on Peter Martin and Jeffrey Meyers, two biographers who have dared to write new lives of Samuel Johnson. Leah Price is highly engaging and makes me want to rush out and read Boswell’s original Life of Johnson. However, Price does need to work harder in places to find le bon mot. It’s hard to understand what she means when she flatly reports that Samuel Johnson was “afflicted with Tourette’s syndrome” (who made that diagnosis?). And Boswell could not have been Samuel Johnson’s “groupie” because Samuel Johnson was not a group.