The Los Angeles Times recently merged its books section with an opinion section, while the San Francisco Chronicle cut its books section from six pages to four. Further, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution eliminated the job of its book editor, in reaction to which 120 writers have signed a petition.

Some think the possible demise of the newspaper book review is a sad loss for the literary world. “I think the reviewing function as it is thoroughly taken up by newspapers is vital,” said novelist Richard Ford, “in the same way that literature itself is vital.”

“We have a lot of opinions in our world,” said John Freeman, president of the National Book Critics Circle. “What we need is more mediation and reflection, which is why newspapers and literary journals are so important.”

Also, regional papers can highlight local authors, something national blogs can’t do.

Blogs, however, can generate buzz for books. Edward Champion, who writes about books on his blog, said that literary blogs respond to the “often stodgy and pretentious tone” of newspaper reviews.

Most importantly, perhaps, literary blogs allow for focus, unlimited length, and full choice of which books to review. They are geared toward those likely to buy a book, not just the general public.

Maude Newton, a literary blogger since 2002, sees room for both types of reviews. “I find it kind of naïve and misguided to be a triumphalist blogger,” she said. “But I also find it kind of silly when people in the print media bash blogs as a general category, because I think the people are doing very, very different things.”

Source: The New York Times