Comments on: "The vast democracy wall that the Internet provides" vs. the LA Times Book Review (R.I.P.)

By: EL CHAVO!

EL CHAVO! — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:35:00 +0000

I’d rather read a summary like this one of the McNeil-Lemon hour instead of sitting and sifting thru it for these nuggets of insights. Thanks for the great post!

By: Percival Cornelius

Percival Cornelius — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:17:56 +0000

If you think that Wasserman is insufferable on a television show, where his pontification can at least be edited, I invite you to picture what it was like when he was allowed to moderate panels at the Festival of Books. Not content to ask mere questions of the authors or to toss out a few interesting ideas for them to bat around, instead our Steve would consume minute after precious minute of the tightly timed sessions constructing examples of his famous on-the-fly erudition for the delight and improvement of the lucky, lucky crowd. The writers were usually very good about it, but you could see the audience members lined up at the microphone for Q&A giving him homicidal looks as time grew shorter and his lengthy disquisitions grew lengthier. I damn near killed him myself one afternoon.

And whom are we kidding, anyway? "[T]rying to do a job well done"? I’ll take "really, really, incredibly cool" over that any day. It may not be erudite, but at least it comes by its redundancy honestly.

By: LA Times print cutbacks AGAIN | Los Angeles Metblogs

LA Times print cutbacks AGAIN | Los Angeles Metblogs — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:52:58 +0000

[...] three (okay, two- and-a-half) sections this week — The Guide and, as of this coming Sunday, the recent Frankenstein graft of Book Review/Opinion — something similar could be applied to the LA [...]

By: angelaconnor

angelaconnor — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:07:32 +0000

Now, THAT was much needed comic relief. Well done! Just when I think I’ve come across the newspaper curmudgeon of the year, I am proved wrong yet again. The arrogance that I’ve seen in the newspaper industry is one of the main reasons the industry is in this position. There was a lot of time to adapt and grow. I wonder: "Content" may not be king after all. It’s often beaten by "Denial."

By: faboomama

faboomama — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:21:18 +0000

I’ve been spamming every librarian and bookstore owner I know with this post since you mentioned it on twitter and forgot to leave a comment.

As a book lover, when I heard the Times was cutting the Book Review, my initial reaction was a melodramatic, ‘NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!". Nanoseconds later, I remembered that even as a 20 year subscriber to the Times, I never read the Book Review. Why? Because it’s not relevant to me. Yes, I flip through it, but there’s never any reviews of books I’d actually read. Instead, it’s all autobiographies, biographies, history of the betel nut in 1894 Costa Rica, and political books by people whose politics do not align with mine. Those exceptionally rare times a book that I would read would be reviewed, the loftiness of the reviewer struck me dumb. I was left with a sense that if I happened upon this person in a bookstore, I’d have to shove up bookmark up their ass.

Yes, besides that fact that too many of my friends are librarians, bookstore owners and/or authors, I’ve realized that over the last 15 years, I’ve been getting my book reading tips from everyday people online. Library Thing has opened me up to a world of books I would have never read and yes, that includes the history of the betel nut in 1894 Costa Rica.

By: lucindamichele

lucindamichele — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:50:27 +0000

What?

By: Traveler

Traveler — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:37:37 +0000

Alright, one more comment from me.

Just thought, looking at the nature of the parties, maybe it could be worth an incidental mention to mention the World Association of Newspapers, and The Editors Weblog. While the latter — personally speaking — may seem to offer some dry fare, but maybe perhaps it could be worth an incidental look, ever.

The WAN recently held a conference somewhere in Asia. Looking at the conference stuff they’d published, it looked like newspaper "giants" have indeed been grappling with "how to adapt us to the online medium".

Like it should be that difficult … but, that’s another thing.

Alright, two more cents: "Business as usual" translates to "contrivance", in my unabridged English-English dictionary. If you build you business to rely on contrivance, you’re going to have a very tough time in adapting to new cultural trends. To rely on the essence of doing business in what the particular business is doing business in — speaking most generally, here — is it not enough, to take *that* kind of approach to business?

I mean, geez, it’s like nobody was making a science out of economy…

By: Traveler

Traveler — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:28:17 +0000

Hmm. It looks like they have yet to feel the might of Super-Gore, Internet Inventor (rtmc)

*smirk*

By: booksquare

booksquare — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:03:33 +0000

Funny. And, yes, true. The conversation would have worked better in a different venue, but I’m happy that the conversation is continuing elsewhere. Thank you for actually going the extra mile to verify that I’m not always an inarticulate idiot.

By: rodger

rodger — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:12:49 +0000

I think the reason people don’t read anymore is because they’d rather see your version

Annika, people still have to read online print.

Lucinda and I don’t usually agree on much but I think a ball has been hit out of the park with this one. Very funny and very astutely sad at the same time.