The New York Times Book Review remains one of the most significant book-review outlets in the US, and after almost a decade in office as editor running the place Sam Tanenhaus is finally moving on: as, for example, Romenesko reports, Pamela Paul is Named New York Times Book Review Editor.
As longtime readers know (probably all too well), I have not been a fan of the Tanenhaus administration. Initially put off by his antipathy to fiction-coverage (things have improved slightly, but non-fiction has consistently received considerably more attention under his watch), it's the shockingly limited coverage of literature-in-translation that has really been a great disappointment over the Tanenhaus-years. Yes, The New York Times Book Review reached it's absolute nadir with his predecessor Charles 'Chip' McGrath's annual indulgent baseball-themed-issue -- a debasement I'll never be able to forgive --, but issue in, issue out Tanenhaus managed to disappoint with remarkable consistency. Not only was there little coverage of anything in translation, but far too often, when there was, it was of books by dead authors, or of re-translations.
His successor is Pamela Paul; see also her official site. She moves up from being the Book Review's features editor and children's books editor -- so I'm immediately a bit wary: unless they have a bestseller list editor (and given how many pages they devote to those damned pages they very well might), these are the two areas of the NYTBR of the least interest to me.
Paul has also written several books -- but they're all non-fiction, so it's unclear how receptive she is to fiction. I haven't read her Pornified: How Pornography is Damaging Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families, but maybe it's not too great a leap to think that she might not be the most open of editors regarding ... let's say: edgy material. Not that anyone could accuse NYTBR coverage of having been particularly edgy in quite a while. (Tanenhaus is generally considered a 'conservative' (though he again recently denied that) and at least by the silly American labels of 'conservatism' and 'liberalism' (and all the rest -- this is, after all, a country where many seriously consider Barack Obama to be 'socialist') it seems safe to say that the NYTBR is not about to swing ... let's say: hard left.)
The fact that they went in-house is a bit troubling, since the direction of the NYTBR seems to have been off for well over a decade now, and while obviously things such as the lack of coverage of translated works may be due in part to Tanenhaus' commanding influence they likely have become institutional over the course of his long tenure (all the pre-readers certainly seem to have gotten the message, and it would probably take a firm hand to free up minds ...).
Still, I hope for the best and look forward to Paul shaking things up and getting things back on track. The John Leonard heyday (and those old-time page-totals -- the NYTBR was a lot fatter in those days) remains a very distant memory, but one can dream .....
As longtime readers know (probably all too well), I have not been a fan of the Tanenhaus administration. Initially put off by his antipathy to fiction-coverage (things have improved slightly, but non-fiction has consistently received considerably more attention under his watch), it's the shockingly limited coverage of literature-in-translation that has really been a great disappointment over the Tanenhaus-years. Yes, The New York Times Book Review reached it's absolute nadir with his predecessor Charles 'Chip' McGrath's annual indulgent baseball-themed-issue -- a debasement I'll never be able to forgive --, but issue in, issue out Tanenhaus managed to disappoint with remarkable consistency. Not only was there little coverage of anything in translation, but far too often, when there was, it was of books by dead authors, or of re-translations.
His successor is Pamela Paul; see also her official site. She moves up from being the Book Review's features editor and children's books editor -- so I'm immediately a bit wary: unless they have a bestseller list editor (and given how many pages they devote to those damned pages they very well might), these are the two areas of the NYTBR of the least interest to me.
Paul has also written several books -- but they're all non-fiction, so it's unclear how receptive she is to fiction. I haven't read her Pornified: How Pornography is Damaging Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families, but maybe it's not too great a leap to think that she might not be the most open of editors regarding ... let's say: edgy material. Not that anyone could accuse NYTBR coverage of having been particularly edgy in quite a while. (Tanenhaus is generally considered a 'conservative' (though he again recently denied that) and at least by the silly American labels of 'conservatism' and 'liberalism' (and all the rest -- this is, after all, a country where many seriously consider Barack Obama to be 'socialist') it seems safe to say that the NYTBR is not about to swing ... let's say: hard left.)
The fact that they went in-house is a bit troubling, since the direction of the NYTBR seems to have been off for well over a decade now, and while obviously things such as the lack of coverage of translated works may be due in part to Tanenhaus' commanding influence they likely have become institutional over the course of his long tenure (all the pre-readers certainly seem to have gotten the message, and it would probably take a firm hand to free up minds ...).
Still, I hope for the best and look forward to Paul shaking things up and getting things back on track. The John Leonard heyday (and those old-time page-totals -- the NYTBR was a lot fatter in those days) remains a very distant memory, but one can dream .....