As I've noted, The New York Times Book Review now has a new editor, Pamela Paul having replaced Sam Tanenhaus.
It's still early days, but things certainly don't look much different (see also my recent mention -- and note that yesterday's issue was, yet again, translation-coverageless ...), and now Michael Wolff offers an intriguing reading of why things have played out as they have, in an opinion piece at The Guardian, The New York Times Book Review's retirement plan.
He suggests that the elevation of Paul -- someone with: "pretty much, no writerly or literary credentials" -- is an indicator that:
He suggests that the elevation of Paul -- someone with: "pretty much, no writerly or literary credentials" -- is an indicator that:
Not too long ago, the Times converted its Sunday "Week in Review" section, a hoary idea in a real-time age, into something called the "Sunday Review", a showcase of health-focused and sociological trend opinion pieces. I'd bet good money that, in an epochal passing that few will really notice, the NYTBR will soon be merged into this new, all-encompassing, flattened section.I can't really imagine that happening -- the NYTBR is a prestige-object that would be hard to kill off as easily as that -- but I have to admit the Paul promotion remains a head-scratcher. Again: it's still early days, and maybe she has a vision for it, but .....