Killing Two Birds (Again)
Or, My Homework Gets Blogged!
Book Review Sources: A Comparison for Public Libraries
Like most of the information stream, book reviewing is seeing some changes. The changes include not only the review content, but the manner in which these reviews are presented to the masses. It was not so long ago, when you could pick up your daily metropolitan newspaper and be assured that at some point during the week you would find at least a handful of book reviews. Sadly, such is no longer the case.
Many daily newspapers have eliminated book reviews altogether. The San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, the San Jose Mercury News, the Chicago Tribune, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Boston Globe have all cut back on book reviews. Even the nation's "most influential Sunday book supplement, the New York Times Book Review, killed two pages, resulting in the loss of six "In Brief" write-ups and one full-page review."
Newspapers editors are much more concerned with dwindling circulations, rising costs and the need to attend to the bottom line than their predecessors. In the past, editors could often rationalize a losing-money proposition by countering with a journalistic standards argument. Today, with billions of dollars on the line in a centralized media paradigm, the old arguments seem to matter less.
Newspapers have been complaining about the impact of television for decades. Now the new kid in town, online information, is garnishing its deserved share of attention, respect and dollars that, in days past, would have gone into newspapers without much question. Sure, you can get book reviews from your favorite librarian, the weekly newsmagazines, even the radio, but this report will focus on three internet resources. The aim will be to compare how each of the resources treats the same book.
Choosing the review resources was a bit of a chore. Under initial consideration were about a dozen websites that included: nytimes.com/pages/books, nybooks.com, bookpage.com, bookspot.com, bookreporter.com, complete-review.com, bookreview.com, salon.com and ala.org/ala/booklist. I was initially impressed by the breadth of information available at salon.com and I appealed to them for premium access (reduced advertising) which was forthcoming. The same information is available to non-premium salon.com members, but premium access in this case is a considerable asset.
In its brief description to the search engines, salon.com describes itself as a "Magazine for thinking people providing articles and commentary on the arts, entertainment, popular culture, society and the media." On the salon.com Books pages I found a title I thought would pique my interest, provide the basis for an effective resource comparison and hopefully, make for a good read.
That book is Rebels on the Backlot: Six Maverick Directors and How They Conquered the Hollywood Studio System by Sharon Waxman. Published by HarperEntertainment in February, 2005. Hardcover, $25.95 (416p).
New York Times Hollywood correspondent and former foreign correspondent for The Washington Post and Reuters, Waxman profiles Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, David Fincher, Steven Soderbergh, David O. Russell, and Spike Jonze. These men are responsible for some of the most successful and ground-breaking filmmaking in recent memory. Their credits include, Pulp Fiction, Traffic, Three Kings, Fight Club, Boogie Nights, Being John Malkovich, Ocean's Eleven, Erin Brockovich, and Kill Bill, along with more than a handful of fairly forgettable films.
The salon.com review page had images of Tarantino and Soderbergh pasted together with some background graphics. The review was written by senior writer and book editor Andrew O'Hehir and was headlined as 'The revolution that failed: Quentin Tarantino and the indie rebels who followed him changed Hollywood in the '90s -- but in the end, Hollywood also changed them.' O'Hehir is a professor of journalism at New York University and his credits include Sight and Sound, the journal of the British Film Institute, The New York Times Magazine, The Sunday Times Magazine (London), The Washington Post and Newsday.
The review was more than 3,000 words and strangely, included a reference to the reviewer being quoted in the text of the book! Excuse me, but what happened to journalistic ethic since I left the industry less than 15 years ago. Such a thing was relatively unheard of and certainly frowned upon in my day, but as I was to discover, it's apparently all too common today.
O'Hehir presents Waxman's "admirably reported chronicle" in a more than favorable light with a straightforward review, but then he elaborates by extrapolating anecdotes, personal experiences, and comparisons to other media personalities and trends. The review becomes something more; an article, if you will, certainly akin to its evaluative forebears, but now, entertainment unto itself.
After reading the salon.com offering, instead of investigating my collected resources, I instead chose to search the web for reviews of Rebels on the Backlot. At or near the very top of the search results were two distinguished sources, one I had not originally included; Publisher's Weekly, and one I had; The New York Times.
I was surprised at the length of the Publisher's Weekly review. At just over 200 words it was quite a change from salon.com's 3200 words which, by default had become my standard. I was also confounded by not finding an attribution for the review's author. How am I to judge the review if I'm unable to discover the author's qualifications or even their name? The review was published a full six weeks before the two other reviews and PW touts this as an aid for librarians planning purchases. Publishers Weekly does not review books after publication. Although primarily a publishing trade publication, PW is the force behind the respected serials; Library Journal, School Library Journal and Criticas.
One notable addition to the Publisher's Weekly coverage was the inclusion, albeit on a separate page, of an interview with the author about her book. Again, it wasn't very long, less than 500 words, but it did incorporate an image of the book's cover. It was the only image of the book cover I found. The PW site also incorporates bestsellers and most borrowed lists in thirteen categories.
The Publisher's Weekly review was a 'starred' or preferred review, and incorporated details like the ISBN number that would be important for collection development and acquisitions departments. The review used quotes and anecdotes in an effective, succinct fashion. If brevity is the soul of good writing, these folks have a worthy claim to that accolade.
The New York Times review was a moderate piece in at least one respect; it's length. At something just under 1000 words, it fit nicely between the 3200 words of salon.com's review and the 200 words of the PW review. The length of the review is one of the few things I can find to recommend this offering. I think it's sad that my first professional opinion of this august source should be tempered by the distaste I felt reading Ken Tucker's review. I know there's no need, but I can't seem to avoid reminding you, gentle reader, of the influence of first impressions.
Tucker is reviewing a New York Times reporter's new book in the New York Times. That knowledge alone is enough to be disturbing, but then the review commences: "The problems with Rebels on the Backlot begin with the first sentence of the first chapter." It ends: "...Rebels might have been a classic of show-business reportage had Waxman had...a better editor and a willingness to let loose with what she really thinks about some of these gifted jerks."
So, in less than fifty words, Tucker berates Waxman's book, her writing, her journalistic ethic, her editors, and every director she covered in this effort. In the same space however, he intimates the book is a near "classic of show-business." I'm not sure these ideas are mutually inclusive.
My research on Tucker revealed more than few excellent credentials and some more disturbing revelations. Ken Tucker is the film critic for New York magazine. He's a film critic. He's the author of Kissing Bill O'Reilly, Roasting Miss Piggy: 100 Things to Love and Hate About Television. He's the Entertainment Weekly TV, film, music and books (please note the order) reviewer. He does weekly music reviews for National Public Radio's Fresh Air. He was a finalist for the Pulitzer for criticism in 1984 while a staff writer at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He's also contributed to Rolling Stone, Esquire, Vogue, Spin and The Village Voice.
Think whatever you like, but to me this guy was a music critic who has become a TV and film critic. It seems to me that all most critics have to trade on is their ability to communicate their personal biases, and this is another case of questionable journalistic ethics. I would prefer to see an accomplished book reviewer review books...even if they are about film.
I accept the fact there is little if anything that's perfect in this life. I do, though, want to know when I read a review if the critic thinks the book is worthwhile. The kind of fence-sitting Tucker performs in this piece is maddening.
So if this is the current, changing state of literary criticism, I think I'll stay with the more straightforward, succinct reviews found at Publisher's Weekly. If I can avoid the proliferation of lengthy entertainment features masquerading as book reviews, at least I'll have more time to read the books themselves and make up my own mind about their merit.
References:
Berger, K. (2001, July 19). The amazing disappearing book review section. Salon.com. Retrieved March 2, 2005, from http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/07/19/book_reviews/index.html
O'Hehir, A. (2005, March 21). The revolution that failed: Quentin Tarantino and the indie rebels who followed him changed Hollywood in the '90s -- but in the end, Hollywood also changed them. Salon.com. [Review of the book Rebels on the backlot: Six maverick directors and how they conquered the Hollywood studio system]. Retrieved March 22, 2005 from http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2005/01/26/waxman/
Publisher's Weekly (2005, January 24) Review of Rebels on the backlot: Six maverick directors and how they conquered the Hollywood studio system. [Electronic Version] Retrieved March 22, 2005 from http://reviews.publishersweekly.com/bd.aspx?isbn=0060540176&pub=pw
Tucker, K. (2005, March 20). Rebels on the backlot: Fight Club. [Electronic Version]. The New York Times Sunday Book Review. [Review of the book Rebels on the Backlot: Six Maverick Directors and How They Conquered the Hollywood Studio System]. Retrieved March 22, 2005 from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/books/review/ 020TUCKER.html?
-Jack McCracken
Book Review Sources: A Comparison for Public Libraries
Like most of the information stream, book reviewing is seeing some changes. The changes include not only the review content, but the manner in which these reviews are presented to the masses. It was not so long ago, when you could pick up your daily metropolitan newspaper and be assured that at some point during the week you would find at least a handful of book reviews. Sadly, such is no longer the case.
Many daily newspapers have eliminated book reviews altogether. The San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, the San Jose Mercury News, the Chicago Tribune, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Boston Globe have all cut back on book reviews. Even the nation's "most influential Sunday book supplement, the New York Times Book Review, killed two pages, resulting in the loss of six "In Brief" write-ups and one full-page review."
Newspapers editors are much more concerned with dwindling circulations, rising costs and the need to attend to the bottom line than their predecessors. In the past, editors could often rationalize a losing-money proposition by countering with a journalistic standards argument. Today, with billions of dollars on the line in a centralized media paradigm, the old arguments seem to matter less.
Newspapers have been complaining about the impact of television for decades. Now the new kid in town, online information, is garnishing its deserved share of attention, respect and dollars that, in days past, would have gone into newspapers without much question. Sure, you can get book reviews from your favorite librarian, the weekly newsmagazines, even the radio, but this report will focus on three internet resources. The aim will be to compare how each of the resources treats the same book.
Choosing the review resources was a bit of a chore. Under initial consideration were about a dozen websites that included: nytimes.com/pages/books, nybooks.com, bookpage.com, bookspot.com, bookreporter.com, complete-review.com, bookreview.com, salon.com and ala.org/ala/booklist. I was initially impressed by the breadth of information available at salon.com and I appealed to them for premium access (reduced advertising) which was forthcoming. The same information is available to non-premium salon.com members, but premium access in this case is a considerable asset.
In its brief description to the search engines, salon.com describes itself as a "Magazine for thinking people providing articles and commentary on the arts, entertainment, popular culture, society and the media." On the salon.com Books pages I found a title I thought would pique my interest, provide the basis for an effective resource comparison and hopefully, make for a good read.
That book is Rebels on the Backlot: Six Maverick Directors and How They Conquered the Hollywood Studio System by Sharon Waxman. Published by HarperEntertainment in February, 2005. Hardcover, $25.95 (416p).
New York Times Hollywood correspondent and former foreign correspondent for The Washington Post and Reuters, Waxman profiles Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, David Fincher, Steven Soderbergh, David O. Russell, and Spike Jonze. These men are responsible for some of the most successful and ground-breaking filmmaking in recent memory. Their credits include, Pulp Fiction, Traffic, Three Kings, Fight Club, Boogie Nights, Being John Malkovich, Ocean's Eleven, Erin Brockovich, and Kill Bill, along with more than a handful of fairly forgettable films.
The salon.com review page had images of Tarantino and Soderbergh pasted together with some background graphics. The review was written by senior writer and book editor Andrew O'Hehir and was headlined as 'The revolution that failed: Quentin Tarantino and the indie rebels who followed him changed Hollywood in the '90s -- but in the end, Hollywood also changed them.' O'Hehir is a professor of journalism at New York University and his credits include Sight and Sound, the journal of the British Film Institute, The New York Times Magazine, The Sunday Times Magazine (London), The Washington Post and Newsday.
The review was more than 3,000 words and strangely, included a reference to the reviewer being quoted in the text of the book! Excuse me, but what happened to journalistic ethic since I left the industry less than 15 years ago. Such a thing was relatively unheard of and certainly frowned upon in my day, but as I was to discover, it's apparently all too common today.
O'Hehir presents Waxman's "admirably reported chronicle" in a more than favorable light with a straightforward review, but then he elaborates by extrapolating anecdotes, personal experiences, and comparisons to other media personalities and trends. The review becomes something more; an article, if you will, certainly akin to its evaluative forebears, but now, entertainment unto itself.
After reading the salon.com offering, instead of investigating my collected resources, I instead chose to search the web for reviews of Rebels on the Backlot. At or near the very top of the search results were two distinguished sources, one I had not originally included; Publisher's Weekly, and one I had; The New York Times.
I was surprised at the length of the Publisher's Weekly review. At just over 200 words it was quite a change from salon.com's 3200 words which, by default had become my standard. I was also confounded by not finding an attribution for the review's author. How am I to judge the review if I'm unable to discover the author's qualifications or even their name? The review was published a full six weeks before the two other reviews and PW touts this as an aid for librarians planning purchases. Publishers Weekly does not review books after publication. Although primarily a publishing trade publication, PW is the force behind the respected serials; Library Journal, School Library Journal and Criticas.
One notable addition to the Publisher's Weekly coverage was the inclusion, albeit on a separate page, of an interview with the author about her book. Again, it wasn't very long, less than 500 words, but it did incorporate an image of the book's cover. It was the only image of the book cover I found. The PW site also incorporates bestsellers and most borrowed lists in thirteen categories.
The Publisher's Weekly review was a 'starred' or preferred review, and incorporated details like the ISBN number that would be important for collection development and acquisitions departments. The review used quotes and anecdotes in an effective, succinct fashion. If brevity is the soul of good writing, these folks have a worthy claim to that accolade.
The New York Times review was a moderate piece in at least one respect; it's length. At something just under 1000 words, it fit nicely between the 3200 words of salon.com's review and the 200 words of the PW review. The length of the review is one of the few things I can find to recommend this offering. I think it's sad that my first professional opinion of this august source should be tempered by the distaste I felt reading Ken Tucker's review. I know there's no need, but I can't seem to avoid reminding you, gentle reader, of the influence of first impressions.
Tucker is reviewing a New York Times reporter's new book in the New York Times. That knowledge alone is enough to be disturbing, but then the review commences: "The problems with Rebels on the Backlot begin with the first sentence of the first chapter." It ends: "...Rebels might have been a classic of show-business reportage had Waxman had...a better editor and a willingness to let loose with what she really thinks about some of these gifted jerks."
So, in less than fifty words, Tucker berates Waxman's book, her writing, her journalistic ethic, her editors, and every director she covered in this effort. In the same space however, he intimates the book is a near "classic of show-business." I'm not sure these ideas are mutually inclusive.
My research on Tucker revealed more than few excellent credentials and some more disturbing revelations. Ken Tucker is the film critic for New York magazine. He's a film critic. He's the author of Kissing Bill O'Reilly, Roasting Miss Piggy: 100 Things to Love and Hate About Television. He's the Entertainment Weekly TV, film, music and books (please note the order) reviewer. He does weekly music reviews for National Public Radio's Fresh Air. He was a finalist for the Pulitzer for criticism in 1984 while a staff writer at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He's also contributed to Rolling Stone, Esquire, Vogue, Spin and The Village Voice.
Think whatever you like, but to me this guy was a music critic who has become a TV and film critic. It seems to me that all most critics have to trade on is their ability to communicate their personal biases, and this is another case of questionable journalistic ethics. I would prefer to see an accomplished book reviewer review books...even if they are about film.
I accept the fact there is little if anything that's perfect in this life. I do, though, want to know when I read a review if the critic thinks the book is worthwhile. The kind of fence-sitting Tucker performs in this piece is maddening.
So if this is the current, changing state of literary criticism, I think I'll stay with the more straightforward, succinct reviews found at Publisher's Weekly. If I can avoid the proliferation of lengthy entertainment features masquerading as book reviews, at least I'll have more time to read the books themselves and make up my own mind about their merit.
References:
Berger, K. (2001, July 19). The amazing disappearing book review section. Salon.com. Retrieved March 2, 2005, from http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/07/19/book_reviews/index.html
O'Hehir, A. (2005, March 21). The revolution that failed: Quentin Tarantino and the indie rebels who followed him changed Hollywood in the '90s -- but in the end, Hollywood also changed them. Salon.com. [Review of the book Rebels on the backlot: Six maverick directors and how they conquered the Hollywood studio system]. Retrieved March 22, 2005 from http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2005/01/26/waxman/
Publisher's Weekly (2005, January 24) Review of Rebels on the backlot: Six maverick directors and how they conquered the Hollywood studio system. [Electronic Version] Retrieved March 22, 2005 from http://reviews.publishersweekly.com/bd.aspx?isbn=0060540176&pub=pw
Tucker, K. (2005, March 20). Rebels on the backlot: Fight Club. [Electronic Version]. The New York Times Sunday Book Review. [Review of the book Rebels on the Backlot: Six Maverick Directors and How They Conquered the Hollywood Studio System]. Retrieved March 22, 2005 from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/books/review/ 020TUCKER.html?
-Jack McCracken
posted by Mr.Jack @ 2:21 AM
<< Home