Jessa Crispin Takes The Times Out

By Jessa Crispin
Published in The Book Standard

I was having dinner with one of my favorite writers the week after her book was eviscerated in the most incomprehensible manner by the New York Times. “Did you understand what the reviewer was saying?” she asked me. I could only shrug; it took me three readings of the review simply to understand that the parts of the book the reviewer listed were the reasons she didn’t like the novel. “But you know what? It doesn’t matter,” the author said. And for her, it really shouldn’t. The book has gotten glowing reviews from every other major publication, and a whole lot of minor ones too. There weren’t really even any mediocre reviews. Everyone who came in contact with this novel turned into gushing fans, rolling around on the floor in ecstasy. I wasn’t sure if that’s what she meant, so I asked. And it wasn’t just that, it turned out: “Oh, it’s just the New York Times,” she said. “No one takes them seriously anymore.”

No one takes the New York Times seriously anymore? A bad review from the Times used to send authors to the ledge of the highest building, needing to be talked down by an array of publicists, agents, and editors. Even an episode of Sex and the City revolved around the possibility of a bad review by Michiko Kakutani, and it’s not like that show showcased literary exploits—Candace Bushnell’s Pulitzer aspirations notwithstanding.

Lately, however, everything that comes out of the New York Times seems to be met with an eye roll instead of held breath. SF communities were outraged when Dave Itzkoff was selected as the new SF columnist, citing everything from his use of the term “science fiction” instead of their preferred “speculative fiction” to his list of favorite books. (Personally, I thought his first column was funny and a needed antidote to the usual self-important SF reviews, but what do I know?) Michiko’s reviews, especially the ones written in a character’s voice, are met in the literary community with the same concern you’d give to your drunken aunt when she decides to sit down at the piano at a cocktail party. And that list of the best American novels of the last 25 years? Instead of the expected responses of anger or respect, they got a large number of publications, especially online magazines like Slate and Salon, asking, “What the fuck?”

Of course this may all be part of the New York Times’ plan. Print contrarian reviews just to get talked about. If everyone loves a novel, find the one person in the world who hates the book and hire her to review it. Ask someone not connected to the SF community to cover the genre and wait for the fur to fly.

Jennifer Howard, a staff writer for the Chronicle of Higher Education and former editor at the Washington Post Book World, comments, “There's more Times-bashing now than I've ever seen before, but people still pay attention to it—even if they make fun of it. Look at all the talkback the Book Review got from that best-of-the-last-25-years list. Everybody hated that list, and everybody talked about it—and I guarantee you the Book Review's editors were counting on that. The section doesn't need to be loved, it just needs to be read. And it is. Or glanced at, anyway.”

But by taking this approach, they might be killing their credibility. Instead of the Paper of Record, they become the Asshole in the Corner Who Just Happens to Have The Loudest Voice.

Howard continues, “The more great reviewing there is in other places—other papers, magazines, litblogs, wherever—the more the Times may feel its influence being nibbled away at. Is the Book Review in danger of losing its critical credibility? God, what a question—one that gets tangled up with some cold, hard, market facts. Has the NYTBR ever really been the gold standard of American literary criticism, or just the most visible one? Its penetration (in terms of market and readership if not critical acumen) guarantees it a fair bit of influence if not respect. These things are cyclical, too, as new editors take over and bring new writers and interests with them. Regime change can be a very good thing, at least in Bookreviewland.”