.
| Hearsay: |
Last month word starting going around that the Globe Books section would be folding. I had been contacted by a couple major news outlets seeking comment, but even they were saying it was still just a rumour, so I was reluctant to go on record with my rage, especially after August’s “scare”. Instead I called Martin Levin, the editor of the section and asked what was up. He said the section wouldn’t be folding but that undisclosed changes were indeed coming. So I waited to see what those were. Now the changes have been announced and it seems the section will cease publication as a stand alone tabloid in the broadsheet—not folding but folding-in to the Focus section. The Globe brass are playing this off as beneficial, citing the Focus section’s larger readership and calling the Books section a “ghetto”. Nice. They also cite the strengthening of online presence and new books-related tools. As you know, I see the online world as a positive thing, so I appreciate this move toward the future, but I am suspect of the motives. They outrightly say books coverage will be driven by advertising dollars. That stinks, and is obviously the reason for the change, since advertising across the board is down, but has always been week in the books section. Smacks of buying space for criticism. My instinct is to freak out, yell “THIS IS SPARTA!”, and kick Greenspon into a pit, but with all the recent controversy hereabouts, I’m kind of running out of indignant steam. Besides, Steven Beattie has some sober commentary over at his blog. So what do you think? Now that we know precisely what the danger is, would you say it’s time for our readers to crack each other’s heads open and feast on the goo inside?
January 2006
December
2005
November
2005
October
2005
September
2005
August
2005
July
2005
June
2005
May
2005
April
2005
March
2005
February
2005
January
2005
December
2004
November
2004
October
2004
September
2004
August
2004
July
2004
June
2004
May
2004
April
2004
March
2004
February
2004
January
2004
December
2003
November
2003
October
2003
September
2003
August
2003
Bookninja © Copyright
The opinions expressed on this site are those of individual participants
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the site owners,
organizers, or other participants.
[powered by WordPress.]
December 4th, 2008 at 10:05 am
On his blog, Steven Beattie says, “a vibrant literary culture is dependent upon a vibrant critical culture,” and I’d agree with that. So, is the Globe’s books section part of a vibrant critical culture? I should offer the disclaimer that the Globe gave me very good reviews for my novels in Margaret Cannon’s crime books section, but otherwise the Globe books section is kind of dull, isn’t it? I know we should be gratefule for what we have, especially these days when we seem to be losing so much, but is it possible that books covereage in the Focus section could actually be… better?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:27 am
The wording about advertising is quite suspicious. I wonder if books that are published by publishers who don’t buy advertising space in the “Focus” section will get many reviews.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:37 am
If they really want to reinvigorate the books section, they could always slip it into Sports.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:45 am
According to my crystal ball, books coverage in the paper itself will just about disappear except in the awards season and the runup to Xmas, when they can sell advertising.
The online books coverage will be generally good, but their effort to create an online books community will collapse into the same idiotic mud-slinging that characterizes the comments section.
Of course, my crystal ball hasn’t been working too well lately.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I note that their release specifically states “more” coverage. We’ll see, I hope so.
And I know it’s a pipe dream, but it would be nice if they upped their rates, which haven’t increased for something like twenty years.
One advantage of going online is the low cost; which therefore should translate into lesser need for advetising, not more. And, as another books editor said to me personally, if their coverage is dictated by advertising dollars, how much are they getting from political parties?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:54 am
You know, Kathryn, that’s not as wacky an idea as it sounds. The modern irony of newspapers is that the sports section is the only one that isn’t a direct cheerleading section – the way the business section is for business or the enteratinmnet section is for movies and TV.
Once in a while there’s actually a negative review in the books section (though even here at Bookninja people have complained loudly that it isn’t nearly often enough) but every day the sports section is filled with almost nothing but criticism and often well-reasoned analysis.
Frankly, we should be so lucky in the books section.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
If we can’t even agree here that this was a terrible loss, then maybe they were right to cut it. If Ninja readers don’t care, then who does?
Disappointed in Montreal
December 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Sadly, there is no room in Sports, as its back half is obituaries.
I will miss the Globe’s stand-alone books section, which gave the paper something in common with the best newspapers in the world. I hope the new section is better, but I’m not optimistic.
Also, the Globe totally lied to me in August when they responded to my concerned “Where is the Books?” email to inform me that the section would live on forevermore.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Anne, no one said they didn’t care.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I wonder if, being in the Focus section, the online G&M will allow reader-comments like the rest of the paper. Now that could be fun, if only to watch the trolls try to skew reviews of children’s books into new socio-political dimensions. This is me making the best out of a bad situation.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I’ll believe the “more” part of the coverage when I see it. I’m expecting more useless babble & micro-reviews, with fewer lengthy reviews & fewer interesting opinion pieces (styles which are suited to the stand-alone format). I agree with John McF re. sports reporting–unfortunately it sounds as if the Books section is doomed to become part of the Entertainment fluffing machine.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
The Books section is one of the only reasons i ever bought the G&M
December 4th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
The Books section is THE ONLY reason I ever bought the G&M.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Me too, I would’ve bought that section on its own
December 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Is anyone with a subscription thinking of cancelling it? I am torn between giving the new section a chance and giving up now.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I rather wish Canada could produce and sustain a top-notch, stand-alone, general interest, international outlook review magazine along the lines of the NYRB or the LRB (which both, as I understand, emerged during newspaper strikes which shut down review publishing).
There’s the LRC, of course, but its Canada-only focus means its niche is hard-core Canadian navel-gazers (a successful niche, apparently, since it’s still standing). Books in Canada was a laughing stock for reasons known to anyone who has ever written for it (ie, the people who would otherwise make up its core readership).
Still, could the model be perfected? Surely it’s too much to hope for, but could Globe Books double its size and go rogue? There’s a hole in Indigo’s large-format magazines section where BiC used to be.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
The LRC barely survives on government grants. BiC robbed many a writer and good riddance to bad rubbish. I doubt there is all that much of a hole on the stands as a result. Both mags are perennially late and have/had a very low subscription rate.
The G&M supported a Harper government, and that is manifesting here with this news. The Books section was the only reason for me to buy once a week, and likely those that stop buying once a week will not result in a huge loss in revenue for the paper.
Focus section writers get about double the money per word as writers for the book section, as I recall, so perhaps there will be some bone for the peer review. One can hope.
Anything is better than nothing, but it is disappointing.
The other thing I find a bit alarming is the extent fiction writers seem to have to go to to get any attention at all. It is not enough to read your work or — gasp — to have written it. Writers are launching with bands and comedians and jugglers and acrobats like they are some freak side show — look at me, I’m FUN too. Every book has to have some cool hook or the MEDIA won’t be able to PLACE it. Maybe we are the authors of our own demise in falling for this. I can’t imagine Woolf of Hemingway or Lawrence demeaning themselves for a radio spot or a large audience. Dumbed down. Yes, indeed.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
The “event” of the book eclipses the fact that the book is thin and poorly written in a lot of cases. If the thing isn’t launched in some hip and sexy social explosion, does anyone pay attention?
Sorta sickening.
I think the best review magazine is BookForum. Too bad they pay little attention to Canadian titles.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
About 2 years ago we had a subscription to The New York Times for 6 months.
The NYT Books section was okay, but in comparison The Globe Books Section was by far superior. Globe reviewers often had more wit and more insight.
(I would not extend this praise to all sections of The Globe).
December 4th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I agree with V. Barch. I finally cancelled by NYT because I was recycling too many unread papers. But I’ve hung onto the Saturday Globe specifically for the book section. Perhaps now is the time to admit that there is no longer much reason to keep my Globe subscription going.
Betrayed in Alberta (many of us out here are actually readers, too).
December 5th, 2008 at 9:23 am
The Globe always verges on being ‘good enough’ rather than ‘great’ –this but another example unfortunately. Thanfully we have ampl;e Candian based Web blogs, including Book Ninja, to offset the new vacuum created by the self-declare ‘national’ paper.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Actually, Anonymous Donor, Ernest Hemingway was known to pimp himself to the advertising business for money.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
So was Orson Welles. Take that, Citizen Kane.
December 6th, 2008 at 7:43 am
I read today’s (6 December) G&M’s Focus and Book Review sections with a different viewpoint, namely, how could these two sections be combined conceptually and editorially —they could be if the themes were ‘thought leadership’ and ‘trendtracking’ with a global and Canadian bias. Its ‘mixed format’ could be similar to the Financial Times’ Weekend section. The G&M could also make the newly designed section aavailable on ite Web site in a simalr fashion to what the NY Times is doing increasingly. “Paper Cuts’ and the Web’s book review sites are useful. In the end I doubt that the G&M has the editorial and design acumen to produce a really intersting mixed format. The Litblogs will rule.
December 6th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
A books section “folded” into the Focus section will no doubt skew even more towards non-fiction, and the “big” fiction titles. I like T.G.’s outline above — a new section combined “conceptually and editorially” but, like T.G., have dim hopes of such a thing happening.
The Vancouver Sun, about nine years ago, under the leadership of David Beers (formerly of Mother Jones mag and now the editor of on-line magazine The Tyee) for a short, blazing bright period had a stand-alone section called Mix that read much like the ideal section T.G. mentions above. It lasted, oh, maybe a year. I think much less. It was, dare I say, not mediocre enough for The Sun and its ideal readership. Too much true critical thought.
December 6th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
But I don’t think that litblogs, at least as they are today, should be the new standard for our literary conversation. Show me a blog with the same seriousness and erudition as the NYRB. That should be our standard.
December 6th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Try the Literary Saloon and Complete review, Michael. http://www.complete-review.com/saloon/index.htm
Very high standards there, though it’s basically one person. Bookslut has good regular magazine component as well, but is not as serious as you’re looking for..
December 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Wow thanks George. Never heard of that. Sweet.
December 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I will miss the Globe’s book section, but I applaud the G&M for seeking to strengthen its online books”section.” Folks have mentioned the New York Times. I only read that online, and am glad I do.
A better online G&M would be … better. Continuing to experiment with how to make online book sections better would also be … better.
I confess not to sharing the conclusion implied in many comments here that this change is going to make things worse.
The Writers Union had a panel last year at their AGM about literary magazines and somehow didn’t include a proponent of online magazines, which have been part of the landscape for over a decade now. A strange omission. This “form” is still evolving, but it provides many advantages over a paper insert.
I’m hoping the G&M takes this opportunity to create a unique book web portal: a single stop “Books in Canada” web space. When they do this, I hope they look to Bookninja for inspiration.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I wonder if they believe that the Focus content and the web presence keeps to the letter of their August pledge not to “discontinue the Books section”? I am someone who works with books each day; my colleagues recommend books to me; I go out in search of books. What I need is a place where I can go to discover books that Heather Reisman has never read. In all honesty, it has been some time since the Books sections did this for me. Would I rather that print supported print? “You betcha,” said the woman from Alaska, who reads “all of” the books and magazines. :) But the online content will be required to appeal to the greatest number of readers as possible, so after the commercial publishers are served, the crime books reviewed, the children’s books listed, who will have the time to serve the rest of us?
December 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
well, maybe the two of you can pay your own servants.
December 7th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
“What I need is a place where I can go to discover books that Heather Reisman has never read.”
Fish in a barrell.
December 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I do pay them; I subscribe to the paper (at least for now). I would never describe its reviewers and editors as my “servants,” though: they must, unfortunately, serve advertisers who are most interested in readers who have little interest in books that are not mainstream.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I will give them a couple of weeks to see what the new format is like, but personally I don’t have much hope that it will be anything like its former self. Given that and the fact that they lied about it in August, I’ll have no problem cancelling my subscription, since the Books section was the only reason I subscribed.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Paul: I’m guessing Craig meant “…where Heather Reisman hasn’t had someone put stickers on books.”