Scott responds to the assumption made by The Elegant Variation (TEV), and addressed by Literary Kicks (LitKicks) that all litbloggers loathe the New York Times Book Review (NYTBR) under Sam Tanenhaus in, Loathing the NYTBR.
Scott (Conversational Reading) says:
"I don't think there is prevalent loathing of the NYTBR in the litblogosphere. The websites that most commonly and systematically take on the NYTBR--LitKicks, Return of the Reluctant, the Literary Saloon, and Daily Blague--do so because they'd like to make it better. Each of these recognizes the kind of quality weekly the NYTBR used to be, and they'd like [it] to return to its former status."
Levi (LitKicks) argues:
"Doesn't the NYTBR deserve a Kurt Anderson, a David Remnick, a George Plimpton at its helm? Tanenhaus does not appear to have the steely independence, nor the transcendent vision, required of a great editor. And I think the New York Times Book Review is a great publication that deserves a great editor."
Mark (TEV) explains:
"Before I go on, I should be clear – I do not share the loathing of the NYTBR that seems de rigeur in the litblogosphere. I might have my quibbles with individual issues and/or reviews but in the main I think the Book Review is more consistently interesting than it's been in the past. I think the coverage of fiction is sufficiently wide and deep – witness this week's cover review of Man Gone Down – and it's not Tanenhaus' fault that non-fiction appears to have a greater audience than fiction these days."
More NYTBR love from The Champion, here.