Fun to be Clueless

March 8, 2001 1:35 PM

Fun to be Clueless Literati in the L.A. area will no doubt like this take on the odd tastes of the Times Book Review section. For the rest of us, there's the fun of watching one paper try and stick it to another. Also, and interesting take on the role books play as a medium in this media-rich age.
posted by jasonsmall (5 comments total)

To be fair, I should have included this. Judge for yourself.
posted by jasonsmall at 1:41 PM on March 8, 2001

A real hatchet job on Wasserman, editor of the L.A. Times book review. I am not convinced that the NY Times is so superior.

For better in-depth book reviews, why not turn to magainzes, such as Atlantic, New Republic, New Yorker. They focus on far fewer books but provide closer readings of the books under discussion.
posted by Postroad at 1:51 PM on March 8, 2001

There's a paragraph on "Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius" in their Best Books of 2000 list that is so snide, it makes you wonder whether they actually liked it or just felt the heat from their critical peers.
posted by waxpancake at 4:18 PM on March 8, 2001

That's a perfect example of my problem with book reviews. They rarely tell you whether a book is any good or not, or give you any hint as to whether you'd like it. In fact, far too many of them succeed in making even the interesting books sound boring by overanalyzing the shit out of them. That one was worse than most -- just plain incomprehensible unless you've already read the book! And even that might not help.

I stopped reading book reviews when I realized they were keeping me from reading things I might actually like.
posted by kindall at 5:15 PM on March 8, 2001

Stick with the big three and you'll be alright - unless you throw yourself out of the window first.
posted by Mocata at 3:37 AM on March 9, 2001