Connelly on Downsizing Book Reviews

As part of the NBCC's ongoing campaign, the LA Times ran an op-ed from Michael Connelly about the importance of book reviews to his career:

Fifteen years ago, my first book was published in near obscurity. Only 15,000 copies of "The Black Echo" were printed, and the publisher didn't place a single ad for it in any newspaper in the country. It could easily have been ignored or forgotten or simply missed among the thousands of books published to little fanfare every year.

But even without an advertising push, the book got reviewed in newspapers big and small, far and wide. Across the country, newspapers had strong book sections and critics were always on the lookout for a new voice. The Washington Post's Book World devoted half a page to a review of my novel, predicting a bright future for both its protagonist and its author.

That review and others like it stimulated interest in what I had to say. They got the momentum going in the bookstores. Those reviews helped establish the voice of the protagonist, Los Angeles Police Department Det. Harry Bosch, and now, 12 books later, Bosch has led a full and adventurous (albeit tortured) life in Los Angeles. He has explored places and seen things in this city that most people who live here don't even know about. All the while he has tried to understand and make sense of his city and his place in it — just like everybody else who lives here.

I can't help but wonder, though, how long Harry would have lasted had he been born in today's newspaper environment...

I elaborate a fair bit in the comments section at Critical Mass, bringing up Connelly's support by independent mystery booksellers and how word of mouth led to increased readership (and eventually, greater in-house support and subsequent breakout and bestsellerdom) and how I do think that for someone like Connelly, he likely would have traveled along a similar trajectory even if the first Bosch had been published this year instead of fifteen years ago.

But it also makes me want to bring up specific examples. Based on print run and publisher support, the best comparison to THE BLACK ECHO published so far this year (and that may change since we're not even halfway done yet) that I can find is Sean Chercover's BIG CITY, BAD BLOOD. It is a PI novel (instead of a police procedural) but Chercover's book introduced a dark, somewhat tortured protagonist questioning authority and battling multiple fronts in a city which shares almost equal billing with said protagonist. And where was it reviewed or got coverage in print? The four trade publications, both major Chicago papers (Tribune & Sun-Times) the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the Mississippi Clarion-Ledger, the Lansing State-Journal,  the Globe & Mail, the Hamilton Spectator and the AP.  Not to mention lots of online chatter, online reviews and features and such.

Time will tell if Chercover - or anyone debuting in 2007 - will have Michael Connelly-like success. And of course shrinking print book review coverage will play a role, or force all parties to redouble their efforts in different areas. But remember, too, in some ways genre fiction, especially crime fiction, gets off fairly easy in the critical coverage game. There are dedicated reviewers (and from the sounds of it, one extra fresh face, which is welcome news.) There is a strong, active community of fans, booksellers and knowledgeable people who want nothing more than to spread the love about books at signings, conventions and other events and get-togethers. There are networks, in-person and online, to tap into and then expand in the quest for broader readership.

So even though I think Connelly's op-ed makes great points and is a strong conversation piece, I'm not certain it tells the whole story - or that he was precisely the right person to put this idea to pen.

Comments

[Seth Harwood]

Hey Sarah,

How about the fact that more and more people are reading blogs like this one for their literary reviews and less are going to actual newspapers. I know that we read our newspaper reviews online also, but the blogosphere is definitely growing the world of literary reviews.

Seth Harwood
Jack Wakes Up

[Ingrid (I.J.Parker)]

Michael Connelly is right. Reviewers make all the difference when publishers do nothing to promote the books.

[Bill Cameron]

This has been on my mind a lot this year. (I wonder why.) So far, my own novel has received one published review. I know of a couple more upcoming, but at this point, I think it's obvious it won't be getting much attention.

I don't know what that really means. Sure, I know all about the reduction in reviews in recent years, and maybe that's part of why I'm not getting reviewed. It may also be that people are looking at my book and thinking, "Meh, whatever," and going to the next on the stack.

About six months ago, I thought, "I hope I get some good reviews." These days I'd take "this novel made my cat die." A bad review is a bad review, but at least it's a review. No review is, um. What is it? I can't even begin to tell.

[John Kenyon]

Picking up where Seth left off above, I find that for genre books, crime fiction in particular, I add to my "want to read list" because of a number of different things, newspaper reviews the least among them. Blog mentions, blurbs from authors I like, handselling at the local bookstore and word of mouth all trump newspaper reviews. To the contrary, however, so-called literary fiction titles are almost always added because of something I have read, be it a newspaper or magazine review or other print recommendation. Then again, I've never been a big fan of lengthy reviews because I don't want to know too much about the story before I dive in. I say this as a former newspaper book critic, too.

[Jack Getze]

It's hard to get ANYONE to read and review a debut novel, especially from a small press. I think Connelly is right. Fewer and fewer new authors will be the result of this.

[Jonathon King]

I'm confused, Sarah.
Why would Mike not "be precisely the right person to put this idea to pen"?
Because he worked for two decades in the newspaper business, knows it and has watched it as a professional journalist/writer for most of his life? Because he's been an author of mystery novels for 15 years and was the head of MWA? Because he has been No. 1 on the NYT list a few times? Because he's been a voice on dozens of conference panels dicussing these issues? I'm confused. What exactly prompted you to put that last line to pen?

[Sarah]

Jonathon, I think John Kenyon's comment just above yours comes the closet to explain by what I meant by the closing line. Shrinking print book reviews for genre titles is a critical issue, but for literary fiction it's even more so because the readership is ultimately so much lower.

Oddly enough the person I thought might be a good fit for such an op-ed was Richard Ford and indeed, Critical Mass has a Q&A with the author up today:
http://bookcriticscircle.blogspot.com/2007/04/richard-ford-on-folly-of-removing.html

[Lee Child]

My $0.02 on "The Demise of Traditional Book Reviewing" is ... good riddance to it. Way too many newspapers (including all the heavyweights referred to in this ongoing discussion) use their book review sections as a disposable means of stroking their readers' egos by suggesting they're interested in all kinds of highbrow stuff they're not really interested in. It's a peculiar paradigm, appealing solely to snobbery ... like filling the sports pages with polo and Scottish game shooting, instead of what people really want to know about, which is football, baseball, basketball and hockey. What other part of the paper is deliberately filled with items the editors actually *know for sure* their readers aren't truly interested in?

What we need is a new paradigm, where books that are actually read and enjoyed by the majority of a paper's readers are covered. Leave the ego massage to the fashion advertisements.

And, unlike Michael, I don't remember any positive results from reviews until maybe my ninth book. The first eight were built by the generous word of mouth among the mystery community through stores, conventions, chat groups, and latterly blogs.

[Jonathon King]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Sarah. And as a tip to Lee's $0.02. The subject is an unfortunate trend and yet another nail in the coffin for newspaper literacy. I cringe when our own Miami Herald cuts back their book section while still printing four full pages of "society celebrates" photos. Uhhhhgh.

[Charles Ardai]

For what it's worth (maybe not much), I disagree that the book review sections are the only part of the paper deliberately filled with items the editors know most of their readers aren't truly interested in. Most readers are much more interested in heart-warming pictures of kittens in trees and dogs that saved their owners' lives and Paris Hilton flashing a nipple than they are in explanations of government malfeasance or genocide in Darfur or the subtleties of political debates in various countries around the world that aren't theirs. But responsible newspapers cover both -- elections in Paris as well as "One Night In Paris," if you will. In some ways, I think the sports sections are the only ones that deliberately restrict their coverage only to 'things our readers really care about' rather than 'things they ought to know.' Even the movie pages review independent films and films of quality but limited audience appeal.

[Ingrid (I.J.Parker)]

As far as I know, book review sections have always run reviews of popular books along with the "brainy" stuff. Perhaps occasionally they dwell too much on the best sellers, but I for one like at least an illusion that some part of the paper deals with the culture of education instead of sports, popular films, and rap music. Reading is about being literate on many levels.

[Richard S. Wheeler]

You have offered a superb analysis.

Mr. Connelly's essay has an additional weak point: The internet can also encourage readers. They don't have to be reading black print in a newspaper. My guess is that future book review sections in large papers will be entirely online, and those interested in books will find plenty of good criticism available, as well as book news. I guess I am questioning Mr. Connelly's most basic thesis, that shrinking printed book review sections reduces reading levels of newspapers.

[David Thayer]

As someone who has written a few reviews and read many I tend to agree with Lee that highbrow is not the brow of choice for the average reader. Car crashes have fueled the Daily News for decades and I think their circulation is holding steady. The NY Post used to be a classy newspaper, believe it or not.

[Barbara Fister]

I worry about the drop in newspaper readership, and I worry about papers reviewing fewer books. Books are important, both socially and culturally. To say it's too expensive to write about books, let's let bloggers do it is akin to saying "investigative reporting is too expensive; people can go read The Smoking Gun."

It may be how it is, but it's not good for us. When the news business reinvents itself - and it better do it soon - I hope books are included. Right now, it looks grim.

I have to disagree that papers pay too little attention to popular books - they space they devote to the bestseller lists (and to which film grossed the most at the boxoffice this week) gives popularity plenty of influence. Should they review more genre fiction? Sure. But I'd rather discover a book I didn't know about than read a review of a book everybody is already reading.

One last point - the writing is on the wall when the most incisive coverage of (admittedly non-fiction, public affairs) books on a regular basis in the US is on a faux news show - the Daily Show.

[alin]

I have gone through your site its good and excellent,and i found many interesting things to read.So here i am referring you relevant site to get more details review online

http://www.squidoo.com/onlinebookreviews

[jesica]

Books review on Connelly on Downsizing and author's review on that book is a good information to all the book lovers.And i have seen your website it's good at the same time i have seen some articles in your site those are very good and i got more information from your site.While i am reading your site i enjoyed very much.Very recently i have visited one book review site which is smiler to yours that may be use full to you and all your visitors .