A New Virtual Reality Game for Literary Critics

Along with Jerome Weeks' essay on Gail Pool's new book that I linked to yesterday, the Boston Globe ran a piece by Sven Birkerts on the beyond-exhausted print vs. blog debate. There are good points - especially when Birkerts brings up Cynthia Ozick's Harper's essay (which, had it been posted in full online, would have had far greater play in the overall discussion) but in setting up a dichotomy that really doesn't exist - as a blogger and print reviewer, am I my own worst enemy? - Birkerts, though honest in his thinking, misses the larger point.

And so it occurred to me, with so much real and virtual ink spilled, that no one has made the necessary leap to thinking about a true-blue "print is dead" (or at least, resting in comatose, dead parrot fashion) scenario. So here is my challenge to my fellow NBCC members, other reviewers and critics, authors, whomever: tomorrow morning, we wake up and newspapers are dead. No more outlets for book reviews of a certain stripe.* What are you going to do? Will you blog, for pleasure or for money? Will you spend too much time hanging out at literary social networking sites? Will you up your critical game to crack more esteemed publications such as the New York Review of Books, Bookforum or the TLS? Will you even review books anymore? Will you even write anymore?

Instead of bitching and moaning about a worst case scenario, envision it. Embrace it. Challenge it. Accept it. Because then, and only then, can we really understand both what is potentially lost and also potentially gained.

My answer to the above question is easy: I'd adapt, just like I have for the nearly four years since I opened up my blog shingle and changed direction from a would-be forensic scientist into a freelance writer.

*Of course, if newspapers ceased to exist, there would be greater issues than the state of book reviewing, but it's my VR game and I'm sticking to it.

Comments

[Stacey Cochran]

I think you're totally right, Sarah. You'd adapt.

Adaptation is a neccessary reaction to the exigencies of a situation that leaves one no other option.

If a road is completely blocked (or dead), we find another way to get along.

Stacey

[David J. Montgomery]

I don't find blogging or web-only reviewing to be especially satisfying (and it's certainly not very remunerative) so under the given scenario, I'd probably quit. At the least, I'd scale back my activities.

[Dana Kaye]

I'd definitely continue to write and blog, but then again, most of my assignments aren't from newspapers. While most people are "electronic only" when it comes to getting their news, reviews, etc. I do believe plenty still want to hold something tangible and turn a page. I'd probably start my own free print publication with local distribution.

[Clea Simon]

Well, most of the reviewing I do is for publications that also have a web presence - so even if their print versions ceased, wouldn't their websites continue to exist, their editors assign, etc.? I review for money as well as for exposure, so if both ceased, I'd probably just focus on my book writing (and other paying forms of journalism). But I hope that doesn't happen anytime soon.

[Ingrid (I.J.Parker)]

Well, I'm not a reviewer. As an author/reader, I go to print first, internet second. If newspapers really disappear (that includes the NYT), I would naturally go to the most respected internet reviewers -- after some research.
I'm still trying to work out why there is this disconnect between rave reviews and resultant sales. I think people don't care. They know what they like.

[Laura Benedict]

I like having my reviews appear in a newspaper, and I enjoy being paid for it. I also like having an editor who actually edits me (she does a good job of it). Money is nice, but what I really enjoy is the free books.

If I ceased to get free books, I would be very sad. And if I ceased to be paid for my reviews, I would probably stop writing them. Call me selfish, but my writing time is precious to me and reviewing just doesn't pay that well. (Though if my beloved editor or someone I really liked asked nicely, I would take the time, no matter what the medium was.)

I hesitate to call myself a critic--I'm not formally trained. I've just done it for a decade for folks who think it's worth having me write reviews. I fear I'm too timid to go knock on the doors of the big guys like the NYRB or TLS. They'd probably laugh!

[Constance]

Thanks for the information about Gail's book. She is a friend of my mother's but I think we have lost touch recently.

[David Terrenoire]

I'm with Ingrid.

[Mary]

One of the points that was touched on in the article was the difference between reviewing and criticism. I think there's definitely a difference. Criticism is a much more academic endeavor in my opinion. Most of the stuff on the web (and in print) is reviewing. Are there sites that folks would call criticism as opposed to reviewing?