Choosing the Best of the Book Reviews : Washington Post’s Called Most Enjoyable by Many

George Orwell once called book reviewing “a quite exceptionally thankless, irritating and exhausting job” in which the reviewer is “pouring his spirit down the drain, half a pint at a time.”

“In much more than nine cases out of ten,” Orwell wrote, “the only objectively truthful criticism would be, ‘This book is worthless.’ ”

Orwell’s cynicism notwithstanding, writers and would-be writers throughout the country are forever besieging newspaper book review editors for the opportunity to review books.

One of the biggest problems facing book review editors is to choose good reviewers from among all these often inexperienced volunteers--and to persuade good, professional writers to write for them as well.

Which newspaper book review section does the best job of this? Which book review section is consistently the most interesting and enjoyable to read?

The Washington Post’s Book World, according to a surprising number of people in publishing.

Esoteric N.Y. Times

“The New York Times (Book Review) is so strong there is no second place in terms of influence,” says Peter Israel, president of G. P. Putnam’s Sons, “but it’s often too esoteric. . . . I enjoy reading the Post (Book World) more. As a consumer, I like the Post best.”

Lisa Drew, a senior editor at William Morrow & Co., also prefers the Post’s Book World.

“I have more confidence in the Post’s reviews,” she says. “With the Times, I’m sometimes suspicious . . . that the reviewer has an ax to grind.”

With about one-third the space of the New York Times Book Review (and one-fourth the staff), the Post’s Book World isn’t nearly as complete as (and it doesn’t begin to have the impact of) the New York Times, but--review for review--many in publishing say it’s better written, better edited, more provocative, more attuned to popular taste and more attractively designed.

Most important of all, many publishing executives say, the Post does an excellent job of matching interesting reviewers with good books.

When fighter pilot/test pilot Chuck Yeager’s autobiography was published earlier this year, for example, the Post assigned the review to novelist James Salter, who had also been a fighter pilot and whose first two novels were about flying.

Salter’s review was published on the front page of the Post’s Book World--where the Post has also published reviews of recent novels by James Michener, Stephen King and Kurt Vonnegut, as well as books on the making of the movie “Heaven’s Gate,” a recent biography of Norman Mailer and Betty Rollin’s controversial account of her role in her mother’s suicide.

None of these books was reviewed on the front page of the New York Times Book Review, which--despite recent changes--is still, in many ways, more a serious, intellectual journal than a popular book review.

Too often, critics say, the New York Times Book Review is predictable--even boring.

Decided to Do Something

Some critics of the New York Times may take special pleasure in praising the rival Washington Post at the Times’ expense, of course, but Brigitte Weeks, the 42-year-old, British-born editor of Book World, is very highly regarded in publishing circles on her own terms, and she and her three assistant editors produce a solid, highly readable section almost every week. (The presence in the section of Jonathan Yardley, who joined the Post after winning a Pulitzer Prize for his book reviews at the Washington Star, also contributes significantly to Book World’s reputation.)

Apart from the Washington Post and New York Times, what other newspapers do a good job with books?

Not many.

“Book reviewing in this country just isn’t as good, doesn’t have the tradition it does in England,” says John Baker, editor of Publishers Weekly. “Too many papers just use local academics, rather than real writers and real experts . . . and that makes the reviews pretty dull, not like the wide-ranging, authoritative, thoughtful . . . well-written reviews you get in the (London) Times Literary Supplement.”

John Leonard says that when he began his four-year tenure as editor of the New York Times Book Review in 1971, he decided to do something about the tedious, professorial quality of most book reviews.

“I didn’t want the assistant professor of whales to review ‘Moby Dick’ anymore,” he says. “I wanted novelists reviewing fiction for us.”

The experiment was not a success.

“The reviews came out about the same way they had with the assistant professors writing them,” Leonard says. “One-third of them were dull, like high school book reports; one-third were so understanding, so full of mercy that they had no judgments; one-third were full of spite and envy and a determination to keep the competition down.”

Nevertheless, a few newspaper book review sections do a better job than others. Some people in publishing speak highly of the Philadelphia Inquirer and San Francisco Chronicle; others mention the Chicago Tribune and Newsday. Several say Robert Wilson, book editor of USA Today, is one of the most imaginative in his selection of reviewers.

Wilson had Walker Percy, the novelist and Catholic intellectual, review a biography of Sir Thomas More, the martyred British statesman and humanist, for example. Wilson also had John D. MacDonald, creator of the Travis McGee mystery novels, review Norman Mailer’s mystery “Tough Guys Don’t Dance,” and he had CBS newsman Dan Rather, a Texan, review James Michener’s “Texas.”

Most newspaper book review editors use primarily local reviewers and try to balance books of general interest with those of particular interest in their local area. People in publishing say Patricia Holt, book editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, does an especially good job of this. She publishes many reviews of books by and about blacks, Asians, women and homosexuals, as well as books about the Bay Area itself.

On occasion, Holt runs two reviews on a single book, trying to give readers opposing views to choose between, a tactic many in publishing wish other papers would emulate.

The Chronicle book review section (called Review) usually has 16 pages a week, with the first 12 pages devoted to books and the last four to art and music. The Philadelphia Inquirer uses somewhat the same approach (albeit with less space for books) in its Books/Leisure section, but most other papers (the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe and Miami Herald among them) tend to put books in the middle or the back of their Sunday arts or comment sections.

And what of the Los Angeles Times?

Considerable Improvement

The general perception in publishing circles is that the Los Angeles Times Book Review has improved considerably since Jack Miles became its editor last year. Miles is widely credited with making the publication both more serious and more consistent--especially in its choice of books to review (which various publishing executives say had long seemed “idiosyncratic” and “capricious” at The Times).

But the Los Angeles Times Book Review is widely regarded as being far inferior to both the New York Times and Washington Post book reviews, the only other fully separate Sunday book review sections. Some people in publishing say the Los Angeles Times Book Review is inferior to the review sections in the San Francisco Chronicle and Philadelphia Inquirer as well.

“The L.A. Times book section isn’t as well-written or as well-edited as the New York Times and the Post,” says Los Angeles writer Josh Greenfield. “It just isn’t a major newspaper book section. . . . Among writers . . . it’s a laughingstock.”

Even Miles concedes his section’s inferiority to those of the New York Times and Washington Post.

Among these three book reviews, the Los Angeles Times’ is “in last place by a substantial margin,” Miles says. “The Book Review is quite possibly the weakest section of the paper, the one that falls furthest below the standard set by the paper at its best.”

One major reason for this is money.

Book review sections traditionally lose money everywhere; there isn’t enough advertising revenue to offset the costs of producing them. In fact, in an effort to attract more advertising, the editors of several West Coast book review sections (including the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle) have accompanied their newspapers’ advertising salesmen on visits to New York publishers--a blurring of the traditional separation of editorial and advertising that most reputable papers permit in virtually no other area and that some book-publishing executives say they find discomfiting and unseemly.

“I was absolutely horrified by it,” says Susan Ostrov, director of publicity for MacMillan Publishing Co. “The New York Times and Washington Post don’t do that.”

The New York Times Book Review is said to lose money, too, though, and while top executives at the New York Times refuse to confirm this, executives at other newspapers are less secretive.

Counting the Costs

Counting only editorial and newsprint costs--not printing or other production costs--the Washington Post loses $900,000 to $1 million a year on Book World, for example, and the San Francisco Chronicle expects to lose $228,000 this year on the book pages of Review.

Only the Los Angeles Times makes a profit on its Book Review--a profit of $292,288 last year and a profit of $322,050 through Dec. 1 this year.

The Los Angeles Times Book Review has more than three times as much advertising revenue as the Chronicle’s, and almost twice as much as the Post’s. But the Post and Chronicle book review sections routinely devote more space to books than does the Los Angeles Times Book Review. The Philadelphia Inquirer Books/Leisure section, which receives only a fraction of the book advertising the Los Angeles Times Book Review gets, also devotes more space to books than does the Los Angeles Times on many Sundays.

On each of four Sundays this year chosen at random, for example, the Chronicle Review section published about 55% to 60% more book review copy--and the Inquirer 10% to 15% more book review copy--than did the Los Angeles Times.

The Post’s 16-page Book World--the most logical comparison for the Los Angeles Times Book Review--has about twice as as much review space and more than twice as many employees as the Los Angeles Times Book Review, despite receiving only about half as much advertising revenue.

Why? Why isn’t the Los Angeles Times willing to make the same financial commitment to its Book Review that these other papers have made to theirs?

Among the answers: Profits and priorities.

“You can’t do everything at once,” says William F. Thomas, editor of the Los Angeles Times. “This newspaper has put more money and effort into the news operations in the past five to seven years than in any similar period in its history. All this has involved millions of dollars and hundreds of new staff positions. Clearly, this comes first.”

But the Los Angeles Times is one of the richest and most profitable newspapers in the country, and now that Book Review, too, is making a profit, Thomas says he should find it easier to “move it up faster in our priorities.”

Both Thomas and Miles--who’s been lobbying for more staff and more space--say they want the best Book Review possible. For now, though, with only one assistant editor to help him, Miles says he doesn’t have time to edit the paper’s reviews “with any seriousness”--or to consult with reviewers about any changes he does make in what they write.

Unlike virtually every major book review editor in the country, Miles doesn’t even write or telephone a prospective reviewer to ask if he’d be interested in a particular book. He just mails most books out with a form letter that--until recently--didn’t even tell the reviewer he would be reimbursed for return postage if he wasn’t interested in reviewing the book.

A Lack of Time

Miles says he doesn’t have time to contact each reviewer individually--in part because he’s been trying to expand the pool of reviewers the paper uses--but book review editors at other papers say they do so routinely, fearful that if a reviewer isn’t interested (or is out of the country) the book might not be returned until it’s too late for them to send it to someone else for a timely review.

Miles says he hasn’t had this problem, but he doesn’t seem as concerned with timely reviews as do most other book review editors. The Los Angeles Times often reviews books several weeks--sometimes two or three months--after those same books are reviewed in other major newspapers. Because shelf space is at a premium in bookstores, some books may no longer be available by the time they’re reviewed in The Times.

Miles says his paper’s reviews are sometimes so late because he has so little staff and so little space. But the Los Angeles Times has more book review space and staff than most newspapers, and New York publishers don’t seem to be complaining that other papers are late with their reviews.

“Every other paper is fighting to be the first to get a review published on a given book; why not the Los Angeles Times?” asks Stuart Applebaum, director of publicity for Bantam Books.

Miles’ reply:

“I don’t see the Book Review exclusively as a buying guide. I think that for many of our readers, whether a book is still available in the bookstores is a secondary question.”

Miles, 43, a former academic and Jesuit seminarian, is clearly less influenced by competitive time pressures than are other book review editors, most of whom are essentially journalists by training, eager to be first (or, at least, determined not to be last) with any story, including a book review.

Since most books the Los Angeles Times is late in reviewing are popular (as opposed to intellectual or academic) books, Miles’ background and intellectual inclinations may offer a further explanation: He seems less interested in popular books than are book review editors at many other newspapers.

Indeed, earlier this year, after the Los Angeles Times Book Review gave prominent display to university press books and other academic or scholarly books several weeks in a row, Thomas sent Miles the following message:

“Don’t they publish any novels or poetry any more?”

Miles has since published reviews representing a greater balance between the academic and the popular.

This balance is a problem for all book review editors, though, since many of them tend to be intellectuals--or, if not intellectuals, at least far more interested in Serious Literature, both fiction and nonfiction, than in the kinds of books that usually dominate the best-seller lists.

Most book review editors don’t even bother to publish reviews of popular genre books--romances, Westerns, science fiction--and, except for the most highly touted titles, most publish only periodic roundups of mysteries and other genre fiction.

These books tend to be formulaic, book review editors say, and there is little for a reviewer to write that would differentiate one from another. The same is true, they say, of much popular fiction; that’s why some papers give these books only the briefest of reviews.

Even when one of these books is reviewed in full, there is a tendency--for both the review editor and the reviewer--to use the review as an opportunity to compose snide, clever put-downs that make incontrovertibly clear the intellectual and moral superiority of the reviewer (and the publication) to the author (and his book).

Digby Diehl, former book review editor of the Los Angeles Times and now book review editor of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, says he once assigned a Colleen McCullough novel to a reviewer precisely because the reviewer said, “I can have some fun with this.”

In retrospect, Diehl says, he should not have made that assignment. “It was a disservice to Colleen McCullough . . . and her readers,” he says.

Not surprisingly, the publishers of most popular fiction feel aggrieved by the review process, and they point out--with some justification--that while the publication of a book by, say, Sidney Sheldon, Robert Ludlum, Stephen King or Louis L’Amour is not a literary event, it is--given the size of the audience for these books--a news event. Such a book should be reviewed, if only to let the millions of readers of these books know that their favorite author has a new book out and how that book compares with the author’s previous books and with other books by authors in the same or a similar genre.

Claudia Rosett’s August 1985 review of Jackie Collins’ novel “Lucky” in the Wall Street Journal is a good example of what a conscientious reviewer can do with a genre book. Such books--Rosett called them “long, steamy cliffhangers that show the world as a vast, unquiet bedroom where the rich and famous grapple”--are easy to ridicule. But Rosett reviewed the book on its own terms; she said it was both “embarrassing to pick up and impossible to put down,” and she tried to explain why.

Rare in the Field

Such thoughtful reviews are so rare in this field that editors, publishers and writers alike tend to remember them. For years.

In fact, several interviewees for this article cited one such review that is now more than 16 years old--a long New York Times review by Nora Ephron of Jacqueline Susann’s “The Love Machine.”

“There is nothing literary about Miss Susann . . . or her writing,” Ephron wrote, and she criticized Susann for the “just plain silly . . . mental processes” of her characters. But Ephron also praised Susann’s sincerity and her storytelling skills--especially in comparison with her “sloppy imitators” (whom Ephron then named).

In “its own little category of popularly written romans a clef, it shines, like a rhinestone in a trash can,” Ephron wrote.

Of course, Susann didn’t really need Ephron’s (mixed) blessing to sell books. Like most other writers of popular fiction--especially genre fiction--Susann’s books appealed directly to the readers, regardless of how scornfully most critics sniffed at them. Truly popular writers--like mass-appeal movies and television shows--are largely review-proof.

But for most books--first novels, other serious fiction, history, biography, current affairs, books published by small companies, university press books, poetry, short stories--the vast majority of books that publishers refer to as their “mid-list books,” reviews are not only important, they are often essential.

Roger Straus, president of Farrar, Straus & Giroux, says a review of Edna O’Brien’s “A Fanatic Heart” on the front page of the New York Times Book Review last year not only “made that book but guaranteed the author a good first printing for her next novel.”

Tom Clancy’s “The Hunt for Red October,” published by the Naval Institute Press, wound up on the best-seller list for a long stay after a review last year in the “Washington Post.”

Such books as “Final Cut,” “Lonesome Dove,” “The Amateurs” and “In Pursuit of Excellence” have all benefited enormously from favorable reviews.

Even reviews in publications outside the mainstream can help a book to sell.

Robert Asahina, a vice president and senior editor at Simon & Schuster, says reviews in the Village Voice and L.A. Weekly were largely responsible for early sales of the novel “Less Than Zero.”

Reviews do not guarantee success, of course. There are countless examples of books that sold poorly despite having been well-reviewed. But reviews are almost the only way a prospective reader has of knowing most books exist--and they are just about the only guide a prospective reader has in picking his way through the approximately 50,000 new titles published every year.

Susanna Shuster of The Times editorial library assisted with research for this story.