Publishers’ Weekly is reporting that the Los Angeles Times is laying off two book editors and ceasing to print its Sunday book review section. If I recall correctly, LA Times started a book reviewing blog and excluded romance but included mystery, science fiction and fantasy so my feeling toward this is total apathy.
REVIEW: I've Got Your Number by Sophie Kinsella
REVIEW: Pure by Julianna Baggott
REVIEW: The Principal's Office by Jasmine Haynes
REVIEW: Heat by R. Lee Smith
REVIEWS: Master Class and SUBlime by Rachel Haimowitz
REVIEW: Still Hot For You by Diane Escalera
REVIEW: The Gathering Storm by Robin Bridges
GUEST REVIEW: Surprises According to Humphrey by Betty G. Birney
REVIEW: Eternal Captive by Laura Wright
REVIEW: Alpha Instinct by Katie Reus
REVIEW: Sleepwalker by Karen Robards
REVIEW: Fifty Shades of Grey by E L James
REVIEW: Not Wicked Enough by Carolyn Jewel
REVIEW: Breakaway by Deirdre Martin
Return and Redownload Policies for Ebook Purchases
REVIEW: Under His Influence by Justine Elyot
REVIEW: Her Husband's Harlot by Grace Callaway
REVIEW: Last Man Standing by Cindy Gerard
REVIEW: The Husband Recipe by Linda Winstead Jones
REVIEW: The Whip by Karen Kondazian
REVIEW: Shadow's Stand By Sarah McCarty
REVIEW: Firelight by Kristin Callihan
REVIEW: The Flight of Gemma Hardy by Margot Livesey
REVIEW: Fracture by Megan Miranda
As a confirmed bibliophile and believer in the newspaper, I think its a shame that another book section has ceased to exist at a major paper.
It is a loss to the book and newspaper world. A real loss.
LA Times started a book reviewing blog and excluded romance but included mystery, science fiction and fantasy so my feeling toward this is total apathy.
I’m not apathetic. Like Rebecca J, I think it’s a loss to the book world as a whole–and a dangerous move for a newspaper, which depends on those who love to read.
It’s a loss to romance as well. The LA Times has often been good about reviewing novels with strong romantic elements and general woman-oriented fiction. I’ve read a number of LAT recommendations that were literary romances and novels with romantic themes. Those are part of the genre too; a newspaper doesn’t have to review novels by specific romance publishers to be important to romance.
Without a review section, there’s one less mass-media source for finding good romantic novels that are a little out of the ordinary.
Ironic, given that they host a huge book festival each Spring here in Los Angeles.
I think it is largely a self-imposed loss so long as they deemed certain enormous genres unworthy of attention. To stay open it needed to secure advertising, to secure advertising it needed to have readership in key consumer demographics. After all this was a paper for all readers not a niche journal.
I don’t know; this feels like the newspaper equivalent of a public school that begins its budget cuts by getting rid of arts and music education. Whether or not they reviewed Romance, I’m always frustrated that people (especially those who run a newspaper) think literature in the broad sense isn’t essential, let alone important, for cultural literacy and social vitality.
The PBS News Hour had a story tonight about the LA Times stopping its book section, and it talked about the online book review world. Representing that side was Kassia Krozier of booksquared. You may want to watch it or check out the transcript on pbs dot org.
I live in the LA area and I missed this bit of news. It’s so surprising that they would eliminate this section of the newspaper. I wonder if they are replacing that space with some other supplement or more classifieds?While much of LA is very computer literate, I still meet people through my job who won’t touch email or the internet. Having newspaper book reviews is still an important service. I think if readership dropped significantly, they were probably picking the wrong books to review. You guys have a point that maybe they should have expanded the genres of fiction they reviewed as a way to bring in a new audience.