Sam Tanenhaus, the editor of the New York Times Book Review and the author of The Death of Conservatism and Whittaker Chambers: A Biography, talks to Noah Charney about a typical day at work and what he looks for in a great piece of criticism.
Describe your typical day at the review.
It’s a sequence of routines, though they vary depending on the day. Today, for instance, three colleagues and I discussed galleys of eight to 10 books, and settled on potential reviewers for each. Next we’ll review letters and see which we might publish. I’m having lunch with a colleague (at another section of the paper) at 12:30. We have our headlines meeting at 2:30—the copy editors present choices. I am leaving early because I teach a lecture course (at the New School) at 4 p.m.
How many books do you read each month for the review and for pleasure?
Depends what you mean by “read.” I look at half a dozen for the job, then typically another dozen or so for various writing assignments, and perhaps half a dozen more for my current book project. For pleasure and edification, I’m slowly making my way through Henry Adams’ very long history of the Jefferson and Madison administrations.
Depends what you mean by “read.” I look at half a dozen for the job, then typically another dozen or so for various writing assignments, and perhaps half a dozen more for my current book project. For pleasure and edification, I’m slowly making my way through Henry Adams’ very long history of the Jefferson and Madison administrations.
How many books per month are sent by hopeful publishers for review in New York Times Book Review? How are books selected for review?
Several hundred, at least. The number varies by season. We review about 1% of the total sent to us. We select by reading the galleys. Most of this is done by our exceptional staff of “preview editors,” my very smart colleagues. Each reads at least 1,500 advance galleys a year. Multiply that by the five to 20 years they’ve been on the job, and you’ll get the idea these people know a good deal about books.
Several hundred, at least. The number varies by season. We review about 1% of the total sent to us. We select by reading the galleys. Most of this is done by our exceptional staff of “preview editors,” my very smart colleagues. Each reads at least 1,500 advance galleys a year. Multiply that by the five to 20 years they’ve been on the job, and you’ll get the idea these people know a good deal about books.
What do you look for in a good book review? Is there one review that you have written or read that you feel is somehow representative of an ideal review, a model for aspiring book reviewers?
Engagement, narrative drive, the weaving together of description and argument, at least some attention to the prose. I’m not a style fetishist, but I detest verbal automatisms and meaningless stock phrases like “this novel isn’t perfect.” (Is there another one that is?) I am also not a fan of “voice-y” writing, which often strikes me as lazy. We’ve published some fine reviews in my time. Some I especially admired: Stephen King on a biography of Raymond Carver, James Wood on Flaubert (which made it into his primer on fiction), Leon Wieseltier on Saul Bellow, Lee Siegel on Norman Mailer, Francine Prose on Hans Keilson, Donna Rifkind on Roger Rosenblatt’s new book, Rosenblatt’s own review of Ian Brown’s memoir.
My own reviews tend to elongate into profiles or longer considerations, not a useful model for anyone, I’m afraid, but especially not for a younger reviewer getting her feet wet. I’m addicted to The New Republic and The New York Review of Books: I have been for 35 years, and tend to favor that mode of rigorous argument. I’m proud of having written for both.
Read the full interview at The Daily Beast
Engagement, narrative drive, the weaving together of description and argument, at least some attention to the prose. I’m not a style fetishist, but I detest verbal automatisms and meaningless stock phrases like “this novel isn’t perfect.” (Is there another one that is?) I am also not a fan of “voice-y” writing, which often strikes me as lazy. We’ve published some fine reviews in my time. Some I especially admired: Stephen King on a biography of Raymond Carver, James Wood on Flaubert (which made it into his primer on fiction), Leon Wieseltier on Saul Bellow, Lee Siegel on Norman Mailer, Francine Prose on Hans Keilson, Donna Rifkind on Roger Rosenblatt’s new book, Rosenblatt’s own review of Ian Brown’s memoir.
My own reviews tend to elongate into profiles or longer considerations, not a useful model for anyone, I’m afraid, but especially not for a younger reviewer getting her feet wet. I’m addicted to The New Republic and The New York Review of Books: I have been for 35 years, and tend to favor that mode of rigorous argument. I’m proud of having written for both.
Read the full interview at The Daily Beast
No comments:
Post a Comment