I first read this in TNR though it was later confirmed by the Post itself. The Washington Post’s Book World will no longer be an independent section as of mid February.
I love Book World. I don’t read it every week, but I do stockpile them and often get through them on vacations. Last week I got back from one such trip and so my appreciation of the section is all the higher. Often after reading Book World I’ll tear out the headline as a note to self to add some volume to my Amazon Wish List. Though it’s greatest service to me might be keeping me in the loop about the books I’m not reading. Not the headliners of course, those I can read about anywhere, but the more obscure volume that hip or policy aware friends might reference. There will still be book reviews in the Post, but they’re cutting back from 16 pages to 12 and I suspect many of the losers are the books I’m less likely to see reviewed elsewhere.
My other worry is that half of the Book World is going to Style and half to Outlook. I love the Style section, it’s often silly but on the whole is pretty reliable. The problem is Outlook, which often annoys me with fairly lame pieces including two notorious examples in 2008: one about how women are stupid and one about how the American economy was in great shape this fall. I didn’t agree with every Book World review, but they rarely drove me to distraction.
I think the difference isn’t that Outlook’s editor enjoys publishing stupid arguments; instead, Outlook’s visibility is driven by controversy. Spectacularly dumb arguments can draw more attention because avoiding the need for facts gives you much more freedom in picking topics. That wasn’t an issue with Book World which focused on informing, not infuriating, readers. So while I’m relieved to know that the terrific Book World columnists are sticking around, I’m worried that the range of reviewers chosen for the Outlook section will go down hill.
Comments