A classic literary spat has gripped the salons of Manhattan and cast a spotlight on the world of New York book publishing. At its heart is one of the most hallowed institutions in the world of books, the New York Times Book Review, which stands accused of dumbing down for the mass market.
To many of New York's literary elite, this is tantamount to betrayal. And the pencils of people of letters are rarely sharper than when they are stabbed into someone's back.
The argument began when Bill Keller, new executive editor of the NYT, was interviewed on an internet book website. Keller mused that the Book Review needed to be taken in a new direction. He wanted more non-fiction reviewed, fewer literary works and a closer look at 'potboilers', for the benefit of people choosing books at airports.
Reviews of authors' first books were also too long. 'Why take up 800 words when a paragraph will do?' Keller asked.
This was enough to set off alarm bells among Manhattan's intellectuals, where the Book Review is a literary bible. But worse was to come. 'Of course, some fiction needs to be done ... We'll do the new [John] Updike, the new [Philip] Roth, the new Jonathan Franzen or Zadie Smith. But there are not a lot of them, it seems to me,' Keller said. Then the coup de grâce. In the same interview, the NYT 's culture editor, Steven Erlanger, chipped in: 'To be honest, there's so much shit. Most of the things we praise aren't very good.'
Readers and publishers reacted with stunned horror. 'It is weird. They say they want to get younger readers, but this is not the way to go about it. They have got it ass backwards,' said Richard Nash, head of publishing house Soft Skull Press.
Keller was deluged with angry emails and letters, many from publishers terrified that their books, especially those from new authors, would no longer get attention in the newspaper. The reaction prompted some backtracking, with Keller saying he had been misrepresented and his comments taken out of context. That failed to convince many.
The spat has to be seen against the backdrop of a search for a new Book Review editor as Charles 'Chip' McGrath retires. The four leading candidates have strong news experience, rather than a purely literary background. The jostling for the job has captured the imagination of New York's chattering classes.
In what would otherwise be an obscure literary face-off, it is necessary to grasp the unique role the NYT plays in making or breaking books. Any book that can put ' New York Times bestseller' on its cover can guarantee extra sales.
Reviews from the newspaper are sent out a week before publication and are seen by the industry as judgments from heaven (or hell).
But for many in the publishing world the row over the NYT 's plans to go more massmarket is simply old news. They say that the world of publishing has completely changed in recent years and that the endorsement of the NYT no longer packs the punch it once did. Online booksellers, such as Amazon and major book chains including Barnes and Noble now compile their own bestseller lists.
'A New York Times Book Review cover can still give a book a commercial heartbeat, but it doesn't happen as auto matically as it used to, and there usually needs to be reinforcement from other media,' said Charlotte Abbott, book news editor at Publishers Weekly.
Still others have welcomed the proposed shift in emphasis. They see the NYT as too elitist, inhabiting a literary bubble. There should be nothing inherently 'wrong' about reviewing a potboiler, they say.
'We can't afford to ignore the tastes of most of the US public and expect to keep a vibrant publishing community. Potboilers and non-fiction sell. They allow literary fiction to be published,' said Marion Gropen, president of Gropen Associates, which gives financial advice to publishing houses.
The elitist attitudes of much of New York's literary world are starting to look a little old-fashioned. 'We have to get more of our fellow citizens reading. Let's focus on making books a universally chosen leisure pursuit, then we can quibble over everything else,' Gropen said.
