The Death of the Book Review?

Over at Open University, there was (a few months ago) much discussion about what constitutes a good book review. Many of the conclusions seem obvious, but they bear repeating: in an environment, both academic and recreational, where far more interesting books are published than any one person could ever read, a good book review section can do much in filling in the gaps of public knowledge.

David Greenberg reports today that the Atlanta Journal Constitution is doing away with book reviews. This is undoubtedly a shame. Not only do book reviews fill in gaps in public knowledge, they can also highlight things that we really ought to be reading. It is sad that valuable content is increasingly seen as expendable – but then again, the number of people who buy a newspaper for its books section is decidedly limited.

Nevertheless, surely there is a simple solution these days. The Internet has allowed many gaps in markets to be filled, particularly as it has opened the prospect of publishing ones work to a large audience. Assembling a high quality team of reviewers may take time, and it takes no small effort to publicise a blog to the point that it becomes worthwhile. But if the decline of the book review is to be lamented, why not arrest the decline? After all, a slightly longer than average blog post is more or less the ideal length for a book review – long enough to highlight the interesting points of the book to whet the reader’s appetite, but not so long that the writer succumbs to the temptation to suggest what he would have written himself in the same situation. Moreover, a good group blog would have the immeasurable benefit of considerable eclecticism. It’s easy to lament the decline of the book review, but with the opportunities of the modern world, it’s a deficiency that could easily be solved.