Not Quite Misquoted...

While I've not been misquoted, as Ed has, I do feel that without the context of my quote, it may seem that I've set the rather preposterous goal of attempting to be better than print book reviews.  That's not what I meant.  In Josh Getlin's "Battle of the Books" piece for the Sunday LA Times, he attributes (correctly!) this quote to me: "On any given Sunday, we see the same books reviewed in many publications, and then you see another similar block of books the next week," Miller said. "My goal is to go beyond that."

When I said we get the same books reviewed in each paper, I used the example of Chabon's The Yiddish Policeman's Union that has been recently reviewed by every Sunday book review section.  Fine. Good. Needed.  I then offered up a way that blogs handled that information differently by citing Scott Esposito's excellent piece on Chabon, Estrin & Roth and their different treatments of alternative histories -- a worthy discussion, but print review sections don't have the spare column inches to give it. Scott's piece, in my mind, is what the best of blogs can offer the form...a discussion of works past and present and how they relate, rather than focusing solely on the hot new book. This is what was meant by "beyond."

I also mentioned Ami Greko's FSG Poetry blog and how she was able to offer both the printed text of their poet's poems and the audio. Print newspapers can't play MP3's as readers read the Sunday edition out on their patios.  What an excellent example of the print and audio enhancing the experience of poetry for readers. "Beyond."

I also said that while many newspapers covered the latest A.M. Homes book, I covered the local A.M. Homes reading.  Not something any paper would care to devote ink to...and they shouldn't. "Beyond."

I also argued strongly for the importance of printed book review sections & "proper" book reviews.

Wider context: By "go beyond", I meant I'm interested in covering what's not covered by our much-needed print coverage -- although my last few posts make it quite clear I cover both.  There are many writers whose work won't see major coverage by the big newspapers, and I, personally, have made it my "goal" (although I don't remember using that word and I sort of cringe at the idea that I may have) to give those important voices space. Or to talk about writers and their work in a way that isn't already handled in print.

Whatever criticisms may come his way for writing the piece (and I'm sure he knew the heat would come), I think Josh Getlin's desire to dig deeper than the NYT piece is to be commended.  It's up to you to decide if he addressed some of the larger questions or just widened the already-open lid on the (too much discussed?) can of worms.

Comments

[Brian Hadd]

Apology unneeded--I personally see more authors here than in papers and really think natural that state of affairs. I think your quote reflects true ambitions well.

[Richard]

Your quote sounded very intelligent to me when I read the article (before reading this). In fact, it's what brought me here...

I think Mr. Getlin's article provided more light than the heat we've been getting. It's a shame about the misquotes, but as someone who's had his name in newspapers more times than was necessary, it seems to be unavoidable -- even when there's a tape recorder present. I don't know why.