David Itzkoff, selected how?
johan....@comcast.net
Itzkoff, and in particular about his shallow knowledge of the field.
How was this fellow selected? Did the Times print a want-ad, or did one
of the editors just pick one of their friends?
Johan Larson
Andrew Wheeler
The "Up Front" column in the Book Review with Itzkoff's first column
(March 5, 2006, available for free subscription at
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7D81E3EF936A35750C0A9609C8B63)
talks about how geeky he thinks he is, but doesn't shed any light on how
he got the job.
He was an editor at _Spin_ before the Times gig; he's doing a lot of
reporting for the Times, so I suspect he's on staff there (probably
officially as a music guy).
"Man writing monthly column for the Book Review" is a job that pays, I
expect, mostly in "glamour" -- book reviewing is not very remunerative.
--
Andrew Wheeler: Professional Editor, Amateur Wise-Acre
--
If you enjoyed this post, try my blog at
http://antickmusings.blogspot.com
If you hated this post, you probably have bad taste anyway.
Rich Horton
<acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>"Man writing monthly column for the Book Review" is a job that pays, I
>expect, mostly in "glamour" -- book reviewing is not very remunerative.
Indeed it is not (as I can testify) but I do think reviewing for the
NYTBR is likely to be more remunerative than most such gigs.
Still ... I daresay his staff work for the NYT pays more.
johan....@comcast.net
Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> johan....@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > I've seen quite a bit of bitching about the NY Times SF reviewer, David
> > Itzkoff, and in particular about his shallow knowledge of the field.
> > How was this fellow selected? Did the Times print a want-ad, or did one
> > of the editors just pick one of their friends?
>
> The "Up Front" column in the Book Review with Itzkoff's first column
> (March 5, 2006, available for free subscription at
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7D81E3EF936A35750C0A9609C8B63)
> talks about how geeky he thinks he is, but doesn't shed any light on how
> he got the job.
>
> He was an editor at _Spin_ before the Times gig; he's doing a lot of
> reporting for the Times, so I suspect he's on staff there (probably
> officially as a music guy).
>
> "Man writing monthly column for the Book Review" is a job that pays, I
> expect, mostly in "glamour" -- book reviewing is not very remunerative.
It still seems a bit strange to give it to a staffer. I suspect there's
a platoon of qualified commentators who would be willing to do it given
the height of that soapbox.
Johan Larson
Pumpkin Escobar
johan....@comcast.net wrote:
I gave up on the SF reviews in the NYT because I found them to be too
sporadic to keep track of since Gerald Jonas stopped writing them. Are
they on some kind of schedule again?
Andrew Wheeler
To get a job at the _Times_, you first need to be someone known to the
_Times_. I don't think most SFF types qualify.
Andrew Wheeler
I think Itzkoff gets a full page roughly once a month -- it's a larger
space than Jonas got, more often than Jonas.
Let's see if I'm right:
Neil Gaiman
(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01EEDB143FF936A35752C1A9609C8B63),
November 5.
Dune
(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E0DD1231F937A1575AC0A9609C8B63),
September 24.
Stross/Robson
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/books/review/09itzkoff.html?ex=1165467600&en=0544b5ca5181d63d&ei=5070),
July 9.
Nebula Awards
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/books/review/11itzkoff.html?ex=1165467600&en=c3c3a6b3d13985e6&ei=5070),
June 11.
David Marusek
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/books/review/05itzkoff.html), March 5.
Well, that's only five columns in nine months -- ten if you count his
front-page review of Julie Phillips's _James Tiptree, Jr._
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/books/review/20Itzkoff.html, August
20) -- which is more like every six weeks.
That's about as often as Jonas was in the _Book Review_. And Jonas
always reviewed at least three books, which Itzkoff doesn't do. Draw
your own conclusions...
johan....@comcast.net
Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> johan....@comcast.net wrote:
> > It still seems a bit strange to give it to a staffer. I suspect there's
> > a platoon of qualified commentators who would be willing to do it given
> > the height of that soapbox.
>
> To get a job at the _Times_, you first need to be someone known to the
> _Times_. I don't think most SFF types qualify.
Sounds like this clubby lack of transparency turned around and bit
them. It would have been cheap and simple to act openly, say by placing
an ad in Locus, and it would almost certainly have turned up
more-knowledgeable candidates.
Johan Larson
Peter D. Tillman
Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
> I think Itzkoff gets a full page roughly once a month -- it's a larger
> space than Jonas got, more often than Jonas.
>
[SNIP]
>
> Well, that's only five columns in nine months -- ten if you count his
> front-page review of Julie Phillips's _James Tiptree, Jr._
> (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/books/review/20Itzkoff.html, August
> 20) -- which is more like every six weeks.
>
> That's about as often as Jonas was in the _Book Review_. And Jonas
> always reviewed at least three books, which Itzkoff doesn't do. Draw
> your own conclusions...
I'm pretty sure Jonas had a regular monthly column. Let's see...
Here's his archive, back to 1997:
<http://www.nytimes.com/books/specials/sci-fi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>
--but I'm far too lazy to work out the frequency. I much preferred his
reviews to Itzkoff's.
Happy reading--
Pete Tillman
Andrew Wheeler
You're assuming the _Times_ knows -- or cares -- about _Locus_. Or that
they advertise for any reviewing position. Or that, even if they *did*
advertise a reviewing job, they'd consider the skiffy beat worthy of
that. All completely unwarranted assumptions.
Remember, the _Times_ is *real* -- it's "the paper of record." Things
are important *because* they say they're important, and so the things
they ignore are by definition unimportant.
We are the outsiders; they are the insiders. If we complain, they're
sure it's because we are outsiders, and it only solidifies their image
of us.
johan....@comcast.net
> > > To get a job at the _Times_, you first need to be someone known to the
> > > _Times_. I don't think most SFF types qualify.
> >
> > Sounds like this clubby lack of transparency turned around and bit
> > them. It would have been cheap and simple to act openly, say by placing
> > an ad in Locus, and it would almost certainly have turned up
> > more-knowledgeable candidates.
>
> You're assuming the _Times_ knows -- or cares -- about _Locus_. Or that
> they advertise for any reviewing position. Or that, even if they *did*
> advertise a reviewing job, they'd consider the skiffy beat worthy of
> that. All completely unwarranted assumptions.
I'm not arguing about what they did; I am saying they should have done
differently.
The scenario you outline sounds very plausible. But they acted very
foolishly, doing so they produced an obviously bad result, and they
could easily have done better.
> Remember, the _Times_ is *real* -- it's "the paper of record." Things
> are important *because* they say they're important, and so the things
> they ignore are by definition unimportant.
Yes, well, they can think that, and in some domains they would be
right. But the SF genre is not one of them. AFAICT, the NY Times SF
column has _never_ been one of the pillars of SF criticism. It has
always been something that has been noticed, given the prestige of the
paper, but it has just never had any real influence. They could make it
matter, easily enough, but they haven't.
> We are the outsiders; they are the insiders. If we complain, they're
> sure it's because we are outsiders, and it only solidifies their image
> of us.
In most domains there is a simple test that with almost perfect
accuracy tosses out the wannabes: the question "Do you do this for a
living?" Had the Times applied that standard, and insisted that whoever
writes their SF column be someone who writes or edits or studies the
stuff for a living, they would almost certainly have made a better
choice.
Johan Larson
John Schilling
>Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>> johan....@comcast.net wrote:
>> > It still seems a bit strange to give it to a staffer. I suspect there's
>> > a platoon of qualified commentators who would be willing to do it given
>> > the height of that soapbox.
>> To get a job at the _Times_, you first need to be someone known to the
>> _Times_. I don't think most SFF types qualify.
>Sounds like this clubby lack of transparency turned around and bit
>them.
No, it bit *you*. The folks at the New York Times, I do not believe
have suffered the least bit of harm or discomfort from this.
>It would have been cheap and simple to act openly, say by placing
>an ad in Locus, and it would almost certainly have turned up
>more-knowledgeable candidates.
More knowledgeable, but less enjoyable for the inbred clique at
the Times to work with. And for that matter, the hypothetical
SF reviewer probably wouldn't be having much fun either. The
consistency of presentation might suffer as well, if e.g. their
not-one-of-us SF guy gave a gushing review of e.g. a libertarian
SF work in an issue whose front and editorial pages were devoted
to the Evils of Unchecked Capitalism.
Since the number of potential readers who have ever said, "there
I was, checkbook open, right about to subscribe to the NYT, until
I realised their SF reviews are crap", is nigh-infinitesimal, and
the editorial staff is pretty well isolated from microblips in
circulation, I'm not seeing what the benefit to them would be
in hiring an outside SF reviewer.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Mike Schilling
I think Andrew's point is that the people it might matter to don't count.
If the NYT SF column has a goal, it's to discuss the sort of SF that would
appeal to mainstream readers, not the sort that's well-regarded by
aficionados like us.
Andrew Wheeler
Exactly. Read the NYTBR's introduction to Itzkoff, and Itzkoff's first
column -- they explicitly say that his job is to find the "good" stuff
in our very, very "geeky" genre, and present it so that "real readers"
will try it.
In short, you could say that we're being condescended to if there was
any reason to believe they cared what we think at all.
johan....@comcast.net
Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
> > I think Andrew's point is that the people it might matter to don't count.
> > If the NYT SF column has a goal, it's to discuss the sort of SF that would
> > appeal to mainstream readers, not the sort that's well-regarded by
> > aficionados like us.
And that's a perfectly reasonable thing for an SF column in a
general-interest periodical to do. That's not my quarrel.
> Exactly. Read the NYTBR's introduction to Itzkoff, and Itzkoff's first
> column -- they explicitly say that his job is to find the "good" stuff
> in our very, very "geeky" genre, and present it so that "real readers"
> will try it.
So we agree Itzkoff was a bad choice if the goal was to appeal to
experienced SF readers, right? Do you think he has done notably better
if we measure him by his appeal to non-SF readers? In fact, is there
any sensible standard by which Itzkoff was a good choice?
The only one that comes to mind is speed -- the editors already knew
him, and since he was already in the building they didn't have to call
around or even schedule an interview. And if they don't care about the
genre but for some reason (what?) feel the need to have a column
devoted to it, that just might be enough. Still wasteful, mind you, but
at least comprehensible.
Johan Larson
Mike Schilling
> Exactly. Read the NYTBR's introduction to Itzkoff, and Itzkoff's first
> column -- they explicitly say that his job is to find the "good" stuff
> in our very, very "geeky" genre, and present it so that "real readers"
> will try it.
>
> In short, you could say that we're being condescended to if there was
> any reason to believe they cared what we think at all.
Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
Rick: Well, if I gave you any thought I probably would.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> > Mike Schilling wrote:
> > > I think Andrew's point is that the people it might matter to don't count.
> > > If the NYT SF column has a goal, it's to discuss the sort of SF that would
> > > appeal to mainstream readers, not the sort that's well-regarded by
> > > aficionados like us.
>
> And that's a perfectly reasonable thing for an SF column in a
> general-interest periodical to do. That's not my quarrel.
>
> > Exactly. Read the NYTBR's introduction to Itzkoff, and Itzkoff's first
> > column -- they explicitly say that his job is to find the "good" stuff
> > in our very, very "geeky" genre, and present it so that "real readers"
> > will try it.
>
> So we agree Itzkoff was a bad choice if the goal was to appeal to
> experienced SF readers, right? Do you think he has done notably better
> if we measure him by his appeal to non-SF readers? In fact, is there
> any sensible standard by which Itzkoff was a good choice?
I think the NYTBR editors are probably pretty happy with Itzkoff; he's
choosing relatively populist things that have some lit-snob appeal
(without calling anyone's category definitions into question), and
presenting them in a cheery, lookie-what-I-found way.
They gave him the cover for a SF-related book, which has got to be some
kind of seal of approval.
Again, we're not the people they're talking to. They don't seem to care
what the people who already read SF think.
Charlie Stross
as <acwh...@optonline.com> declared:
> Again, we're not the people they're talking to. They don't seem to care
> what the people who already read SF think.
On the other hand, marketing to the people who already read SF is not
the way to take SF to a new audience. So you'll pardon me, I hope, for
not throwing stones from inside a glass house.
-- Charlie
Matt Hughes
Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> They gave him the cover for a SF-related book, which has got to be some
> kind of seal of approval.
Of course, we're assuming that the assigner and the assignee both
consider the assignment a welcome one. But perhaps it's a kind of
punishment the Times doles out to in-house transgressors. Jonas had
served his years-long sentence and was paroled; Itzkoff had offended
one of the local gods (or failed to genuflect to a senior editor, the
distinction is moot), and was thus consigned to tread Jonas's now-empty
wheel until his guilt is expiated. Meanwhile, he has to endure the
mockery of the real reviewers while he gets them coffee and mops up
after them in the cafeteria.
In any case, I expect not to fall under his watery eye.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com/majestrum
johan....@comcast.net
Matt Hughes wrote:
> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
>
> > They gave him the cover for a SF-related book, which has got to be some
> > kind of seal of approval.
>
> Of course, we're assuming that the assigner and the assignee both
> consider the assignment a welcome one. But perhaps it's a kind of
> punishment the Times doles out to in-house transgressors. Jonas had
> served his years-long sentence and was paroled; Itzkoff had offended
> one of the local gods (or failed to genuflect to a senior editor, the
> distinction is moot), and was thus consigned to tread Jonas's now-empty
> wheel until his guilt is expiated. Meanwhile, he has to endure the
> mockery of the real reviewers while he gets them coffee and mops up
> after them in the cafeteria.
If we assume the job is not some fiendish punishment dreamt up by the
cackling imps at the Times, who do you think would be a good choice?
Realistically, this would need to be a person the NYT literature folk
have heard of and respect, and who might be willing to take the gig for
the humble coppers offered.
Johan Larson
Konrad Gaertner
>
> If we assume the job is not some fiendish punishment dreamt up by the
> cackling imps at the Times, who do you think would be a good choice?
> Realistically, this would need to be a person the NYT literature folk
> have heard of and respect, and who might be willing to take the gig for
> the humble coppers offered.
Clute?
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: gae...@aol.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
Peter D. Tillman
Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> johan....@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > If we assume the job is not some fiendish punishment dreamt up by the
> > cackling imps at the Times, who do you think would be a good choice?
> > Realistically, this would need to be a person the NYT literature folk
> > have heard of and respect, and who might be willing to take the gig for
> > the humble coppers offered.
>
> Clute?
Well, if you want to puzzle the hell out of the literati....
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
johan....@comcast.net
Konrad Gaertner wrote:
> johan....@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > If we assume the job is not some fiendish punishment dreamt up by the
> > cackling imps at the Times, who do you think would be a good choice?
> > Realistically, this would need to be a person the NYT literature folk
> > have heard of and respect, and who might be willing to take the gig for
> > the humble coppers offered.
>
> Clute?
Hmm. I'm not seeing what he has done that compels respect from people
whose focus is on conventional literature. I think we are looking for
someone who has either written some pretty respectable conventional
literature himself, or whose sheer salesvolume is compelling.
A few candidates:
Neil Gaiman has IIRC done some pieces for the book review.
Michael Chabon's "Cavalier & Klay" got decent treatment from the
literati.
Jonathan Lethem's "Fortress of Solitude" got serious respect, and he
has written SF.
Would they be interested? Dunno.
Johan Larson
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Konrad Gaertner wrote:
> > johan....@comcast.net wrote:
> > >
> > > If we assume the job is not some fiendish punishment dreamt up by the
> > > cackling imps at the Times, who do you think would be a good choice?
> > > Realistically, this would need to be a person the NYT literature folk
> > > have heard of and respect, and who might be willing to take the gig for
> > > the humble coppers offered.
> >
> > Clute?
>
> Hmm. I'm not seeing what he has done that compels respect from people
> whose focus is on conventional literature. I think we are looking for
> someone who has either written some pretty respectable conventional
> literature himself, or whose sheer salesvolume is compelling.
The job is for a reviewer, not writer. I named Clute as someone
undeniably qualified to review SF.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> johan....@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > Konrad Gaertner wrote:
> > > johan....@comcast.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If we assume the job is not some fiendish punishment dreamt up by the
> > > > cackling imps at the Times, who do you think would be a good choice?
> > > > Realistically, this would need to be a person the NYT literature folk
> > > > have heard of and respect, and who might be willing to take the gig for
> > > > the humble coppers offered.
> > >
> > > Clute?
> >
> > Hmm. I'm not seeing what he has done that compels respect from people
> > whose focus is on conventional literature. I think we are looking for
> > someone who has either written some pretty respectable conventional
> > literature himself, or whose sheer salesvolume is compelling.
>
> The job is for a reviewer, not writer. I named Clute as someone
> undeniably qualified to review SF.
Clute regularly reviews for Sci Fi Weekly at the moment; dunno how they
feel about "competition." I think he also writes for _Foundation_, but
I've never seen that.
Matt Hughes
johan....@comcast.net wrote:
> If we assume the job is not some fiendish punishment dreamt up by the
> cackling imps at the Times, who do you think would be a good choice?
> Realistically, this would need to be a person the NYT literature folk
> have heard of and respect, and who might be willing to take the gig for
> the humble coppers offered.
David Hartwell could do it, if we allow for the conflicts of interest.
Perhaps when he retires from editing.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com/majestrum
Niall Harrison
> Konrad Gaertner wrote:
> >
> > The job is for a reviewer, not writer. I named Clute as someone
> > undeniably qualified to review SF.
>
> Clute regularly reviews for Sci Fi Weekly at the moment; dunno how they
> feel about "competition." I think he also writes for _Foundation_, but
> I've never seen that.
He writes for NYRSF more often than he does for Foundation; he also has
a second regular column, Scores, in Interzone. (Which covers typically
two or three books in about the same space that Excessive Candour
tackles one.)
Niall
Niall Harrison
> If we assume the job is not some fiendish punishment dreamt up by the
> cackling imps at the Times, who do you think would be a good choice?
> Realistically, this would need to be a person the NYT literature folk
> have heard of and respect, and who might be willing to take the gig for
> the humble coppers offered.
Well, they've started using M. John Harrison as a reviewer for regular
literature ...
Niall