With regard to the challenges facing book review editors, mentioned here yesterday, Scott Pack has posted an interesting Q & A with Robert McCrum, former literary editor of The Observer newspaper (and former editor-in-chief at Faber & Faber):
What criteria did you use as a literary editor when deciding which books to review?
I always tried to choose the very best books available on the shelves – and on many weeks I felt I never had enough space. Plus, I tried never to lose sight of the fact that The Observer is a news-paper. The books we covered had to satisfy some fairly basic (literary) news criteria. What do I mean by that? Well, a new novel by Philip Roth or Milan Kundera is automatically more newsy than almost any first novel, unless of course you decide — as literary editor — that, say, Zadie Smith is a new voice to watch out for.
It all seems so straightforward — and I do have some sympathy for this view — and yet it leaves you wondering what hope is their for debut authors, under-appreciated talents, and small presses? (Zadie Smith — if needs to be said — was published by Penguin and hyped to the gills). Perhaps it also gives some indication as to why all newspaper book sections look so similar and review so many of the same titles?