Saturday, September 29, 2007

More may be less ...

... N.Y. Times creates more bestsellers. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)

"It's a balancing act," said Carlin Romano, the longtime book critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer. "And in this case, I think the Times Book Review knows exactly what it's doing, to tilt the balance in order to attract more advertising. But they're also giving a lot more authors the right to claim now that they're bestsellers. This will give them very good exposure, but philosophically, the more bestsellers you have, the less the term means."

I believe Carlin has questioned the accuracy - or something - about this quote, but I can';t seem to find what his objection was. As it stands, though, I tend to agree.


  1. Given how many authors can claim best-seller status on a wide number of lists, I can't see how this could hurt. The cat's out of the gate already.

  2. To be honest, Bill, me either.