NOTICE TAKEN

Byron Calame, the public editor of The New York Times, says his interest was piqued. His column on Sunday was headlined “The Book Review: Who Critiques Whom — and Why?” He wrote: “When The New York Times Book Review published its list of “100 Notable Books of the Year” earlier this month, calculations from several readers and bloggers soon turned up in my in-box.”
We didn’t send him our Dec. 3 item TIMES BOOK FAVES AND A BIG NON-FAVE. Maybe someone else did. Or maybe he noticed it here on ArtsJournal, or via a link on Romenesko, or maybe he noticed our Dec. 11 follow-up item CREDIT WHERE DUE, AND BONES TO PICK.
Calame said nothing, however, about what piqued our interest most: the big Robert Fisk non-fave, which Publishers Weekly liked as much as we did. (“Unflinching, provocative, brilliantly written — a work of major importance for today’s world,” PW said.) Fisk’s exclusion from the NYTBR 100 Notable Books of the Year for 2005 was not Calame’s concern because, as he wrote, “Of course, much of the judgment about the books falls into the realm of opinion — and beyond the public editor’s mandate.” We’re not crazy about the “of course.” But fair enough.
— Tireless Staff of Thousands
Postscript: Several letters about the 100 Notable Books, Robert Fisk’s “The Great War for Civilisation,” and Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s review of it, have since been published in the Book Review (in the issue of Dec. 25, 2005).

Facebook

Twitter