By Tony Norman
NSNC President
My first NSNC webinar will probably rank as my favorite virtual interview of the pandemic age for quite a while. Last month, I had the pleasure of interviewing Pamela Paul, editor of The New York Times Sunday Book Review and grand Poobah of all its book coverage throughout the week. The weekly podcast she anchors is must-listening for all book nerds.
Ms. Paul exhibited none of the stuffiness or self-importance I imagined in my worst-case scenario and exceeded the warmth and relatability I imagined in my best.
It was one of those interview conversations that just flowed. Ms. Paul was “present” in every sense and a good sport who answered questions about the book review process at the Times from every angle for an hour.
She did much to demystify what seems like an often impossible effort to get a book reviewed in the Times, arguably the most desired piece of critical real estate in arts journalism.
Unfortunately, when it comes to self-published or micro-press books/manuscripts, the chances are nil, but folks published by small or academic presses have more of a shot than they might have realized.
If it can rise to the top of a daily slush pile picked over by assistants who either pass on it or push it up to editors with recommendations for further consideration, there’s hope, but no guarantee.
Obviously, worthiness for consideration is in the eye of the beholder. The majority of submissions don’t get consideration, even those that have already been deemed worthy of review in other publications.
Ms. Paul acknowledged that the process from top to bottom is radically subjective and that acceptance or rejection for review in the Times is not the ultimate arbiter of quality. Worthy titles slip by all the time. The sheer size of the pool of review requests makes it an impossibility. While she is adamant about quality rising to the top, she acknowledges that it is a human operation subject to the same quirks and limitations that bedevil all human endeavors.
I was also heartened by Ms. Paul’s declaration that the Times is open to freelance contributions by people who aren’t bestselling authors or well-known writers themselves.
She made clear that the main criteria for becoming a reviewer for the Times isn’t one’s academic pedigree or status on the publishing charts, but one’s ability to express interesting opinions in an informative and entertaining way.
I found that enormously encouraging. Despite being the book review editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, I imagined my credentials were too meager to even consider pitching the Times for an opportunity to review as a freelancer. Pamela Paul convinced me that the opposite is true.
As a result, I plan to submit a small portfolio of book reviews and columns to the Times so that the book review editors who review such submissions have an accurate idea of how I write.
Ms. Paul said that the book section’s editors put a big premium on working with writers who don’t want to be pigeonholed and are open to writing about/exploring various subjects and genres. I’ll let you all know how it goes once I submit a portfolio and request an assignment. I’ll have to jump through the same hoops as everyone else, I’m sure.
After that interview, I couldn’t help but feel the realm of possibilities as a writer had expanded dramatically. The NSNC has wonderful webinars, seminars, and online gatherings happening all the time that are designed to edify, encourage, and inspire our membership.
We’re also trying to come up with programs our membership might be clamoring for. The NSNC is a vast and diverse club, so we want to reflect that in our programming. Please let us know what/who you’d like to see featured in profiles or who you would like to learn from in webinars, etc.
Meanwhile, if you missed the Pamela Paul interview/webinar, hit the link and check it out. It was a thrill hanging out with someone I’ve admired for her wit and erudition for years. It’s only one of the perks of an active membership in the NSNC.
Watch it at the link below
