img_1265_s.JPGThe University Book Store's Shelf Life blog has a tremendous post up about the cuts in the Seattle Times' Sunday book reviews:

I've left out the greeting; "Dear readers," because I thought I'd savor the irony of that at greater length. "Dear readers," indeed.

In today's Sunday paper the diminution of of the book review, and by extension of books as a primary cultural focus in Seattle, was announced with sincere regret by an anonymous editor in a banner atop the last remaining page of book reviews in the Entertainment Section. I assume an editor was responsible, but then, with Michael Upchurch gone a week or more since, who knows? With the steady departure of all the established cultural critics/editors in the past few weeks, anonymous direct address would seem to be the only option left for informing the "dear reader" of further changes.

"Readings and a book review will still appear every Friday in Ticket; additional stories about authors and and literary events will be incorporated regularly into the daily NW section." (Emphasis mine throughout.)

I don't often comment on other book sections in Seattle because no matter what I write, people interpret it as smug. I want to say on the record: I wish all the other papers would publish great books sections, and I think cutting books sections in Seattle—more than any other American city—is a tremendous mistake. Books are a unique part of our culture. In lieu of my commenting further, you really should read the rest of the UBS post. It perfectly states the folly in the Times' decision to further cut their books sections.