The NYT book review is everything book criticism shouldn't be

Scope and influence of the NYT Book Review

• Many see NYTBR as long-targeted, shallow, and part of a “MFA–publishing–literary industrial complex” that produces bland, marketing-style reviews rather than sharp criticism.
• Others say they casually read it (e.g., Sunday coffee) just to stay conversationally current; for that light purpose, it’s “ok.”
• Some argue NYTBR simply reflects a broader cultural shallowness rather than causing it and now mostly generates blurbs for retailer pages.
• There is disagreement over whether its problems are unique to it or shared with the parent paper’s overall subscription-driven, audience-pandering model.

Alternatives and comparisons

• Several commenters strongly prefer other review venues (e.g., major review-of-books magazines, smaller literary mags, niche comics criticism, Reddit lit communities), describing them as more essayistic, idea-driven and less milquetoast.
• Some push back on criticism of certain highbrow review magazines as “boring” or “professorial,” arguing that their current editorial direction is more open and consistently thoughtful.

Book markets, lists, and “useful” books

• One subthread disputes whether book sales are truly “rising year over year,” noting short time windows, pandemic effects, and the inclusion of non-traditional items (notebooks, coloring books) under “books.”
• There is skepticism about the NYT bestseller list’s transparency and political bias; an analysis by a separate publication is cited suggesting clear ideological skew.
• Hacker News–driven book recommendations are seen as heavily skewed toward “useful” productivity/tech titles, with debate over the value of fiction vs. non-fiction.

Elitism, access, and identity

• Several comments echo the article’s critique of elitism: unpaid internships, low-paid publishing jobs accessible mainly to the well-off, tokenizing of non-white writers, and pressure toward “trauma memoir” and identity-based marketing.
• Others argue NYTBR is more a symptom than a cause of those structural trends.

Politics, art, and criticism

• A large subthread debates “all art is political.”
  • One side: all art is inherently political because it’s embedded in power structures, norms, and social context; even “apolitical” work or silence is a stance.
  • The other side: this definition makes “political” meaningless; many works (e.g., landscapes, children’s drawings, decorative art) are created without political intent and are reasonably experienced that way.
• Several commenters distinguish between art being political in some broad sense and criticism being overly, narrowly political; some want less politicized literary forums, others say that usually just means “less disagreement with my own views.”

Function of criticism

• Commenters disagree on what reviews should do:
  • Some want evaluative guidance (good/bad, buy/skip).
  • Others prefer only positive, enthusiastic coverage of worthwhile books, treating criticism as curation and essay-writing rather than consumer advice.
• There is nostalgia for criticism that connects writers with the right audiences and helps improve work, versus today’s mix of commercialism and “barren eccentricity.”