I've been absurdly busy the past few months, which has caused me to neglect my blog. (As I'm sure both my followers have noticed.) But that project is done, and I'm back now.
Yet, while I was otherwise engaged, it seems that blogging is no longer de rigueur for writers. I was catching up on Elif Batuman's blog, only to find that she's suspended her blogging! She blames this on a note in the New York Times Book Review, which says that Twitter has rendered blogging obsolete.
Well, none of my work has ever been mentioned in the New York Times Book Review.* Until it is, I don't feel obliged to obey its ukase. I'll be blogging...as soon as I have something interesting to report.
* However, a business book I co-wrote has been referenced in the Business section of the New York Times. So I'm working my way towards the Book Review. I anticipate appearing in the Real Estate section any day now.
Showing posts with label New York Times Book Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times Book Review. Show all posts
Monday, August 6, 2012
Monday, January 26, 2009
Great Sex with The New York Times
Another sign of the apocalypse: the back cover of The New York Times Book Review for January 4, 2009, is a full page ad for sex videos.
To be precise, the ad is for "Great Sex for A Lifetime," a series of explicit instructional sex videos. I know this recession has got us all hurting, but is this the best The Times can do? Sex videos? (And DVDs.) I don't have any objection to sex videos, either instructional or porn, but do they have to advertise in the most elite section of our country's most august newspaper?
[Grammatical query: can you be more august, or is august one of those either/or descriptors like unique? Are their levels of augustitude, like august-auguster-augustiest?]
The New York Times has been the beneficiary of many long-term advertising contracts. For example, the jewelry store Tiffany & Co. has had a modest ad on page 3 of The Times for over 100 years! My memory of ads is hazy (unless it's a sexy lingerie ad, I tend not to notice them), but I believe that, for many years, the back page of The Times Book Review was for a book club. One of their major premiums was The Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
It's a long fall from The OED to sex videos.
Of late, the usual advertiser on the back page of The NYT Book Review has been Bauman Rare Books. Even though I'm not a collector of rare books, I have some affection for Bauman's. In years of applying for various jobs, Bauman's sent me the nicest, best-written rejection letter I've ever gotten. (Yup, that's all it takes to get on my good side. Reject me nicely. Supermodels, take note.)
Not that I expect to be buying anything from Bauman's anytime soon. Their autographed letter from Abraham Lincoln (just $78,000!) doesn't seem to be on my shopping list.
Bauman's is back on the back page of The NYT Book Review, and I hope it stays there.
And if The New York Times wants to run ads for sex videos, put them in the Business Section where they belong.
To be precise, the ad is for "Great Sex for A Lifetime," a series of explicit instructional sex videos. I know this recession has got us all hurting, but is this the best The Times can do? Sex videos? (And DVDs.) I don't have any objection to sex videos, either instructional or porn, but do they have to advertise in the most elite section of our country's most august newspaper?
[Grammatical query: can you be more august, or is august one of those either/or descriptors like unique? Are their levels of augustitude, like august-auguster-augustiest?]
The New York Times has been the beneficiary of many long-term advertising contracts. For example, the jewelry store Tiffany & Co. has had a modest ad on page 3 of The Times for over 100 years! My memory of ads is hazy (unless it's a sexy lingerie ad, I tend not to notice them), but I believe that, for many years, the back page of The Times Book Review was for a book club. One of their major premiums was The Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
It's a long fall from The OED to sex videos.
Of late, the usual advertiser on the back page of The NYT Book Review has been Bauman Rare Books. Even though I'm not a collector of rare books, I have some affection for Bauman's. In years of applying for various jobs, Bauman's sent me the nicest, best-written rejection letter I've ever gotten. (Yup, that's all it takes to get on my good side. Reject me nicely. Supermodels, take note.)
Not that I expect to be buying anything from Bauman's anytime soon. Their autographed letter from Abraham Lincoln (just $78,000!) doesn't seem to be on my shopping list.
Bauman's is back on the back page of The NYT Book Review, and I hope it stays there.
And if The New York Times wants to run ads for sex videos, put them in the Business Section where they belong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
