For the past year there's been this battle going on between those who review books for newspapers and magazines and those who review them for the net.
The print people seem to see the net people as barbarians who move their lips when they read and stain the pages with God knows what kinds of bodily fluids as they go through the book.
I'm not quite sure why this battle has been joined. I've seen ridiculously inept reviews in print and on net alike. Neither, it seems to me, has any claim on quality.
Likewise I've seen excellent reviewing in print and on net alike.
While I know that this is essentially a turf battle--newspapers and magazines dropping book reviews--I think the issue gets clouded when we start talking about quality. Each side can make substantial claims about quality--insight and style alike.
I'm sorry to see so many print reviewers being dropped but since I now read all newspapers and many magazines on the net...why can't many of the best print reviewers find a home on the web?