Of course, the Tribune Co. is still “committed” to books (and winning the World Series one century after the perennial “wait till next year” campaign began . . . good luck with that one, Cubbies!):

Nancy Sullivan, executive director of corporate communications at the paper, would not comment on any staff cuts or the future of the standalone book review section. Noting that more definitive news would be issued next week, she said that “the Times remains committed to book review coverage. What form that takes is what’s under evaluation.” But Wasserman said that the book review staff has been cut from five to three, and book review coverage will be placed in the Calendar section of the paper where it will share space with features.

Wasserman—along with three other past L.A. Times book review editors—released a about this situation:

The dismantling of the Sunday Book Review section and the migration of a few surviving reviews to the Sunday Calendar section represents a historic retreat from the large ambitions which accompanied the birth of the section. [. . .]

Angelenos in growing number are already choosing to cancel their subscriptions to the Sunday Times. The elimination of the Book Review, a philistine blunder that insults the cultural ambition of the city and the region, will only accelerate this process and further wound the long-term fiscal health of the newspaper.

We urge readers and writers alike to join with us as we protest this sad and backward step.

This is really depressing . . . I’m afraid to google the actual answer, but I think that means that there’s only 2 or 3 remaining standalone book sections in the U.S.

Both the article and the interview are worth checking out, and although bloggers will inevitably attack John Freeman for some of his questions, I found the stuff about reviews on the internet to be quite interesting.

Q: It seems if anything, one of the largest impacts the web might have on reviewing is the pushing forward of an even more subjective model of reviewing (with blogs, etc). I suppose you could argue that any review which pretends toward objective is telling you a lie. Still, what do you think the impact of this will be on literary conversation?

A: Good writing (which is to say, good thinking) will always triumph over bad writing (which is to say, bad thinking). The problem here is the technical ease with which the web dignifies shoddy thought by presenting it in a way that aesthetically (justified margins, graceful fonts, pleasing format) confers an unwarranted gravitas upon even the most coarse and supercilious of opinions. Thus, the web permits a thousand flowers to blossom as well as a thousand stinking roses. In the end, however, content rules.

According to he will begin writing a weekly review column in October. Wasserman has excellent taste in literature, is an intimidatingly smart guy, and I’m sure will write an excellent column, so personally, I’m pretty psyched.