For Anybody Keeping Track of Washington Post Book Reviews

Today nine books were reviewed in the Outlook section, the new “home” for book coverage in the Post.

Two were reviews of books by women, which leaves…well, you know seven written by men.  One of those was a book written by a man about a woman (Flannery O’Connor).  Does that get any extra points?

And the band plays on.

Tags: ,

7 Responses to “For Anybody Keeping Track of Washington Post Book Reviews”

  1. Susan/DC says:

    My husband pointed out that the book review aspect of the Post is now pathetic (his word) — and he doesn’t even read much that’s not work-related. It’s pretty sad that the newspaper of record in the nation’s capital can’t even support a separate book review section.

  2. Schola says:

    +IHS+

    Did I miss something? Why is the sex of the reviewer significant?

  3. AAR Sandy says:

    Schola, Not the reviewer, but the books reviewed. It’s been a bug up my butt for a number of years that books reviewed by Post are almost universally written by men. The way they see it, apparently, women don’t write books. Or books worthy of review, anyway.

    Susan/DC: Sad, indeed.

  4. d joubert says:

    Guess George Elliott knew what she was doing.

  5. AAR Sandy says:

    LOL, d joubert! Succinct and to the point. I like that.

  6. Schola says:

    Sandy: Maybe they see themselves as the anti-Oprah Book Club? LOL It’s the opposite case on her show.

  7. Cruz Butt says:

    Hello. Great job. I did not expect this on a Wednesday. This is a great story. Thanks! Btta5200