NYT public editor Clark Hoyt discovered that the book review section’s bestseller lists are “not a completely accurate barometer of what the reading public is buying,” spurred by what he described as a “controversy” over the decision to take the Oprah Book Club selection Night by Elie Wiesel off the list last month because, according to Deborah Hoffman, the memoir now qualifies as an “evergreen” the paper won’t be bothering to monitor. (That caused controversy? First I’ve heard of it.) He goes on to reveal—are you sitting down?—that the list’s compilers like to continually refresh the rankings with fresh new books that publishers might actually shell out some ad money to promote, although they are thinking about putting together a separate “classics” lists to accomodate titles like Night and To Kill a Mockingbird.
“For my money,” says Hoyt, “if the main list is a best sellers list, it ought to reflect what’s selling best, classics and new books alike.” Me, I think we should have the two lists, but they should be named more honestly: “The Fresh New Books of Today” and “Your Child’s Junior High Reading List.”