Book World, Reimagined

As you probably know from reading the news from the Post and the New York Times, Feb. 15 will be the last issue of Book World as a stand-alone section in the print newspaper.

But we are not going away.

If you read Book World online, you may not notice any change in our coverage at all and might even see some improvements.

If you read us in the paper, look for more daily reviews in Style on fiction, memoirs, children's books and cultural affairs; on Sunday, turn to the beefed-up Outlook section for politics, history, foreign affairs, science and business. You will find Michael Dirda and Ron Charles in Style, and Jonathan Yardley in Outlook.

We have always believed that books are vital to understanding our world. We hope to increase our engagement with the world, and especially with our readers, in our new homes.

So let us know via email or in the comments section below what works and what doesn't, what you'd like to see more of, and what you could do without.

And if you will miss our beautiful Sunday tabloid, well, let us know that, too.

By Rachel Hartigan Shea |  January 28, 2009; 9:21 PM ET Rachel Hartigan Shea
Previous: John Updike, Sans Nobel Prize | Next: Preserving Book World's Mission


Please email us to report offensive comments.

What? Why is Book World going away? It's my favorite section of the Sunday paper. I am very disappointed to hear this news. I am a literary fiction blogger, and the WP Book World was one of my favorite sources for new books to feature. I will check it out online but I would so prefer to read it in the paper.

Posted by: everydayiwritethebook | January 28, 2009 11:35 PM

I will be sorry to see the end of Book World. I moved to Washington in 1980 and Book World has become a part of my life and a treasured source of critical reviews of both fiction and non-fiction. I noted its shrinkage over the years with regret, but never thought the Post would discontinue it. I understand (at least from the outside) the difficulties faced by both newspapers and publishers in recent years, but somehow thought that the Post would remain committed to Book World as a kind of "loss leader" -- something that made the Post special, and in keeping with the Post's ethic of honoring good writing, as well as good reporting. I will miss it.

Posted by: juliaseymour | January 29, 2009 9:14 AM

If you stumbled onto this blog and wondered why there are only two comments posted, here's the scoop: There are no links on page indicating this exists. You might be lucky enough to find a comments button with today's Howard Kurtz media column about Book World but that's not easy to find, either. There you will see over 60 comments. What's interesting is that The New York Times broke this story first and comments from their readers about the demise of the Sunday Book Book World tabloid exceeds 100. Those at the Post who are responsible for this decision should read all the comments. Illuminating but sad.

Posted by: Edorampo | January 29, 2009 11:33 AM

I, too, am sorry to see Book World go, but it appears from Mr. Brauchli's comments (quoted in the NY Times) that future reviews might be more expansive. I've generally enjoyed the Post's reviews, but I find that too little space is devoted to them. I sometimes get the sense that the critic has more she wants to say, but is forced to condense her thoughts into what is little more than a list of likes and dislikes. Hopefully the new format will allow contributors to develop their ideas more fully.

Posted by: billbrantley | January 29, 2009 2:42 PM

Shea: "Of course it's disappointing... It's nice to have a separate section with big display and a big shout-out to what the most important book is. But it's not worth gnashing our teeth about too much."

I wonder if Shea will get booed at the next festival for these remarks? It's probably a good thing the NBF is likely dead.

Posted by: prokaryote | January 30, 2009 1:37 PM

I am very sorry to hear that Book World will not continues as a separte pullout. I especially enjoy reading it while I am looking at the Sunday Post. It is not the same to have to go online to get it. Please reconsider and add it back to the Sunday Washington Post

Posted by: Ngmullis1 | February 3, 2009 11:20 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company