It was mentioned very casually a few weeks ago that the NYTs Book Review was going to have a new editor and that the long time editor was leaving. Well she sure did and it sure is not the same old review. Maybe a good thing. The “bestseller list” did not seem to be overstuffed with James Patterson efforts and The Golden House made it on – a little late for my taste but it was there. Various things were up-graded or gone altogether (not the stupid shortlist – I love how US media loves to adopt as their own “British” terms.) I don’t believe – in those interviews any of those folks have any of those books on the bed tables. Dostoyevsky and Shakespeare. No they don’t. Nor do I even imagine their perfect dinner would be James Joyce or Bobbie Burns. But it has a certain “je ne sais quoi” (for real – I don’t know what) when given as an answer to the usual question. Maybe the word is “classier” or “erudite”. It irritates me too, that they don’t or can’t come up with less pedestrian books to read. in bed. And by pedestrian I don’t mean awful or worthless – just hackneyed. It’s just a different Book Review. If they lose Marilyn Stasio and her bi-weekly Crime” column I shall be very sad. She has been at it for ages and she is very good at her job. I do wish and ( I wish this very deeply and sincerely) that their “reviews” were not just book reports. They take the joy out of enjoying the book by retelling the plot of the story without explaining why it’s wonderful or lousy or mediocre. That lies in the reader and that tells us far more than a plot rehash. And I don’t care who is doing the review. They need to lighten up on the reportishness and add more opinion and whys to their reviews. Maybe they will. It is somehow fresher and for the most part a very fine change from the long time one they had. I would love to hear the thoughts of anyone who reads the Times and has noted the newness of this section. Comments are always welcome.