A Conversation with Chicago Sun-Times Books Editor Cheryl L. Reed

In the course of the National Book Critics Circle Campaign to Save Book Reviewing, launched in late April,Critical Mass has featured conversations with book editors from around the country. Today, books editor Cheryl L. Reed of the Chicago Sun-Times, a newspaper which has faced uncertainty since Conrad Black, the CEO of its parent company, stepped down in 2003 (closing arguments in Black's federal fraud trial in Chicago were ongoing this week), takes some questions.

Q.How long have you been book editor at the Chicago Sun-Times?.How was the section structured and what was its content upon your arrival? And now?

A. I have been books editor for a little over a year now. The previous editor retired after holding the position nearly 35 years.His background was in copyediting, whereas I'd come from the news side as an investigative projects reporter who had also written a book. So, we had very different perspectives and experiences. Since coming to the section I have expanded our freelance base — the number of people who write for us. We've also added a copy editor, a person to help me open books and some other support staff for help with event listings. My freelance budget was expanded slightly, so I was able to hire more freelancers and cultivate more local reviewers, which I am continuing to do. I'm continuously pitched by freelancers who live in other states who want to review for me. I am trying to cultivate a community here and you can't do that when someone isn't reading the paper and doesn't know the writers in town or where they read.

Q. What is your approach to focusing your book section on your readership?
What has worked? What has failed?

A. My focus has been widening our reviews in the kinds of books we review as well as the age and sex of reviewers. I've actively sought more female and young reviewers. As I wrote earlier, I'm aggressive about getting local reviewers. Chicago is a big city and there are a lot of writers here. Many don't want to write for the relatively small fee we offer but since we've been making the section better they are coming around asking to do reviews. At the same time, I realize we are a mainstream newspaper so I try to cover the gamut. We try to work on our mix of reviews. I do more graphic novel, food, and music books because I realize these appeal to different audiences. I also added poetry and politics to the types of books we review. I experimented with themed sections. My main thrust has been in highlighting local authors and mainstream authors who come to town. We do a lot more interviews with authors now and I encourage our reviewers to take an attitude. I want our section to be entertaining and engaging even if readers don't go out and buy all the books we review. I want "Books" to be a talked-about section, which I'm told by my editors and people in the community that it is becoming. Our managing editor last week told me that he reads the reviews because he finds them interesting, not because he necessarily wants to know about a certain book. I think that's a good sign.

What failed? Probably poetry reviews and trying to get readers to contribute short reviews. People just don't like to write to the newspaper like they used to...Oh well.

Q. Would you describe your commitment to local author interviews,listings, and other elements? How much space do you have for books coverage?

A. We have five broadsheet pages every Sunday as part of an expanded section called "Controversy" that also include the editorial pages. We have an artist and a designer and virtually all the art work is original. Getting the designers to put more copy on the page is a struggle but I think the art work enlivens these pages and gives the section a certain energy that I don't see in a lot of books sections. We have one full broadsheet page devoted to local authors, events, and interviews every week. We do Chicago authors elsewhere in the section as well. But I could safely say that at least 30 percent of our space is devoted to Chicago and Illinois authors, and probably 40 percent if you include Midwest authors in that mix.

Q. What are the challenges you have faced?

A. Well, Conrad Black is on trial. We don't know the outcome yet but there is speculation about whether or not he could ever take over the paper again, despite being the largest shareholder. I don't want get into newspaper losses. It seems dismal every quarter. That's a matter of public record. We are a struggling newspaper. I personally think it is the commitment made by the publisher that keeps our section alive and running on Sunday. Ultimately every books section is a vanity press — pride of the publisher — since we don't make money. The challenges will be whether the current management will remain in control, should the paper be sold, and whether new owners would want to continue a section that has virtually no ads. We have managed to attract a few ads recently, though.

Q. How has the newspaper promoted the book section?

A. We now have a half-page ad in our own paper every Friday touting our Sunday "Books" section. Management has given me a few more resources and they have made a commitment both to me and publicly in the paper that they have no plans to decrease books coverage. When the "Chicago Tribune" books section began publishing on Saturday, the "Chicago Sun-Times" carried front-page promos that bragged that we are the only books section in town on Sunday...The "Sun-Times" top editors often do "refers" to our pages in the must-read section and they've backed me up when other editors have tried to cut our reviews space.

Q. What sort of online presence do you have? Do you have a book blog? An online community? How do you think that will grow--what do you expect in a year's time?

A. All our reviews are run online. At this time I don't do a book blog. It's something I'm considering and in the future this is the area we will be expanding in. There's only so much time in the day, however, and I'm reluctant to devote my time to something we don't charge for yet.

Q. Can you mention a few recent and typical reviews and interviews?

A. I typically write two to three columns a month. These are usually reviews of big books and often I interview the authors. The reviews run on the cover of the section and take up most of the entire page and then jump. Recently I interviewed Sara Paretsky. Last week we ran a full-cover review of "A Thousand Splendid Suns." In the past I spent a day with Jane Hamilton. That interview ran with five pictures and took up a double truck (two broadsheet pages). Other interviews have run in the daily newspaper. I chatted with Nora Ephron and Anna Quindlen when they were in town. We just ran a full-page treatment of Barbara Kingsolver's book and others about organic eating. I just wrote the review of the new Joyce Carol Oates novel, which I'm sure will raise eyebrows. I focus most of my reviews on narrative nonfiction (my background; I wrote a narrative nonfiction book about nuns in 2004 called "Unveiled") and popular literary titles, many of them written by women. The paper's top editors often say that our books section is one of the most beautifully designed and most engagingly written sections of our paper. This is not what you'd expect at a tabloid.

Q. Anything else you'd like to mention?

A. I think having come from the news side of the newspaper has helped me open up the books section to people who felt shut out. I rely on reporters from all sections of the paper to do interviews and I also employ the publisher, editor, and general manager as reviewers. I think this is critical because they feel they have a stake in the section, too. This Sunday, our general manager, John Barron, has the lead review on Martin Cruz Smith and the most clever review I've read yet on the Clinton book, "Her Way." He's a fabulous writer and reviewer and this is the only writing he does anymore, so I think he gets a kick out of it. The same for our publisher, John Cruickshank, who is somewhat of a philosopher and quite well-read. He writes reviews of our big think books. He also did the cover review of the Ian McEwan, which encompassed much of McEwan's works.

I think sometimes books sections can be too insular and too snobbish. I think our section is working because we're trying to write engaging reviews that are interesting on their own merits, not just as reviews. I also try to cultivate people who don't write reviews for a living. This will be unpopular with your audience, but I find people who aren't full-time reviewers sometimes spend more time with their reviews and offer more interesting viewpoints. This isn't always the case. I encourage our reviewers to take strong points of views. We are a tabloid so we feel we're entitled to have some fun. I've insisted that reviewers' taglines be somewhat clever and funny. I've found that full-time freelancers often can't break out of the mold and the volleying of plot developments. I want my reviewers to write essays about books, not plot points.