The New York Times' dismissive treatment of romance readers and writers feeds into some of the most pervasive stereotypes of the newspaper.
Surprise, surprise. The New York Times' revamped book coverage still makes it harder for romance novels to receive mainstream coverage.
Changes in the New York Times bestseller lists make it less useful to readers.
The New York Times removed its comic bestseller lists last week. We think that's a mistake.
In the Jane Austen-novel of my mind, I often pair up whoever writes the movie summaries for the On Demand ...
So, GreenLit. That’s a thing, according to the New York Times. Sometimes it gets used to define writers who are ...
Recently, The New York Times’s book section had Chelsea Handler as their featured author. After double checking that I had seen ...
If anyone ever asked me what parts of the bookish world I’m embarrassed by, they might be surprised by the ...
Recently, an article came out in the New York Times in which Lynn Messina, who is a mom, discussed her difficulties ...
Can you guess the novelist called "a rotund elf or Santa Claus" or the memoirist described as having a body "toned like an Olympic swimmer's"?
