Interview with Sam Tanenhaus, Editor of the New York Times Book Review

Sam Tanenhaus took over the NYT Book Review last April. He is the author of a biography of Whittaker Chambers, which received rave reviews--from William F. Buckley, Jr., no less, who called it"masterful." Some liberal historians greeted Tanenhaus's appointment with suspicion. What Buckley had considered a strength--Tanenhaus's broad sympathy with Chambers--they found alarming: Tanenhaus seemed actually to like the controversial ex-communist who had helped Richard Nixon nail Alger Hiss! But historians held out the hope that at least one of their own seemed to have ascended the pinnacle of the literary establishment. Whatever his ideological beliefs, Tanenhaus knew history. As Buckley noted, the Chambers book is"mostly history." Alas, as we learn in this interview, Tanenhaus himself does not consider himself a historian.

One of your big innovations has been to publish essays by historians. This seems to be picking up where the old Arts and Ideas page of the NYT left off. Was this a plan of yours or just coincidence?

The Book Review has run essays on and off for much its history. Since I arrived in April the section has published essays by a range of writers. The longest have been Daniel Mendelsohn's reconsideration of Truman Capote, Richard Posner's essay on the 9/11 Commission Report, and Paul Berman's review of Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. None of those writers is a historian, though each draws on history in his analysis and writing. We've also published essays by historians and are planning a few more in the days ahead.

How do you pick the authors you want to write your essays? Are they already published authors, or do you base it on their writing style or ideas?

There's no fixed rule. Many of our reviews are authors, but some are primarily essayists or reviewers. Either way, we approach writers we especially like, just as other publications do. Of course we also entertain proposals by writers we're less familiar with.

How does your background with history shape the way the Book Review is edited? And does your background provide you with help that other editors might not have?

My background in history is minimal. I studied in English in college and grad school. Whatever history I've learned has been acquired on the fly for various writing projects and, more generally, just to educate myself. One of my colleagues, however, has an advanced degree in history and I rely heavily on his knowledge and judgment.

What do you look for in a reviewer of history books? Do you set out to pick someone who takes a contrary viewpoint from the book under review?

We look for skilled writers who we expect will have something interesting to say about the book under review and can relate it to the experiences of our readers. Now and again I hear from scholars who think we should use specialists in order to communicate the most up-to-date thinking in the field. They have a point. The trouble is specialists sometimes assume too much knowledge or write too much as and for insiders. Our readers are pretty well educated book-lovers--generalists, not experts. So we look to generalists too.

How do you pick which history books will get reviewed? Is it from the content that appears in them or that they were written by established authors?

First, because of our limited space we can review only a fraction of the worthy history books sent to us for consideration. We look at many of them closely and weigh several considerations before assigning a book for review: the inherent interest of a subject, the author's skill in presenting the material, the likelihood it will be of interest to our readers (timeliness sometimes plays into our thinking here). Reputation matters less than you may suppose. We sometimes skip works by very well established historians and review books by relative unknowns if the subject seems of particular interest and the book is compellingly argued or written.

Do you think that reviewing history books is harder to do than other books?

Well, in my own reviewing days I found nonfiction, including history, generally easier to write about than fiction. Narrative history lends itself well to reviewing, I think, since part of the reviewer's job is to give his or her own capsule version of the story and that's an advantage for the reviewer--and for the reader, if it's well done.

Have you ever regretted any choices of reviewers of history books?

I've been here only since April--not long enough yet for reappraisals of that kind. I'm more intent on learning the ropes and putting out a strong section. Luckily my colleagues are highly experienced and indulgent.

What is one of your favorite reviews and why?

I'm pleased about many of the reviews we've published and like them for different reasons. I can't really single any out.

What history books have you read lately which you would recommend?

I admire Adam Hochschild's Bury the Chains, about the origins of abolitionism. The material is rich and well presented. I've not yet had a chance to read Steven Fraser's Every Man a Speculator but I'm eager to do so as I understand it's an absorbing book.