I always choose deaf. I realize that there are ways to “read” without using my eyes, yet I am not in an emotional place where I am willing to accept those options.

I digress. I believe most readers go far broader than the literary establishment believes. Sure, there are those who read one thing and one thing only (I have a sister who, sigh, only read Mary Higgins Clark; I do not understand this as we have the same mother, but you can never account for your siblings). And I agree that part of reviewing is developing a trust relationship with a reviewer. In fact, that is what makes those who review well so effective — they offer a perspective that largely agrees with that of their loyal readers. If I trust the taste of the person making a recommendation, I will give that recommendation more weight.

These are the people going online for more information about books. I think my example of older women in the Midwest is telling. I think the proliferation and success of blogs about literature is telling. I believe these Wal-Mart readers comprise more of our audience than we realize. That’s a good thing.

And smart niche (genre) publishers can find their audiences on the web if they make the effort.

I do carve the NYTBR out of most of these discussions because it has far more publishing advertising support than is probably necessary (what I think of as preaching to the choir) — spreading the dollars around would be a great benefit to newspapers nationwide. That being said, while some readers are very much genre specific, there are many who read across the breadth of the literary spectrum. They are essentially disenfranchised by editorial refusal to acknowledge their existence. The fact that the addition of a science fiction column to the NYT family was news reflects this.

As for Wal-Mart fiction, what you’re talking about is essentially the bestseller list with Wal-Mart-centric selectivity. In many cases, these books are review-proof, meaning they would hit the lists with or without critical recognition. In the meantime, a whole lot of good fiction, all types, languishes because it isn’t even given a chance. And even in a perfect world, not all books would get this chance, but it’s clear that lack of readership is killing book coverage in newspapers.

It’s also clear — you see it on your own site — that it’s not because the readers don’t exist. It’s because the newspapers made editorial choices, choices they are fully entitled to make, that exclude or alienate certain readers. If readers don’t feel comfortable, they’ll go where they do. Which is why newspapers are playing catch-up to blogs and other sources of information.

But do you really think that this “wide swath” is interested in book reviews at all? If the New York Times suddenly started reviewing Wal-Mart fiction, do you believe many of the readers of that fiction would begin reading the Times Book Review?

Publishing as we know it has been dead for a decade or more and publishers need to catch up.

Don, are you trying to get me all excited?

I did my first article about e-publishing in 1998 (being young and innocent at the time). I’ve been online regularly since 1992, 1993, about the time “Snowcrash” was first published in paperback as I remember a pizza addiction and online discussions with a friend in San Francisco. The medium was primitive, the obvious possibility was, well, obvious. Amazon went online not long after.

My first inkling that readers, particularly, were moving online was in 1997 or so. Interestingly, the group that captured my attention was the romance reader. These were not hip college students or bored office workers. These were — and I am not being snide — middle-aged to older women from the Midwest. Online talking about genre fiction. Why? Nowhere else to go. These are the readers who have left the world of newspapers behind.

They don’t need major media to guide them. That’s kind of sad, if you’re a newspaper publisher.

And, yeah, the RIAA really is an example, though I’m convinced that the publishing industry is doomed to repeat the mistakes of its younger siblings. It’s very sad to watch an industry stand on the sidelines and wonder what’s going on midfield.

Will be in touch soon — we’re finalizing dates for O’Reilly’s Tools of Change.