An interesting discussion is going on over at Sarah Weinman's litblog, Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind, revolving around the spate of reviews of Michael Connelly's new book, The Closers. Do reviews of the latest entries in a wildly popular series do any good? It's certainly debatable. As Sarah writes, "Those who read the series -- and since it sells so well, many do -- will buy the book in hardcover the minute it's out (or at least get their hands on it in a timely manner.) Those who don't are not very likely to pay attention to yet another review. And those who've never heard of Michael Connelly and want to start are better served to pick up an earlier installment anyway."

Well put. Though I must admit that I came to James Lee Burke's Dave Robicheaux books and John Sandford's Prey series when both were well along because the din of fawning reviews became too much to ignore. Still, with all of the undiscovered talent out there, it is likely that the ink spilled in praise of Connelly et al would be better used in highlighting one of those heretofore unknown gems.

Elsewhere in the world of letters, the New York Times has announced that it will begin charging a premium for access to its opinion columnists and other content. A strange announcement coming on the heels of the recent decision by the Los Angeles Times to stop charging for access to it's CalendarLive section. Many have argued that papers like the Wall Street Journal flirt with irrelevance because the blogosphere swirls around them without touching down long enough to take a look. Does the Times run the same risk? Well, a look at the paper's popular "Most E-mailed" section on any given day finds columns by Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman among the most circulated pieces on the web each day (Krugman's current column tops the list as I type), and that will go away if those columns are suddenly hidden behind a pay-to-see-them wall.