Jessa: I am sick to death of aging authors declaring the novel dead. They can't seem to fathom a world without their constant contributions, so they predict the death of the novel will quickly follow their own demise. And every time someone else declares the novel dead, a dozen newspaper stories crop up, which leads to "Is the novel really dying?" discussions that are unbelievably dull. It'll take more than Philip Roth's death to kill off the novel. Whether or not Mr. Roth wants to believe that himself.

Maud: Earlier this year, in a column about her stint as an Orange Prize judge, Katharine Viner wrote of reading a spate of "books about nothing."  She went on: "These were usually by authors from the US, who have attended prestigious creative writing courses. . . . They are books with 500 pages discussing a subtle but allegedly profound shift within a relationship. They are books where intricate descriptions of a man taking a glass out of the dishwasher, taking a tea-towel off a rail, opening out the tea-towel, then delicately drying the glass with the tea-towel, before pouring a drink into the glass, signify that he has just been through a divorce."  Like Viner, I hope to see fewer tea-towel books in 2005.

Michael: I certainly had enough of the emphasis on non-fiction - and especially what passed for political non-fiction - in 2004. Extensive coverage of books like the new P. Roth and then the new T. Wolfe at the end of the year suggested the pendulum could swing in the other direction, but I have my doubts . . . 

Enough also already with the Big Read and its imitators (recently in Germany and Australia) and similar variations on the theme: having TV or radio audiences choose their favorite books may bring some sort of attention to books (and improve sales), but why can't the engagement with literature be just ever so slightly more serious?

Robert: I am tempted to say that the Iraq War and the Presidential election were over-reported - how else to explain the election of George Bush and his pack of un-indicted war criminals? But I don't watch much TV and my newspaper reading has devolved to skimming/scanning web editions, so it's not a position that I can substantiate or argue well.

In my little marginal world of literary culture I found the attention to all things New York Times-ish Book Review unproductive and repetitive. Other than the self-confessed masochists (you know who you are) who week after week sift through the putrid entrails of the Book Review, unpacking the misguided pseudo-essays of Laura Miller and others and also fulminate about this and that egregious choice the new editor is allowing I can't see what is to be gained by awarding the Times such weight and significance. In fact let me repeat what I have expressed regularly at every appropriate opportunity. It seems to me that many of the people who are most vocal (including some of my comrades on this august panel) about the alleged failings of the Times Book Review, are least dependant on it for significant book news. Also, there are at least 4 or 5 other major newspapers whose Sunday book sections are more interesting than NY's - the Chronicle's in San Francisco and the Post's in Washington are two I regularly enjoy and joyfully recommend.

Alex: I have to admit I've never understood the designation of the Times as your "paper of record." That makes no sense to me.

I'm hoping celebrities stop writing children's books. Why are they doing it? They don't try to write novels. They must think anyone can write a children's book. I don't think that's true. Children's authors must find it pretty insulting.

I would also toss in anything having to do with The Da Vinci Code. Especially those stories about "Da Vinci tourists". It makes me think of all those people who go to Boston just to see the bar that Cheers was based on.