Josh Getlin writing in the L.A. Times about a battle that is brewing where there are those who believe that literary blogs may have a place in the world, but they just cannot cut it when it comes to reviewing texts.

“If you were an author, would you want your book reviewed in the Washington Post and the New York Review of Books, or on a web site written by someone who uses the moniker NovelGobbler or Biogafriend?” Michael Dirda, a Pulitzer Prize-winning book critic, wrote in the Washington Post. “The book review section … remains the forum where new titles are taken seriously as works of art and argument, and not merely as opportunities for shallow grandstanding and overblown ranting.”

Lit-blogger Edward Champion fired back, ridiculing the notion that only printed book reviews matter: “It’s okay for the lit blogosphere to exist as a version of your Mom’s book club — it’s okay for us to talk books and authors and compare notes on favorites, as long as we keep our place,” snapped the San Francisco writer, who runs the Return of the Reluctant website. “Have you got that? We must not think for a minute that we contribute anything beyond serving as accessories to the real literary discussions…. We should buy books but not dare to offer well thought opinions on them.”

The accusations flew back and forth. But now there is a growing sense that enough is enough — and that the friction between old and new book media obscures the fact that the two are in bed together now, for better or worse. Often the same people who churn out literary blogs are reviewing books for mainstream reviews. (Champion, for example, has a review appearing in this week’s Los Angeles Times Book Review.)

What’s your take on all of this?