new and improved bestsellers, divided into physical books, e-books, and then recombined, along with special charts indicating the differences between the two.
I don't mind that the New York Times is compiling this data; after all, it is of some use to some people. Publishers, I guess. People who market and publicize books. Jeff Bezos. But am I mistaken in believing that most people who read the Book Review do so in order to read about the contents of books, not their sales patterns? And honestly, what normal reader cares what percentage of book sales are electronic? Unless you are a dedicated technophile or luddite, it's all the same. A certain number of Steig Larsson books have sold, a high number. That information alone is more than most of us need.
It reminds me a bit of the shock--shock!!--that pundits and congressional Republicans profess when polls show, again and again, that no normal people give a rat's ass about deficit spending. It's blindered insider baseball--people in authority mistaking their own concerns (or, in the case of the Republicans, feigned concerns) for those of the people they serve. I can't imagine that the Times has been suffering under the weight of letters from readers, demanding more lists indicating who is making the most money in the publishing industry. I didn't send one, anyway.