Steve Wasserman has resigned from the Los Angeles Times. Wasserman edited the weekly book review section.

The Times staff was informed on Friday. Apparently, Wasserman was upset about not being able to flex his independence and issued an ultimatum. He was particularly concerned with the scrutiny being applied by top brass. His last day is reported to be May 13.

But the question here, given Wasserman’s temperament, is whether this was a fait accompli, albeit a slow one. What’s amazing is that Wasserman has remained something of an outspoken rabble-rouser over the years and yet until Mark started holding Wasserman’s feet to the fire on a weekly basis, I don’t think any of us outside of Los Angeles really had a sense of how little of Wasserman’s fire ended up on the Times‘ pages. If it really was an internecine battle that Wasserman couldn’t win, then the big question was why Wasserman stayed on board like some masochist? And the bigger question is whether Wasserman’s replacement will be able to have a less tempestuous relationship with the managing editors.

Is the Los Angeles Times‘ book section a lost cause? The time has come for Mr. Sarvas weigh in on this question.

RELATED LINKS:

• The Elegant Variation: Home of the LATBR Thumbnail.
• 1996 interview with Wasserman during happier times: just before he landed the LATBR gig.
• Wasserman two years in: facing criticism from many sides.
• Wasserman on the LATBR bestsellers list.

(lead via Sarah)