That whole discourse always felt a bit performative to me, like everyone's arguing about the institution's shadow instead of the actual book reviews. People either treat it like the ultimate literary seal of approval or dismiss it as hopelessly out-of-touch coastal elitism, and both sides seem kinda lazy.
I skim their reviews weekly, and honestly, the quality varies wildly by reviewer. Some pieces are sharp, context-rich essays that genuinely make you see a book differently. Others read like someone's trying to win a 'most clever metaphor' contest while barely summarizing the plot. The backlash often focuses on the paper's cultural blind spots—which, fair, they exist—but I've also discovered authors I never would've looked at twice because a reviewer there connected their work to a bigger idea I cared about.
My take is that its power comes more from the platform than consistent brilliance. Seeing a debut novel featured there can change an author's career overnight, for better or worse. That's the part worth talking about, not just whether the prose is snobby.