I don't mind anoymous comments except when a) people use them to attack others by name and b) when someone anymous is engaged in a conversation with other commenters and it becomes impossible to follow who is saying what. The first problem is as old as the internet and unsolvable but if people could remember to tell us when they are posting again, in response to somebody else, I would appreciate it.

1. The anonymous Penguin writer with the B&N anecdote (thank you for posting that!!)
2. And your response, Elizabeth, to the anonymous person who asked you to clarify your stance on where bloggers stood in the marketing scheme contained some really interesting insights.

Personally, I'd rather have a string of good, provocative anonymous comments (even if I disagree with them) than a string of "non" comments that seem to serve more as self-promotion for the poster than really adding anything to the conversation. (Not that we had that this time around necessarily but it does happen.)

KP

I don't think anyone really needs to go into why people post anonymously or not. We all know the reasons, the pros and cons, the implications about honor and cowardice, the possibilities of conflict of interest, job security, and all that.

I was actually hoping that we'd hear the opinions of some anonymous marketing people who might feel free to spill the beans about how they regard blogging but no such luck. (Or at least not yet.)

Do you read Editorial Anonymous? That is an incredibly helpful children's book blog, largely because the author and many of those who comment do so anonymously and therefore feel the freedom to speak more honestly about their experiences.

I don't have the time to do it, but it would be interesting to re-cast this conversation minus the anonymous comments. Not sure it would be so diverse or balanced.

And because it is a choice available to me and I see nothing wrong with it, I will be posting this anonymously.

I myself have several criticisms of it, which I have posted on a facebook group I started and that anyone can join called "We've read Catching Fire and We Need to Discuss." Others have weighed in there on both the pros and the cons of the story.

It is germane to this discussion because I am neither a blogger, librarian or critic, but am considered, by Scholastic at least, to be an "industry big mouth." I got a galley because the Scholastic publicist rightly predicted that I would really like it and want to talk to other people about it.

And back to another anon's comment about the two paragraphs she changed in her novel so that B+N and would take it. Yeah, I guess you're right, that's editorial feedback. Frankly I'm so inured to swearing, drug and alchohol use, and graphic sex being commented on negatively by Scholastic clubs and fairs,some library buyers, and many others who order books that I hardly think of that as "editorial" feedback. I'm so conscious of those issues that in certain instances I raise them with authors myself. ("Using this word may well cause some accounts not to order this book, how do you feel about that? Should we substitute something else?" or "Do the fairies need to be drunk all the time? Does that really add to your story, because it will probably cost you some sales.") Again, this is only in some cases, and please do not think I am suggesting that we constantly water down books to try to please all of the people all of the time. In these cases we weigh the pros and cons of changing the scene or the language and how it will affect the integrity of the book. And I'm sure there are people reading this blog who don't like hearing that. I don't really like it myself, and for all I know that buyer didn't like saying it about the paragraphs in your novel, but I think it's fair to tell the author what market conditions are.

What I want to know is, why do the people who disagree with me on this blog never post their names?

Now we get to the question though – what is "real" (or honest) buzz and what isn't? Someone could say Catching Fire's buzz isn't sincere because the publisher sent out so many ARCs and had them at BEA and all that but when the book is read and everyone loves it and posts that does it shift from pub driven buzz to real buzz at some point? (And I'm just using this book as an example.) As you say, if they didn't like it at the least you would hear the sound of crickets across the lit blogosphere and at most the sound of "Big Disappointment".

As to the catalog mentions – yep, readers like them. It's about books to watch for and as I generally watch for some pretty offbeat titles, I like to do it. Having said that though, I am happy to say very negative things about books that are retreads of past titles or just sound overwhelming lame. That Candlewick title "Faust" didn't get any favors from me last month. I wrote negatively about the catalog copy and the cover and won't be reviewing it. (Lame retread doesn't even begin to describe how that one sounded.)

I don't think refs to a Booklist review or a new Mary Anning book (jeez, children's books were crawling with her twenty years ago) are at all amiss; what I don't like is when you go through a single publisher's catalog and enumerate titles from it that you think sound good. The catalog (not Mary Anning, etc.) is the basis for the post, which is why I think of it as uncritically passing along a publisher's message. But obviously you have enough readers who find it interesting or useful, so go for it. I only brought it up because you did.

You mention an important point about buzz–frequently, it is real and generated by true enthusiasts. It was real about The Hunger Games and Harry Potter (the first one) before that. I would never want to shut that down. I just want it to be real. I once served on a book award committee with a member who nominated every single book that publishers had sent her–she thought she was obliged; it was only polite, etc. It's that kind of thinking I object to.

Also, since there seems to be a wee bit of buzz building in this thread, I will add that I have read Catching Fire, and yes, it really is that good. The publishers get behind buzz and push it and it can become annoying and overwhelming… empty noise… but it doesn't mean the book isn't fantastic.

~JW

We're getting dangerously close to people who love books not being allowed to ever write about books.

And as I said before – these are not books I have bought but books I've heard about that interest me. Because I hear about them in a catalog it is wrong to pass the word along that they are coming out in a few months? Or is it wrong when I pass along a Booklist review that makes a book sound appealing? Or is it wrong if I mention a book I've read about on author's website (CHevalier) or in a magazine (like Vanity Fair) or in an interview?

What is the acceptable source?

Oh – and as to Catching Fire I have not read the book and likely will not (I did not read the first book) but honestly my take on all this is that it is good. I don't think anyone is faking that they adore that book.