2018 School Spending Survey Report
>This is why I don't have a blogroll. Or friends.
>In the face of a cranky attack on blogging that appeared in the resolutely print journal n+1 (and which is excerpted here), Fuse #8 this morning offers a defense of review-blogging that, I think, misses a big part of the point.
That the brave new world has all-of-the-above kind of people in't, communicating as peers rather than through hierarchy and intermediation, is in most ways cause for celebration. But I'm not sure it has lead to better reviewing: can we truly "all be in this together" at the same time some of us are judging the work of others? Authors active in the blogosphere get treated differently there from their out-of-the-loop compatriots: they get more and kinder attention. It's hard not to be nice to someone, author or editor, whose own site may appear on your blogroll, or who regularly drops by your place to comment.
I recognize that I speak as someone invested in the system of book reviewers as putatively disinterested experts. But authors: reviewers are not your friends. This is not to say that we are out to get you, either--merely that we don't have your interests at heart. I watch with a sinking heart the "blog tours" of writers; recalling my favorite Law & Order mantra, any subsequent review from any of these blogs becomes "fruit from the poisoned tree." (Likewise, Fuse, with that Little, Brown promotion.) It isn't a bad thing at all that publishers are doing their best to use blogs as marketing tools. That's their job. But it's a reviewer's job to ignore the publisher and the author, and to instead focus on the book and its potential audience. Coziness has its price.
Added To Cart
RELATED
RECOMMENDED
Please register with us to continue reading.
ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER? LOG IN
We are currently offering this content for free. Sign up now to activate your personal profile, where you can save articles for future viewing.
ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER? LOG IN
Thank you for visiting.
We’ve noticed you are using a private browser. To continue, please log in or create an account.
Add Comment :-
Comment Policy:
Comment should not be empty !!!
Mayra Calvani
>Fascinating subject! I just handed in my manuscript, The Slippery Art of Book Reviewing, to my publisher a few weeks ago, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to write about this blogging controversy and include the piece in my book...A couple of years ago, this dilemma started with the emerging online review sites... now it's the bloggers who are being attacked. I think we're not giving enough credit to the discerning reader of reviews. It's so easy to tell a good review from a cheesy one guilty of facile praise! There are good and bad reviewers everywhere. Serious blogger reviewers usually aren't going to be stupid enough to post overly positive reviews because if the reader buys a book based on that review and then finds that book to be poorly written, that blogger will lose all credibility and that reader won't come back to this blogger for more reviews. Honesty and fairness go with our job as reviewers, without it, we're nothing but weak PR. That is not to say we should be nasty or mean... which brings me to the writing of negative reviews...
I personally think there are too many good books out there to be spending time writing about the bad ones (even negative reviews are a type of publicity!). Unless it's a book that has been written by a famous author and/or heavily hyped, I won't bother posting negative reviews on my blog and newsletters (this wouldn't be the case, however, if the book was assigned by a review site/publication, in which case I don't have a choice but to write the negative review).
Can we be totally objective when writing a review for someone we 'know' in the blogsphere? I doubt it--we're only human. What we can do is at least TRY to be as objective and honest as possible. In an ideal world, reviewers should NEVER review books by people they know. Only then can they have the total freedom required to write a perfectly honest review.
Posted : Apr 20, 2007 08:21
Andy Laties
>Gawd!! Come on. This is about averages. When you're marketing any product you have to hit a zillion people a zillion times. 98% of these people -- ED -- will ignore or be repulsed by the messages. 2% -- and no-one knows which 2% will -- if the marketer is very good -- act in a way the marketer wants them to act. 98 no's and only 2 yes's.If there are a million litbloggers, then 980,000 will disdainfully discard the promotional material but 20,000 will bite.
I simply don't understand the professed immunity to marketing messages I'm encountering here! I have been selling to the public since 1979. I've used every marketing method to sell books. Marketing works. If any person reading this blog has every walked through the door of a bookstore and bought a book, they've succumbed to all sorts of marketing efforts carried out by that bookseller. Indie bookseller, chain bookseller -- college bookseller -- we are for-profit operations and we have affected your supposedly immune-to-marketing psyches.
Today I sold several hundred books at a cash register. A bunch of people told me that I had a really great selection. I told every one of them: "I have the luxury of operating a store at the Eric Carle Museum, so my clientele is self-selected. They're people who love great books, and so I don't have to carry any junk. It's a pleasure to sell to this group."
I have psyched my customer base out, and anticipated what they will want to buy. They think they have discovered a feature of the natural landscape. They don't understand that I KNEW THEY WERE COMING. They thought they operated autonomously. But I was waiting like a spider in a web. That's marketing. It's tough to do it well, and I'm not embarrassed to be involved with doing it. If you're being marketed to effectively, then the people reaching out to you will make their presence invisible by correctly anticipating your needs. ED -- you can't tell me that you didn't use a whole slew of items today that have brand-names (What kind of computer do you use. WHY??).
You ARE manipulable.
Posted : Apr 20, 2007 12:03
ed
>I am a litblogger. I received a book in the mail from HarperCollins. Therefore, it must be good. It came in the mail. My name was on the envelope. HarperCollins really cares about me. Not just as a litblogger, but as a person.I will blog about it and tell you that it is good because HarperCollins sent me the book and because, not having any independent mind or ability to discern a good book from a bad book, this is the only way I can use my mind.
I have also received a Cessna mug and I am happy to be their tool. I didn't ask for the mug. It was sent to me. Therefore, I matter. And I must abdicate all free will to Cessna too.
I was sent a Glock gun by an anonymous person. Glock is good and he clearly wanted me to use it. I will blog about this gun and then blow my brains out, per Mr Glock's instructions. It is because Gaston Glock is a good man and he anticipated my birth and he anticipated the rise of the bloggers.
I am a blogger. It has been a good life.
Posted : Apr 19, 2007 10:45
Anonymous
>Eisha,This is a mostly off-topic response to your question. Keeping in mind that my evidence is primarily anecdotal, I'd say that with one or two books in every magazine issue, we either pull a review that's been written (usually when the reviewer has already expressed some reservations about the book) or work with the reviewer to alter or add criticisms that are in contention. I get the feeling that it occurs more often in the Guide, where reviewers cope with more books and fewer words, and where the high concentration of review and strict rating system means more editing must be done to effectively and consistently match opinions to ratings and keep the rating system consistent throughout the Guide.
I'm with the anonymous who maintains there's a place for both. And (to be clear) I don't question the integrity or intelligence of bloggers as a group. (Individuals, sure, though no-one discussed here). There are certainly times I am more aligned with a Seven Impossible Things review than with a PW one. :-) For instance, I'm inclined to agree about the Edward Tulane reviews. To argue semantics again, though, I don't think trustworthy is the same as, uh, right. Someone can be wrong without it being due to a bias. Ah, more blurry lines. Is it better for a reviewer to subconsciously overpraise a book because they like, say, the message (independent from the literary quality) than it is for a reviewer to subconsciously overpraise a book because they like the author? Truly, I have no idea.
Claire
Posted : Apr 19, 2007 07:15
Anonymous
>I don't know that I can add much to this discussion but I think there's a place for professional reviews and blog reviews.The first is the traditional standard. It's an institution that libraries, bookstores, and industry folks depend on.
The second is a the new wave in blog and book promotion. Let's face it, in today's market you better have a way to promote your book or you're dead. Unless, of course, you're an author who got a six figure advance and a publisher who is throwing in another six figure amount to promote you.
Authors use blogs to promote their books. Bloggers use books to promote their sites. It's a great relationship and it doesn't lessen professional reviews in any way. I think that readers are well aware that blog reviews are a "grass roots" approach to marketing books.
That said, there are many reliable bloggers out there. As in all of life, you have to weigh what you're offered and decide for yourself. (And that also goes for traditional reviews.)
Roger, do you think that blogger reviews somehow take away from traditional reviews, cheapen them in some way, or water them down? Do you feel that they'll make traditional reviews less valuable in the long run or eventually make them unnecessary?
Posted : Apr 19, 2007 06:41