Search
Image by macg3 via FlickrIt’s going to be a short post today my fellow saloners as I am taking a break from reading today to build flat-pack furniture instead! If I get a chance to take a break I’ll be reading a little more of The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold – which I am enjoying thus far.
I just wanted to stop by and let you all know about the new Blue Archipelago Virtual Book Club – which I kicked off last week as a place where I can explore the books I read in more depth and not have to worry about ruining my reviews with spoilers. It’s an informal affair – I’ve started a few discussions based on books I’ve read recently – but I’m more than happy for people to kick off their own discussions.
Jessica from The Blue Stocking Society has also posed an interesting question about book blogger reviews:
An author of a recent article argues that “Book reviewing bloggers need to move away from opinion in favor of judgment.” What do you think of that statement? Do book bloggers have the necessary background with each other to really make an appropriate judgment? Why do you read book blog reviews? What do you expect such reviews to contain?
If you’d like to share your views then head on over to the Blue Archipelago Virtual Book Club and sign up – it’s free and I’d love to have you join the group.
Oh and can I give a quick shout out to Nicole, Jessica and Heather J who have already joined the group.
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
Pinterest
Subscribe
An interesting discussion over there, and I think those who’ve commented already (including you) make a good point. Book bloggers aren’t necessarily aiming to write newspaper-like book reviews. It’s ridiculous to compare blogs as a monolith to professional reviews. As for the back story, if it’s a blog I follow regularly, then I’m very happy to read the back story, because I’m interested in the blogger, not just the book. Actually, if it isn’t a blog I follow regularly, then I’m fine with reading back story too, it just won’t mean as much to me.
Debra Hamels last blog post..Crossword: Off With Their Heads!
I commented on this same question a few weeks ago on another blog (I forget whose, but it was a mystery reader’s blog). I still say the same thing now as then: I would rather read a book review from a fellow blogger than a “professional” reviewer. Fellow bloggers are real people, whose opinions are closer to reality, as opposed to academic. If I wanted to analyze a book, I’d go back to college. I prefer to read a book for the pleasure of reading and share what effect the book’s had on me. If it moves you, lingers with you, inspired you to make a change, then I want to read it!
The Kool-Aid Moms last blog post..TSS – Mummies, Mishka, and More!
Yes the role of the traditional reviewer is changing. I am all in favour of rising blogging critics in that it makes it more democratic that the reader is the first line of critical response. The downside is the subjective review means that the author is often not placed in context or challenged on the merits of what they were trying to do.
I am first in line to throw out the reviewer when they are so full of their learning that they are not helping me understand the book. But these points drawing on the then National Book Critics Circle president John Freeman sums up where I am coming from.
1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.
2. Give him enough direct quotation—at least one extended passage—of the book’s prose so the review’s reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.
3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy precis.
4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending. (How astounded and indignant was I, when innocent, to find reviewers blabbing, and with the sublime inaccuracy of drunken lords reporting on a peasants’ revolt, all the turns of my suspenseful and surpriseful narrative! Most ironically, the only readers who approach a book as the author intends, unpolluted by pre-knowledge of the plot, are the detested reviewers themselves. And then, years later, the blessed fool who picks the volume at random from a library shelf.)
5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author’s ouevre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it’s his and not yours?
The post on http://chekhovsmistress.com then goes on to say quoting John Updyke
To these concrete five might be added a vaguer sixth, having to do with maintaining a chemical purity in the reaction between product and appraiser. Do not accept for review a book you are predisposed to dislike, or committed by friendship to like. Do not imagine yourself a caretaker of any tradition, an enforcer of any party standards, a warrior in an idealogical battle, a corrections officer of any kind. Never, never (John Aldridge, Norman Podhoretz) try to put the author “in his place,” making him a pawn in a contest with other reviewers. Review the book, not the reputation.
Johns last blog post..Sunday Salon: Sunday thoughts
I really don’t have much to add to the discussion on reviews, because I think John said had quite a bit of good points in his comments. However, I am interesting in your book club — as if I need another one to join: Book Blogs, The Sunday Salon, Weekly Geeks, MetaxuCafe (in which I have yet to participate). That said, it’s all fun, so I’ll probably join. Thanks for starting the group.
unfinishedpersons last blog post..The Sunday Salon: Entering the realm of The Dark Knight