Over at Parajunkee's place she is discussing the current and continuing Brouhaha over bloggers' offering negative reviews. The latest salvo is described at the link above (http://parajunkee.com/2012/01/book-blogging-101-what-is-a-review.html#comment-9430) and comes from Maggie Stiefvater' post on bloggers saying we, bloggers, do not write reviews. According to Ms. Stiefvater a review is a little academic paper. That isone kind of a review. There's more than one kind.
Too be honest, this is a reactive post about a situation and I didn't read the whole thing super carefully because I am reading about a book a day and don't really enjoy participating in writers attacking bloggers. I am going to do what I do regardless of whether it is a review or a post or a red-assed monkey. Bloggers love books, we love writers but I venture we love the people who read our blogs more.
Bloggers, she says and I paraphrase, often write negative snarky posts about books from which posts the author cannot learn anything. I have read many "REVIEWS" that are snarky and negative by "PROFESSIONALS." May I add that it has also been my pleasure to read REVIEWS by PROFESSIONALS where it is obvious the "PROFESSIONAL REVIEWER" did notr CAREFULLY read the entire book or stayed for the entire movie.
A review that is geared towards showing the writer a way to improve her work is not, strictly, a review, it is a critique.
If I wanted to read the kind of reviews Ms. Stiefvater is talking about, the book section of my Sunday Times would be dog eared, but who has the time to
read comparisons of a book I probably won’t read to a book I probably haven’t read? Those articles are as long as the books they review.
There are variables on which books can be reviewed, traditional comparisons that can be made, but what it all comes down to is opinion
based on having read the book with some care. Styles of writing and
review change, what is considered literature and what is considered
genre fiction changes, what we call it changes. There is no such thing as an objective review.
PotAYto–PoTAHto, a rose by any other name, blah, blah, blah.
Here is what doesn’t change: writing a book, creating a work of
visual art, a film or whatever, is like stripping nekkid and showing
everyone your lumps, bumps and cellulite. It’s like having your mother
tell your boss stories about your bed wetting as a child. It makes an
artist open and vulnerable, and guess what that does? It makes that human defensive, and reactive. It makes them behave in dumb ways.Just because someone is published, or famous, or smart, or "insert quality here" doesn't make them anymore than human. Like all media some pieces are better than others. Some reviewers use personal attacks. That is not a good thing for bloggers' reputations, but it's awesome for book sales.
Back in "the day" people fought duels over slights and minor insults
(Burr-Hamilton?) now we sling softer arrows in the form of words. But it
really doesn’t matter what the writers think, what matters, and the
only people I am responsible to in my blog, besides my own self, are the
people who read my blogs.
And, if I have read
the book, think about it and tell you what I think and why in a
professional manner then it is a review. Do I happen to have the creds
necessary to call myself a reviewer for an author who would want to make a big deal over it ? Why
yes, yes, I do (MA Rhetoric and Communication, BA Rhetoric and Communication, with a minor in English Literature, mostly fantasy).
So, as a professional respected and best selling author
by the name of Charlaine Harris said at BEA [about someone who said her
Southern Vampire Mysteries wouldn't sell or weren't any good], “Neener,
neener, neener.”
The only thing that matters to me is that I make information about the
book or movie or TV program available to my readers. I think the publishers who keep sending me
books for what they call review (including Ms. Stiefvater’s) agree.
Blogs are personal and offer immediate response to readers. If I "know" a blogger and she says a book is good because x, y and z. Well, if I dig x, y and z and trust the blogger I am likely to read the book. If a blogger uses a personal attack to show the negative qualities of a book I don't grant their review the credibility I would another that used non-insulting language to point out those qualities. Not all blogs are professional, and not all boos are well-written.
Parajunkee's sites are among the better blogs we have available. And she also has the creds. She has probably sold a great many of Ms. Stiefvater's, and many other authors', books. To be fair, the post does not go after Parajunkee, it goes after all of us and then conveniently retracts the barb. But the thing about a thorn is that even after you pull it out, you still feel the prick and usually make a note of the bush. By the way, the Amazon posted review that started it all was extremely well annotated and researched.
Rachel, Parajunkee
Over at Parajunkee's place she is discussing the current and continuing Brouhaha over bloggers' offering negative reviews. The latest salvo is described at the link above (http://parajunkee.com/2012/01/book-blogging-101-what-is-a-review.html#comment-9430) and comes from Maggie Stiefvater' post on bloggers saying we, bloggers, do not write reviews. According to Ms. Stiefvater a review is a little academic paper. That is one kind of a review. There's more than one kind.
Too be honest, this is a reactive post about a situation and I didn't read the whole thing super carefully because I am reading about a book a day and don't really enjoy participating in writers attacking bloggers. I am going to do what I do regardless of whether it is a review or a post or a red-assed monkey. Bloggers love books, we love writers but I venture we love the people who read our blogs more.
A review that is geared towards showing the writer a way to improve her work is not, strictly, a review, it is a critique.
If I wanted to read the kind of reviews Ms. Stiefvater is talking about, the book section of my Sunday Times would be dog eared, but who has the time to read comparisons of a book I probably won’t read to a book I probably haven’t read? Those articles are as long as the books they review.
There are variables on which books can be reviewed, traditional comparisons that can be made, but what it all comes down to is opinion based on having read the book with some care. Styles of writing and review change, what is considered literature and what is considered genre fiction changes, what we call it changes. There is no such thing as an objective review.
PotAYto–PoTAHto, a rose by any other name, blah, blah, blah.
Here is what doesn’t change: writing a book, creating a work of visual art, a film or whatever, is like stripping nekkid and showing everyone your lumps, bumps and cellulite. It’s like having your mother tell your boss stories about your bed wetting as a child. It makes an artist open and vulnerable, and guess what that does? It makes that human defensive, and reactive. It makes them behave in dumb ways.Just because someone is published, or famous, or smart, or "insert quality here" doesn't make them anymore than human. Like all media some pieces are better than others. Some reviewers use personal attacks. That is not a good thing for bloggers' reputations, but it's awesome for book sales.
Back in "the day" people fought duels over slights and minor insults (Burr-Hamilton?) now we sling softer arrows in the form of words. But it really doesn’t matter what the writers think, what matters, and the only people I am responsible to in my blog, besides my own self, are the people who read my blogs.
And, if I have read the book, think about it and tell you what I think and why in a professional manner then it is a review. Do I happen to have the creds necessary to call myself a reviewer for an author who would want to make a big deal over it ? Why yes, yes, I do (MA Rhetoric and Communication, BA Rhetoric and Communication, with a minor in English Literature, mostly fantasy).
So, as a professional respected and best selling author by the name of Charlaine Harris said at BEA [about someone who said her Southern Vampire Mysteries wouldn't sell or weren't any good], “Neener, neener, neener.”
The only thing that matters to me is that I make information about the book or movie or TV program available to my readers. I think the publishers who keep sending me books for what they call review (including Ms. Stiefvater’s) agree.
Blogs are personal and offer immediate response to readers. If I "know" a blogger and she says a book is good because x, y and z. Well, if I dig x, y and z and trust the blogger I am likely to read the book. If a blogger uses a personal attack to show the negative qualities of a book I don't grant their review the credibility I would another that used non-insulting language to point out those qualities. Not all blogs are professional, and not all boos are well-written.
Parajunkee's sites are among the better blogs we have available. And she also has the creds. She has probably sold a great many of Ms. Stiefvater's, and many other authors', books. To be fair, the post does not go after Parajunkee, it goes after all of us and then conveniently retracts the barb. But the thing about a thorn is that even after you pull it out, you still feel the prick and usually make a note of the bush. By the way, the Amazon posted review that started it all was extremely well annotated and researched.