shoutout circlesasakiyumeOctober 31 2009, 14:27:59 UTC
When there's a large overlap among LJ readers, too, you see the same books announced over and over again. These may be books that, in the wider world, aren't getting much press, and so I understand the desire to promote them, but after three in your reading circle have promoted X's book, how much good are you doing the author if you, too, mention the book? Sometimes it feels like a loyalty test or an enthusiasm test.
And the issue of content-free: I find this to be a problem with author blogs if the point of the blog seems mainly to be to promote the books. The author's friends presumably already know about the book. The author's fans may have known about the book before even finding the blog. And people who haven't yet read the book may enjoy one or two posts on the book and where the author is reading or promotions the author is doing, but after that? The blog has to have something else to offer, otherwise it's just dull.
Re: shoutout circlesgillpolackOctober 31 2009, 14:39:09 UTC
I'm a bit amused by blogs like this. If a blog is dull or just says "Buy my book" then it's not an argument to actually buy the book, given that things get a bit tedious. I know one blog that's all about Big Announcements for a book not yet in print. I've been following it in Bloglines, just to see what this approach was doing to potential readers. The poor writer lost audience every time a Big Announcement was made that contained no content and no interest. It as hard for me as reader to buy into the process, I guess, and it looks as if it was even harder for other readers.
That doesn'e mean we shouldn't announce or celebrate or talk about our friends' books. It just means it's got to be kept in perspective. When we write anything, the reader is important, and that includes blogs.
Re: shoutout circlesasakiyumeOctober 31 2009, 15:04:41 UTC
Oh, we definitely should feel free to be enthusiastic about stuff we love! And to congratulate friends. It's the sense of obligation to promote that I don't care for.
When I like a friend's book, I try to say what I like about it. For example, when I reviewed matociquala's latest--which is dedicated to me, so that's sort of the textbook example of Not Objective--I talked about why it might be a sensible thing to dedicate to me--which "me things" it had lots of. And one of my other friends read that review and (accurately) decided that it was full of Norse myth in a way that she would not appreciate. So my gushing review of a book that was not just written by a friend but dedicated to me helped another friend decide that it would not be her sort of thing and not buy the book.
So I really don't think that reviewing friends' books--even squeeing about friends' books--is incompatible with providing useful information to readers, pro or con.
Yes, but I think that's equally true when people post, "This is awesome, this is out, buy it buy it, squee!" about books by authors they have never met and do not consider friends.
Exactly. I really liked that review--you said upfront that there was a connection, so the reader of the review knows that, and can take that into consideration as much or as little as they need.
You then went on to talk about just why that book hits you right. It was a nifty review--made me add the book to my "get" list.
I sometimes feel kind of stupid, since it was only after years of online reviewing that I started to think about what online reviewing was really all about. And started to feel more pressure to "not say anything, if I can't say anything nice". Self-imposed pressure? Silliness, really. I don't have a circle *really*, do I?
I keep coming back to (as Bookslut says)-- I'm not trying to be a critic. I'm reviewing for myself, to help me remember, and provide a little karmic give-back to other readers who have helped me pick books. Also maybe trying to participate in a conversation that I would like to have as a reader?
I've never seen the role of the critic as a gateway, really. More of a moderator on a panel?
good questions. When I was in school there was this pervasive sense that critics (especially white male critics) had Authority. If you didn't agree, that meant you did not have good taste. No one wants to have bad tastes.
Now . . . I read reviews to see the person's take on the book. I love reviews that trigger discussion. I really like Abigail Nussbaum's for that, frex.
Your reviews are always interesting, even if the work is so unfamiliar I have no response, much less discussion.
I tend to think of critics as actively picking up the threads between conversations that others may miss. (The authority part seemed to me an accidental and undesirable byproduct.) Reviewers can do this as well, but it is much less the point.
tastes changemarycatelliOctober 31 2009, 15:05:11 UTC
Popular vs. long-term reader is like children's books you liked when a child and those you still like now (or even like more).
An idea is not a cliche to the reader the first time you read it. And a lot of cliched ideas really are pretty neat; that was why so many writers took them up and used them.
And once you have seen it a hundred times, you will be able to recognize when someone parodies it while the newbie goes Huh?
So part of it is that extensive reading can change your tastes.
Re: tastes changesartoriasOctober 31 2009, 15:18:54 UTC
Not quite on the first.
For example, ten years ago everyone nodded and assured each other that Harry Potter would turn kids into readers. As a teacher, I can say, no it didn't. Things went pretty much back to usual: the indefatigable readers read, and other kids, only read Potter.
Re: tastes changegreen_knightOctober 31 2009, 18:33:13 UTC
I think that's the general phenomenon of every few years a book becomes so big that it's part of the overall culture and in order to know what everybody is talking about, you need to read it. (Same with TV: some shows everybody watches at least once because otherwise they have no idea what their friends go on about.)
Before Harry Potter, it was something else. After Twilight, it will be something else. Something nobody thought would become such a runaway hit etc.
Comments 49
And the issue of content-free: I find this to be a problem with author blogs if the point of the blog seems mainly to be to promote the books. The author's friends presumably already know about the book. The author's fans may have known about the book before even finding the blog. And people who haven't yet read the book may enjoy one or two posts on the book and where the author is reading or promotions the author is doing, but after that? The blog has to have something else to offer, otherwise it's just dull.
Reply
That doesn'e mean we shouldn't announce or celebrate or talk about our friends' books. It just means it's got to be kept in perspective. When we write anything, the reader is important, and that includes blogs.
Reply
Reply
I do think we owe the friend the time to say why we like the thing. Like mrissa did in her review of matociquala's new book.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
So I really don't think that reviewing friends' books--even squeeing about friends' books--is incompatible with providing useful information to readers, pro or con.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
You then went on to talk about just why that book hits you right. It was a nifty review--made me add the book to my "get" list.
Reply
I keep coming back to (as Bookslut says)-- I'm not trying to be a critic. I'm reviewing for myself, to help me remember, and provide a little karmic give-back to other readers who have helped me pick books. Also maybe trying to participate in a conversation that I would like to have as a reader?
I've never seen the role of the critic as a gateway, really. More of a moderator on a panel?
Reply
good questions. When I was in school there was this pervasive sense that critics (especially white male critics) had Authority. If you didn't agree, that meant you did not have good taste. No one wants to have bad tastes.
Now . . . I read reviews to see the person's take on the book. I love reviews that trigger discussion. I really like Abigail Nussbaum's for that, frex.
Your reviews are always interesting, even if the work is so unfamiliar I have no response, much less discussion.
Reply
Reply
An idea is not a cliche to the reader the first time you read it. And a lot of cliched ideas really are pretty neat; that was why so many writers took them up and used them.
And once you have seen it a hundred times, you will be able to recognize when someone parodies it while the newbie goes Huh?
So part of it is that extensive reading can change your tastes.
Reply
For example, ten years ago everyone nodded and assured each other that Harry Potter would turn kids into readers. As a teacher, I can say, no it didn't. Things went pretty much back to usual: the indefatigable readers read, and other kids, only read Potter.
Some adults only read Dan Brown.
Reply
Reply
Before Harry Potter, it was something else. After Twilight, it will be something else. Something nobody thought would become such a runaway hit etc.
Reply
Leave a comment