- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 7
-
Sparkle (0)
A friend of mine sent me a link yesterday to this article in the New York Times which asks if book reviews are dying. It's a subject that's been bantered around on blogs for quite awhile now. As more and more lit-bloggers come to the forefront it seems that more and more print reviews get left gather dust...or are completely eliminated. It's being harked as an evolution in the field. In my mind it's kind of how music went digital but rather than the format of the object changing, it's how we review and discuss it and how publishers promote it.
According the the NYT's article the switch in format may be a bit much for authors and agents.
For those who are used to the old way, it’s a tough evolution. “Like anything new, it’s difficult for authors and agents to understand when we say, ‘I’m sorry, you’re not going to be in The New York Times or The Chicago Tribune, but you are going to be at curledup.com,’ †said Trish Todd, publisher of Touchstone Fireside, an imprint of Simon & Schuster. “But we think that’s the wave of the future.â€
But why are we riding this wave? The article quotes Edward Champion, of Return of the Reluctant as saying "literary blogs responded to the “often stodgy and pretentious tone†of traditional reviews." David Ulin, an editor for the Los Angeles Times book section was quoted as saying "One of the troubles with mainstream print criticism is that people can be too polite. I feel like an aspect of the gloves-off nature of blogs is something that we could all learn from, not in an irresponsible way, but in a wear-your-likes-and-dislikes-on-your-sleeves kind of way.
Between these two quotes they tend to hit the nail on the head for me. Well, sort of. It's not that I find traditional reviews stodgy or pretentious. It's more that I feel like I don't have the same connection to the reviewer that I may have with a blogger. When lit-bloggers write they tend to reveal more about their person. I may know that they have a coffee addiction, or that they write in their books, or that they have three different piles of books to be read and yet are still at the bookstore buying more books. Sure, they may have the exact same opinion about why a book is good or not as a traditional reviewer, but because I know them better I know why they didn't like it. Or based on their other experiences with other books that I read or they read or we commented on in each other's blogs, I know if I'm likely to have the same reaction.
What the article didn't pick up on is that in the blogosphere book reviews are not done in a vacuum. People have conversations. Yes, you may be able to comment on a traditional reviewers online posting of the article. Or write a letter to the editor. But it's really not quite the same. I visit your blog, you visit my blog, we have conversations on both blogs, possibly at the same time. There's a level of interaction that it just not there in the traditional media.
Do I think traditional reviews are dying? No. But I do think that perhaps they need to brush up on their Darwin and think about adapting.
Contributing editor Sassymonkey also blogs at Sassymonkey and Sassymonkey Reads.
