The Quarterly Conversation Issue 21
A Note on Links
More Essays by Milan
Speaking of Distraction
The Shallows by Nicholas Carr
Another Review of The Novel: An Alternative History
The Orange Eats Creeps
The Unconsoled and the Annihilation of Plot
It’s always a little stupid when people who clearly have only a cursory knowledge of the litblog community start going off about how those starry-eyed bloggers think they’re going to replace newspapers.
No blogger that I know of ever set out to replace a newspaper. In fact, to the degree that blogs have replaced newspapers as a source for book reviews, this has been because newspapers these days can’t fire their book editors fast enough. Sorry. Don’t blame us.
As a sidenote, anyone who is still writing as though there’s a bright line between people who write for blogs and people who write for non-blogs isn’t qualified to write about either.
But to return to the subject. I guess I can sort of understand where Lissa Warren is coming from. Honestly, it took me a long time before I actually came to the conclusion that some blogger could write a better review than was published in the New York Times. (Sadly, societal programming is only slowly overcome, no matter who we are.) It was shortly after that moment that I began to understand that a lot of people who write for the Times just don’t care as much as some blogger does, and that, in fact, not reviewing books for the Times is sometimes an indication of greater intelligence than is reviewing books for the Times.
This, however, isn’t the some blogger I’m referring to. I’ve never read this book blogger, though I guess Warren has, even though she doesn’t seem to feel obligated to give anyone an example of this blogger’s work:
So if it isn’t just a "size" thing, what is it? Well, I think book
reviews on blogs — particularly those of the Blogspot variety — tend
to be self-indulgent. Book reviewing bloggers need to move away from opinion in favor of judgment.
How does the book compare to — and fit in with — the author’s
previous work? What’s the book’s place in the genre? The canon? Does
the writer succeed in doing what he or she set out to do — meaning, is
it the book they meant it to be? Whether it’s the book the blogger
wanted it to be is of much less importance to me, frankly.I’d also advise that book reviewing bloggers jettison the use of
personal pronouns (yes, I’ve used a slew of them here; you can nail me
in the comments). And for goodness sake, I wish they’d stop telling me
what their father and their girlfriend — or their father’s girlfriend
– thought of the book. Also, I don’t need to know how they came to
possess the book — how they borrowed it from the library, or bought it
at B&N, or snagged a galley at The Strand, or got the publisher to
send them a copy even though they average four hits a day. The banal
back-story is of little interest.The book, however, is. And, for that reason, a little plot summary
to help me navigate, and a brief introduction to the book’s main
characters can go a very long way. It’s book reviewing 101–not rocket
science, I’ll grant you–but it’s important not to let the informality
of the venue serve as an excuse for forgetting the basics.
The Names by Don DeLillo (1982)
The Box Man by Kobo Abe (1973, English 1974)
Head in Flames by Lance Olsen (2009)
Agaat by Marlene van Niekerk (2006, English 2010)
The Weather Fifteen Years Ago by Wolf Haas (2006, English 2009)
At first I thought relplaYing, but I couldn’t figure out what that meant, really. Then I thought replaing was shorthand for something… is it? Or is it maybe REPLACING, with a C? Whatever, you’re right about this:
>anyone who is still writing as though there’s >a bright line between people who write for >blogs and people who write for non-blogs >isn’t qualified to write about either.
My favorite part of the excerpt from Warren’s article is the phrase “particularly those of the Blogspot variety”. Excellent.
I don’t know of any blogger who claims they are out to replace print book reviews. Ms. Warren says that “Book reviewing bloggers need to move away…?” Says who?
Though some may bemoan the informality and personal voice that many book bloggers use today, personally I am celebrating the fact that people want to write about books. As an employee of a publisher, I am thrilled that people have passion to do this in their own time and on their own dime. That passion can sell a book as much as or more than a traditional print-style review. The personal tone and style of most book bloggers, coupled with the ability to read previous posts, allow the reader to develop a knowledge of the blogger’s taste and interest in books. It’s can be like having a trusted friend who points you in the direction of a great book. I know of no one who would pay more attention to a traditional book review than the recommendation of a proven and trusted friend.
Many people just want to know “is the book something that I will enjoy?” I think many, many book bloggers can help readers to answer that question.
All opinions are my own, not my employers, etc. etc. etc.
What Lissa Warren doesn’t seem to understand is that the very things she’s encouraging book bloggers to do are the reasons that a lot of us shy away from traditional book review sources. Frankly, I don’t care about the author’s place in the genre. I want to know if it’s a good book. Just as movie critics and sports announcers want to dazzle us with their knowledge of the field, book reviewers too often want to tell us everything they know about everything.. everything but the book. I have not purchased a book based on a review I read at the Washington Post or the NYT in ages and ages. I have purchased dozens based on the recommendations and reviews of my fellow bloggers. So who is the better investment for a publisher?
A general response to a few points raised on the comments:
It’s true that a lot of people just want a recommendation or a thumb up/down. That’s fine, and you’ll get that from blogs minus a lot of the BS you have to wade through in certain print publications. And yes, blogs have the advantage of being personalized and having passion, which is generally either long since drummed out of people who write for print or edited out of existence.
In addition to these points, what people like Warren aren’t getting is that a lot of the good, interesting books are getting almost completely bypassed by print, and many that don’t get ignored are getting poor coverage. Yes, many people with blogs write equally stupid things, but if you bother to get acquainted with the medium you find many people writing highly intelligent things as well. At a time when academics have become caricatured as inaccessible (some truth, thought not as true as people think) and papers are becoming more and more vapid, people writing for Internet media are genuinely trying to write the “intelligent book review for an educated lay audience.” Many are succeeding. Too bad for Warren that she hasn’t figured that out yet.