Comments on: Blogs Replaing Newspapers

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 07:55:17 +0000

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.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:24:20 +0000

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?

By: Ann Kingman

Ann Kingman — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:19:47 +0000

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.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:53:24 +0000

My favorite part of the excerpt from Warren’s article is the phrase “particularly those of the Blogspot variety”. Excellent.

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:43:52 +0000

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.