Book Reviews (and Thanks)
Just a quick thank you to all of the historical epidemiologists (by training and by study) who chimed in - you've clarified the First Contact plague information for me!
And today's thoughts, on book reviews...
I subscribe to the Washington Post and to the weekend editions of the New York Times. From these two publications, one could assume that the book review world was alive and well - continuing to churn out its discussion of new and noteworthy fiction and non-fiction (with the occasional volume of poetry tossed in for good measure.) Now, I have a mixed relationship with book reviews and book reviewers.
First, I read for plot. Most book reviewers of fiction find it necessary to summarize every last bit of plot, including the final twists that make a book worth reading. Therefore, I tend to read only the first one or two paragraphs of book reviews, to get the general flavor - at least for reviews of any book I intend to read.
Second, book reviewers largely ignore genre. It doesn't really matter what genre - SF, fantasy, romance - all are short-changed by reviewers who, if anything, lump them into once-monthly short-paragraph reviews.
Third, the same books tend to get reviewed over and over and over - the ones that the publishers are pushing big-time.
Nevertheless, I think that book reviews are important. They expand the market of book-buyers. They offer new visions, new ways of seeing the written word. When written well, they're gems of writing, in and of themselves.
There's a national campaign to bring back book reviewing (and/or to keep it from disappearing), with its very own blog here:
http://bookcriticscircle.blogspot.com/se
Go forth. Read. Comment.
And let me know - do you read book reviews?
Mindy, pondering a bookless world...
And today's thoughts, on book reviews...
I subscribe to the Washington Post and to the weekend editions of the New York Times. From these two publications, one could assume that the book review world was alive and well - continuing to churn out its discussion of new and noteworthy fiction and non-fiction (with the occasional volume of poetry tossed in for good measure.) Now, I have a mixed relationship with book reviews and book reviewers.
First, I read for plot. Most book reviewers of fiction find it necessary to summarize every last bit of plot, including the final twists that make a book worth reading. Therefore, I tend to read only the first one or two paragraphs of book reviews, to get the general flavor - at least for reviews of any book I intend to read.
Second, book reviewers largely ignore genre. It doesn't really matter what genre - SF, fantasy, romance - all are short-changed by reviewers who, if anything, lump them into once-monthly short-paragraph reviews.
Third, the same books tend to get reviewed over and over and over - the ones that the publishers are pushing big-time.
Nevertheless, I think that book reviews are important. They expand the market of book-buyers. They offer new visions, new ways of seeing the written word. When written well, they're gems of writing, in and of themselves.
There's a national campaign to bring back book reviewing (and/or to keep it from disappearing), with its very own blog here:
http://bookcriticscircle.blogspot.com/se
Go forth. Read. Comment.
And let me know - do you read book reviews?
Mindy, pondering a bookless world...
That's been bugging me for a while, where Locus is concerned. With all the hundreds of books released each month (and neatly listed in the Books Received section), I don't see why they have three sets of reviews in each issue .. all dealing with the same four or five books. I'd much rather see 12-16 reviews for different titles. I can get a second (and third) opinion off the web, if I want one.
The other thing which drives me insane - completely unrelated to your blog post - is the way they chop articles up and make me do a choose-your-own-adventure to read the things. Is that common in US magazines? It's certainly not done here.
In line with the recent kerfuffle (to use your word) about sexism in science fiction and fantasy, I would comment that one area where I think women writers have consistently gotten an un-level playing field is in reviews. Maybe it's because the reviewers are usually male and underpaid (or not paid at all) and thus can pick whatever they want to review. I do think men (in general) tend to like different stories from women (in general). So if it's men doing the reviewing, it's likely that it's men's stories they'll be reviewing. Just an observation.
(Anonymous)
Adrianne
(Anonymous)
Do you read book reviews
Re: Do you read book reviews
I actually put very little stock in Amazon reviews, because it seems that many of the reviewers - all of whom can be anonymous - approach the review with some sort of pre-conceived notion of the work. Many of the reviewers take a personal love or hate of the author and transform it into a statement about the book. There doesn't seem to be a lot of structure or reason behind most of the reviews.
In my humble opinion, of course :-)