Will Blogs Save Books?

Major market newspapers have been downsizing their book review sections for awhile now, so I don't think it came as a total shock to anyone when the Los Angeles Times announced last week that it's laying off two of its books editors and folding its stand-alone Sunday books section into its Calendar section -- presumably reducing the space for book reviews in the process. And, despite her being an excellent book review editor, I doubt that anyone felt blindsided when Connecticut's Hartford Courant laid off Carole Goldberg around the same time. The writing about writing was on the wall.

But I'll tell you what does make my jaw drop: the seemingly widely-held notion that these book sections are being adequately replaced by blogs. To be sure, there are some excellent book blogs out there: Mark Sarvas's The Elegant Variation. The National Book Critics Circle's Critical Mass. MediaBistro's Galley Cat. Jessa Crispin's Bookslut. The Boston Globe's Off the Shelf. And, of course, the New York Times' Paper Cuts. They're all bookmarked on my computer. I read them often for news on new titles (and older ones I missed) and Q&As with authors. Many of them are also good for stories on publishing trends, which as a book publicist and editor I appreciate a great deal. But, for the most part, these blogs don't actually review books. Instead, they cover the business of books, book culture, and the world of the author. Yes, they often link to reviews--but, ironically, they're usually of the dead tree variety. The book bloggers ferret out the most interesting reviews for us and sometimes provide incredibly cogent commentary on them--but they consistently rely on print book review sections to get the conversation going. Why? And, more broadly, why don't we as readers give book reviews on blogs as much respect as book reviews in major market papers?

I'm tempted to say it's an issue of format. Blogs are, by nature, brief. They give the appearance of having been dashed off even though many bloggers (though I'd argue not enough) spend a good deal of time crafting their posts. For that reason, we tend not to assign them the same "weight" as the reviews we see in the San Francisco Chronicle or the Washington Post. But to judge a review by length alone would be a mistake. Look at the "Briefly Noted" reviews that can be found in The New Yorker each week. They typically run 125-150 words. Masters of economy, those folks -- but they're generally spot-on in terms of their assessment.

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.

I realize the intrinsic irony. If people spent less time reading (and writing) blogs, they'd have more time to read books. So, yes, it feels a little funny to be asking bloggers to review more books -- and to take more care when doing so. But I can't ignore the power of blogs to stoke the public interest, any more than I can ignore the fact that the traditional book review outlets are drying up and no one has yet determined how to save them. No, I don't believe blogs will save books -- not in their current format. But I can envision a day when blogs do for books what books have done for people: challenged us, made us think in ways we never would have.

I'll open it up to the floor now. What book blogs do you read, do they review and, if so, are the reviews as good as the ones in your daily paper?

 

 

Comments

[BluestalkingReader]

I can't speak for all book bloggers, but I didn't start up my blog to take over books sections in newspapers. I did it for fun, and as an almost-daily exercise to help me improve my writing skills. Competing with anyone was never my agenda.

Last year my blog was mentioned in the NY Times as one that's a good venue for authors who can't get attention elsewhere. My hits soared into the hundreds per day, where they still remain. I consider that a bit of good karma, not a statement that I'm on par with people like Michael Dirda or Ron Charles.

I write reviews. Sometimes they're off the cuff, sometimes they're more in-depth. I also navel-gaze shamelessly and write personal essays on a variety of subjects. I also love reading print reviews in papers and magazines. I hate to see them going away.

I do what I do to help writers get more of a readership. Plus, I get free review books all the time. That's all I ever looked for. I'm happy with that.

As far as newspapers go, maybe they should use blogs if that's where readers are going. Find readers where they go, which is largely online. Maybe bloggers aren't the problem. Maybe newspapers need to look at what they're not providing and fill that gap. Sometimes when you fail you have to look at yourself. It's easy to point the finger, but difficult to acknowledge you bear responsibility for the solution.

[MaryWW]

For several years I wrote book reviews for daily newspapers and national magazines. While I appreciated the existence of all those books pages – especially when my own books were being reviewed in them—my contributions to them were certainly labors of love. It took me hours to write an intelligent and articulate review, and the pay was peanuts. Now, for no payment at all—which is very little less—my own review blog gives me the freedom to choose which books I read and then to decide which of those merit the amount of time it takes to write a considered review. I can tinker until I get a piece exactly right before I post it, make it as long or as short as I want, and, best of all, other readers can comment on or argue with everything I’ve said. (My review site is called maryonbooks and it is at blogspot. The HP doesn’t seem to want to allow me to post the url.)

The current lack of substance on many book-review blogs is simply a manifestation of our being in a period of transition. Before long, the most informed and eloquent books bloggers will develop reputations for excellence, and the literary world will settle into a new book-reviewing environment that is far more broadly based, more open to interaction, and ultimately more interesting than what we have seen before. -- Mary W. Walters

[LisaLLH]

Most newspaper book reviewers come across like those annoying sportscasters - the ones who'd rather talk about how the quarterback reminds them of some guy they played with decades ago than about the game I'm watching right now. I think your advice heads bloggers in precisely the wrong direction - I'm not necessarily interested in the author's place in "the genre" or in previous works; I'm most interested in the current book, the one I'm thinking about purchasing. I want to know if this is a good book. I want to know if it's interesting, if there are big plot holes, if it held the reviewer's attention. In other words, I want their opinion.

I certainly don't need book reviews like the NYT's recent review of The Lace Reader, with its marvelous insight: "Women write books that other women will want to sit around and discuss, preferably over tea and cucumber sandwiches." Why would I trust their judgment on anything after a comment like that?

I don't think that any of us with book blogs think we're going to replace newspapers and we certainly aren't doing it for that reason. We do it because we love books - we love to buy them, read them and talk about them. Fact is, I haven't bought a book based on a review in a newspaper in ages, but I have bought dozens based on the reviews and opinions of my fellow bloggers. Makes bloggers a much better use of marketing dollars.

[Tonya Plank - Huffpost Blogger]

Great, thought-provoking post! I think there are two different but related issues: what simply sells books, and what will foster deeper critical debate. For me, blogs, book reviews, Amazon, Facebook, etc. all do the former. With the Times book review, I'll read the reviewer's first paragraph to see if the subject matter is something that interests me and whether the critic generally thought the book was good. The whole review's often too much information without having read the book. Then, I'll buy the book and if it really moves or stimulates me, I'll return to the review. With blogs, I get enough of this initial information to decide whether a book the blogger's talking about is something I want to buy. I'll often go to Amazon and look at the reviews (both pro and amateur) to learn more. But often I want to discuss a book I've read and of course traditional paper reviews can't do that. Blogs could but are not really fostering this critical debate either (at least the ones I read). I agree with Patricia that website book sections are the key here. TALKING POINTS MEMO has a good discussion right now of NETHERLAND (which I found out about through THE ELEGANT VARIATION). So I'm hopeful that a combination of blogs and websites can take over where newspapers have left off.

[drmabuse]

Since I was not permitted to comment upon this entry until now, here is my response to Ms. Warren's post.

http://www.edrants.com/the-future-of-newspapers-and-litblogs-a-thought-experiment/

The litblog exemplars that Ms. Warren cites in her piece, which like all pieces of this type fail to cite examples, do not account for the vital and more enthralling differences of form vs. function. Ignore these developments at your own peril.

[mungo181]

www.hipsterbookclub.com has a wealth of new, well-written book reviews posted on the 1st or 2nd of every month. Not a blog at all, but an edited e-zine. Because they have a variety of book reviewers, you can count on reviews of literary fiction, sci-fi, mystery/thriller, and YA, along with author interviews.

"hipster" is used ironically, of course.

[Clea Simon]

Oline Cogdill and Chauncey Mabe of the Sun-Sentinel run a great books blog called "Off the Page," http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/features/arts/offthepage/blog/

Not only do they do author interviews, they also (well, Oline especially) use the space to review or discuss books that didn't fit into the regular paper.

- Clea

[Clea Simon]

Oline Cogdill and Chauncey Mabe of the Sun-Sentinel run a great books blog called "Off the Page," http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/features/arts/offthepage/blog/
Not only do they do author interviews, they also (well, Oline especially) use the space to review or discuss books that didn't fit into the regular paper.
- Clea

[jsinclair]

Interesting point. Actually, I usually hear the author speaking about their book, or hear it referenced by someone else (Obama, re: "Team of Rivals"), or otherwise hear or see the book.

Then...I go to Amazon. After reading the publisher's comments (and often writer's, too) I look at the reviews from readers. I might read some who liked it, some who didn't, the extremes, the middle--and usually I am able to get some idea of whether or not it interests me.

Then I buy it (no library), and it comes to my door, via PRIME in two days.

I used to enjoy the LA Times book reviews, but they were still just a starting point. The Amazon method works best for me.

[Patricia Handschiegel - Huffpost Blogger]

This is a really great post. I think media types who review books should think beyond blogs to larger sites that can cover more area - kind of like book review internet magazines. internet magazines, in my opinion, will start to replace blogs as more digital media initiatives seek to keep users sticky to their sites - and that comes from more content.

I really love your insight on this!

[OtayPanky]

I'll tell you what's made book reviewers obsolete: amazon.com.

Let's say you want to immerse yourself, for the very first time, into the works of Updike or Le Carre - or you're looking for the best translation of The Iliad or War And Peace.

Just go to amazon, and do a little bit of surfing. Read all the reviews, and more often than not, you can get a very clear idea of what's worth your time, and what's not.

For the elite among us, this will seem way too plebian. OK. Go read the New York Review of Books, and knock yourselves out.

As for newspapers, they're in deep trouble. They've got to streamline to stop bleeding red ink. Blame Craigslist, blame Google, blame Canada.