What is the role of bloggers as book reviewers?

A new blog has emerged in Terre Haute, Indiana. Its message is somewhat cryptic, including such gems as this one, from "annefernald":

For those who think of surgeons as spending their days operating on people, this would definitely not be Dr. Johnson....Not, in fact a medical doctor at all, the wit and writer is constantly trailed by a companion, one Boswell, who does most of his writing for him.

What's the point of all this? It's a protest of sorts, inspired by a recent article in the New York Times discussing the decline of book review sections in newspapers, and the rising role blogs are taking in filling that void. The money quote at the end of the article is the one which inspired the creation of the blog "From a Basement in Terre Haute":

[Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Richard] Ford, who has never looked at a literary blog, said he wanted the judgment and filter that he believed a newspaper book editor could provide. "Newspapers, by having institutional backing, have a responsible relationship not only to their publisher but to their readership," Mr. Ford said, "in a way that some guy sitting in his basement in Terre Haute maybe doesn't."

Ford signed a petition to save the book review editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, but his remarks about bloggers reviewing books has stirred their ire, as expressed in the spoof blog's mock taunts, including this classic more usually seen on the back of a Chevy pickup:

i-174b78a24af566f31bc18231ca4edad0-calvin.gif

A more measured response to Ford's sentiment can be found on Fernald's real blog, Fernham:

Don't get me wrong--I want MORE book coverage and I lament the shrinkage of newspaper book reviews. I'd sign the petition for Atlanta's reviewer in a minute. And I'd hand [litblogger] Dan [Wickett] a salary while we're at it. For me, conversations about books are not a zero sum game. We could have more and more and more of it as far as I'm concerned. And different kinds of talk adds new notes to the conversations: even those irritating spammers who keep making banal comments here and then linking to their video review site may add something somewhere. But we learn one kind of thing from a quick mention in a mass circulation magazine, something else from the handwritten card at our local independent, or from Mark or Maud or Bud or Laila, or from the New York Times.

Fernald should know -- she's not just "some guy sitting in his basement" -- she's a respected literary scholar who's published a monograph on Virginia Woolf and is working on a definitive edition of Woolf's masterwork, Mrs. Dalloway. She also happens to write book reviews on her blog.

Science Bloggers also write plenty of book reviews. Again, many science bloggers are respected researchers. Many, but not all. In this sense, Ford may have a point: how can we tell some yahoo from a real expert? Isn't that what institutionalized book reviews give us? Not necessarily. The book that inspired my rant about bad science writing received positive reviews written by newspaper reporters. A reporter isn't usually an expert in any field other than calling people up and summarizing what they say.

So if we can't always trust bloggers and we can't always trust reporters to review books, who can we trust? Arguably, the only people we can really trust are the people who've built that trust with us: Just as some moviegoers prefer Siskel (er--Roeper) and some prefer Ebert, longtime blog readers know which bloggers they trust. If, like Richard Ford, you've never read a blog, you might not know whether to rely on a blogger's advice. But if you've been reading a blog every day for a year, the opinion of that blogger might be worth more to you than that of the New York Times' most esteemed book reviewer.

Tags

More like this

Indeed. Bloggers can provide a layer of specialised insight (by subject or genre) which is not available in the mainstream media.

I agree - regular readers of a given blog usually identify in some way with the blogger, and are more likely to get an idea of whether or not they will like a book based on the blogger's recommendation. Building that kind of relationship with a newspaper reviewer is not impossible, but certainly more difficult.

This is actually a good thing for writers. The amount of real estate for book reviews in "official" venues is incredibly limited compared to the number of blogs, and even a casual mention can be enough to convince someone to buy it. Your mention just last week of Daniel Levitin's book This is Your Brain on Music inspired me to order a copy immediately - but I don't remember the last time I sought out the New York Times Book Review online.

By Shannon Hale (not verified) on 08 May 2007 #permalink

In this sense, Ford may have a point: how can we tell some yahoo from a real expert? Isn't that what institutionalized book reviews give us?

As you've stated, the answer to your second question is "no." But the reason why ties into the assumption behind your first question- that someone who is paid to do the job is necessarily better at it, or (in this specific case) that becuase they are a paid reviewer they have the reading public's best interests in mind.

This is of course manifestly untrue. Book reviewers have the publisher's best interests in mind. They're paid to sell books to the consumer. In a world of consolidation in media ownership where Oprah can make some big-mouthed idiot like Phil an instant millionaire just by recommending one of his books on her tv show, reviewing books is all about money.

Ford the novelist unwittingly nails it: "Newspapers, by having institutional backing, have a responsible relationship not only to their publisher[...]" and of course, most bloggers don't. Since bloggers are not beholden to publishers or editors, we can write things that are bad for future business- things an editor or publisher with ad revenues in mind would never allow to see the light of day.

And that's the whole point. I'm sure you've seen the recent quote from Craig Newmark that all newspapers are toast. This is a symptom of the larger problem- smart people don't have any respect or trust for print media anymore. And the newspapers are doing it to themselves, by allowing their loyalty to money to come before their loyalty to their readers. They're selling themselves into irrelevance.

I've written book reviews on blogs and have read them. Just like with movie reviews, if you read a blog often, you begin to separate various bloggers. Some will be trusted and others will be skipped over as irrelevant to you, just from past reading. Years ago there was a movie critic in The New Yorker Magazine I read just because I always knew if she gave a good review to a movie I would HATE it, and if she gave a bad review to a movie I would probably like it (no guarantees). There's a drama critic in the Wall Street Journal I read regularly, not only because I trust what he has to say before spending my hard-earned money on a ticket purchase, but because he writes well. Same with bloggers. I see no reason why we can't have BOTH, and I see no reason why newspapers feel that blogging has taken something away from them. Seems to me both cover a subject from a different vantage point.

However, trust is important, and if I get the feeling that a newspaper publishes a rave review just to sell books instead of an honest opinion by an honest reviewer, they are toast for me.

I agree with tekel above, that newspapers have made themselves irrelevant by their political correctness, false assumptions, outright lies and dishonesty, emotionalism and opinions instead of FACTS, half-truths, sensationalism, etc. They probably actually believe the public out here is dimwitted and needs their guidance. SORRY, NOT TRUE! Most of us are reasonably intelligent enough to glean FACTS and make our own determinations from those FACTS. Until the news goes back to giving us the FACTS m'am, just the FACTS, they make themselves irrelevant.

By roseindigo (not verified) on 12 May 2007 #permalink