ATLarts

By Jeff

March 18, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

Phil:

I don’t want to risk your job, because honestly I think you do a good job.

That said, I think NEWSPAPER book reviews no longer matter. I’m MUCH more likely to check reader reviews - either at Amazon or the other book retailer websites or myspace (I have a couple of author ‘friends’ now) or some other website - than actually read the reviews of the AJC, NY Times, LA Times, or any other paper.

Another place I’m likely to look is the various author websites that I already read. For example, if I go to [Dale Brown’s website](http://www.megafortress.com] and see that he has been reading some book and liked it, I’m likely to check it out since I enjoy reading HIS stuff.

In your defense, I have already bought books that were recommended here on the Book Blog (in its earlier incarnation), both because of your recommendation (The Shack, which I still haven’t gotten around to reading yet) and others’.

By Phil Kloer

March 18, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

It’s OK, Jeff. If my job is at risk it wont be from comments made here! I’m aware people get their info from all over.

By Joyce

March 18, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

I read a number of newspapers for book reviews each Sunday (or Wednesday in New Orleans case). I am dishearted as local reviews are abandoned for reviews from the wire services. This tends to limit the book choice to only those with big PR behind the books. Regional books are cut to only a few or none at all. Non-fiction is reviewed more than fiction.

Tabloid entertainment news gets more print coverage than books/authors. Newspapers are abandoning the reading public and the voices within their region.

AND and am still disgusted that The Book Page blog was swallowed by this general Arts blog. It’s just another slap to the readers.

By Kat

March 18, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

The short answer is YES. Book reviews matter.

The long answer: As the head of collection development for a large public library system, I read book reviews all day. I read them in the newspaper, online, and in professional journals. I also write reviews for one journal. But, speaking specifically about newspaper reviews, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the book reviews in the print AJC are read by many. Not just professional readers like me, but the average library user is interested in book reviews. Every week, without fail, people off the streets come into our libraries and say, “Do you have such-and-such book? It was reviewed in the AJC on Sunday and it sounds really interesting. If you don’t have it, can you order it?” Printed reviews very much drive our collection.

It pays to remember that in sources like the reader reviews on Amazon, anyone can post anything, and they can do it multiple times with multiple identities. Thus an author or publisher can load the reviews with positive feedback, or someone with a grudge can load them with criticism. Author and publisher websites are useless for reviews, because their aim is TO SELL BOOKS. Even when they include third-party reivews, they usually only use the flattering snippets, and leave out any critical comments.

The only reliable book review is one by an independent, professional third party, who has no personal interest in the success or failure of the book or the author.

By Jeff

March 18, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this

Kat:

I was referring specifically to blogs such as this regarding going to the various authors’ sites. Another one is this one from Randy Ingermanson. Occassionally, you’ll even see stuff on some other authors’ websites that I frequent as well.

Then you have the emerging group of authors on Myspace. I found Jeremy Robinson that way and bought 3 of his books, and have read two of them. I’ve since added two more authors, both of whom sound promising, based on the fact that they were also ‘friends’ of Jeremy’s. Furthermore, Steve Alten, who I’ve literally read every book he has published, is also on Myspace.

As I said earlier, I can’t think of a single book that has been reviewed in a newspaper that I bought because I saw it so reviewed. Though as has been said, most newspaper reviews are for nonfiction and my main reading tastes lie in fiction.

By Kat

March 18, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

Jeff, maybe you should go back and read your first post. Websites are fine for finding new authors, seeing who’s publishing what, and who writes in a style similar to your favorite authors. My point is that they should not be confused with professional, objective reviews.

By Jeff

March 18, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Kat:

Who has more of a ‘professional’ opinion: a newspaper writer or an ACTUAL AUTHOR????

Newspaper critics criticize because they don’t have the skills, cajones, or some combination of the above to do what the person they are critiquing does. That goes for books, music, movies, whatever.

To me, a person ACTUALLY DOING whatever I’m reading about has a MUCH more valid opinion as to what is good or not. THAT is why I prefer to read book reviews directly from other authors, and why I’m much more interested in what Morgan Freeman thinks is a good movie than some newspaper critic. (I’ll admit to bias there based on direct experience with AJC’s reviews. Generally I know a movie is going to be GREAT when AJC pans it.)

BTW: Same thing goes in ANY field. Take education: I don’t want to know what some politician thinks will work. I want to know what a TEACHER thinks will work.

By Kat

March 18, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

Which one can be unbiased?

By Jeff

March 18, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Kat:

The person actually working in the field is FAR more unbiased than the newspaper critic. Note that I do not read reviews from a person in the field on one of their own products, however. I speak directly on when an author reviews another author’s work, or a movie star reviews a movie which he/she had no part in and was never offered the part.

By Phil Kloer

March 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

Well, Jeff, I just gotta respond. Yes, professional authors presumably know more about writing fiction than newspaper writers do. But that’s why newspaper frequently hire novelists, authors, or professors to write reviews, depending on the need. If you’ll check the AJC, let alone the NY Times, you’ll see reviews written by full time staffers only a small percent of the time.

And while authors may be good judges of authors, and actors good judges of actors, they are also more prone to giving brown-nose blurbs and thumbs up to friends and colleagues than a detached outsider is likely to give.

I’m not saying your points are invalid, but think about what I’m saying also.

By Jeff

March 18, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Phil:

I aint denying that those in an industry help their friends/ hurt their enemies. That happens in all of ‘em.

But if I am told to choose between someone who actually DOES what is being critiqued vs someone who is a ‘professional reviewer’, I’m going to choose the one who actually works in the job being critiqued. Even when objectively I know that the ‘professional reviewer’ probably has a wider range of knowledge than the one who has been there.

BTW: A good look at this (well, somewhat) is professional wrestling. Take Monday Night RAW (WWE) for example. They’ve got two guys doing commentary there: One has been a commentator for the better part of three decades, the other guy was actually a very good professional wrestler who is simply too old and out of shape to be in the ring full time. (Both HIGHLY respected. Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler.)

To my mind, what would it hurt for a newspaper to show two different reviews of the same book, one by a ‘professional reviewer’ and the other by an actual author? That way, as in the wrestling illustration I just used, theoretically you get the ‘Best of Both Worlds’?

By Anna Burke

March 18, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

Book reviews DO matter, at least to me. Critics have introduced me to many new books that I love. I devour the NYT book section, the AJC’s sad little 2 pages, magazine and online reviews, and love NPR’s reviews. I don’t trust the reader reviews, several of which lead me to “Confessions of a Jane Austen Addict,” which is by far the worst book I have ever read.

By Maria

March 18, 2008 11:53 PM | Link to this

I read book reviews — mostly online, but some in print, too. Jeff makes an interesting suggestion about having two viewpoints on the same book on the book review page, but the beauty of the Internet is that it’s so easy to find author, critic, and reader reviews of virtually any book published by a major house. Some of the dead-tree versions of book review sections are looking a little flimsy these days, but I for one am certainly not hurting for other people’s opinions on the books I’m interested in. And what’s great about the reading community online is that bloggers have stepped up to fill the gaps left by the newspaper and magazine book review sections. The NYTBR has a few token children’s / YA book reviews each week, but the kidlit / YA lit book blogging and reviewing community is massive and brilliant. Some of the bloggers / reviewers double as authors, and some double as critics for industry journals like Booklist, but many are simply readers who want to devote their time to writing about the books they love.

Actually, I’m kind of a weirdo (really?) in that I rarely read a book without knowing a whole lot about it beforehand. I don’t really mean to do this, but it’s become a side product of my habitual perusal of Amazon, several newspapers, a buncha book blogs and author blogs, and good old-fashioned bookstores. I suppose this is mildly time-consuming, but it helps my “books I read this year” list double as a “books I LOVED this year” list.