Ken wrote a blog post to respond to an earlier post by author/editor Mark Charan Newton regarding what makes a good SFF book blogger. And if you are interested in that sort of thing, these posts have sparked a lively debate on the topic.Newton elaborates on seven different aspects in his piece. Here's an excerpt:
What do I, as an author and an individual, wish reviewers should or shouldn’t discuss?
1) There are bloggers who use the right tools, and those who are tools.
2) Slow and steady.
3) Prose & style.
4) The synopsis should remain on the back of the book.
5) Reviewers who are also writers (of the unpublished variety).
6) You can’t love every novel.
7) Edit thyself.
My contribution to this discussion:
What makes a good book blogger?
Peruse my blog and check out what I do. Do the opposite. You’re good to go!:P
Patrick
If you have been hanging around here for a while, then you know that I've never taken myself very seriously. By my own admission, I never considered myself a particularly good book reviewer. Simply put, I write the kind of reviews I would want to read. Which is the reason why I created the Hotlist in the first place back in 2005. It works for some, while it doesn't work for others. . .
Having said that, this is nevertheless an important issue, and the debate raises some interesting questions. Do check it out.
9 commentaires:
thanks for the linkage. It'll be interesting to see if this goes anywhere new or just rehashes all the same points that we see every few months.
Who decides who is a good book blogger?
Other blogger?
Authors?
The publishing industry?
Professors of literature?
The readers due to number of views or by comments?
Besides this
- What makes a good book blog reader?
- What makes a good book reader?
- What makes a good book?
Don't get me wrong.This is neither cynical nor caustic.
There will be no final answer because we are human beings and we will never speak with one voice.
I will post, write comments and read books as long as I enjoy it and I'm capable to.
I like this blogg (or did before the last 6 months misery) but please, this is like a description of you pat.
1) There are bloggers who use the right tools, and those who are tools.
2) Slow and steady.
3) Prose & style.
4) The synopsis should remain on the back of the book.
5) Reviewers who are also writers (of the unpublished variety).
6) You can’t love every novel.
7) Edit thyself.
I think you should go back to just loving books!.
You should go back to just reading books, instead of hating on blogs that you take the time to visit. the whole idea of criteria for a fantasy blog is silly. I like your blog Pat and I'm glad you spend your free time doing so.
Thanks for the link, Pat. I left a comment over there. Now I'm going to leave a slightly differet one here:
One of the main reasons I read book blogs is to hear about books. I think a good book blogger should first and foremost review more than just the already insanely popular books. Because a blog is an opinion with an inherent bias.
An individual blogger's opinion can never be the definitive response to something. But it can bring that something to the attention of others, so that they can make their own decision.
That's why I don't blog about books, even though I love them. I am always behind the curve on what's out there. And as fantastic as I think my opinion is, it's just not enough to make up for reviewing necessarily old books.
So, yeah, keep on reviewing, and as long as one is polite, there's no reason not to read a book blog if t's in your prefered genres.
Thanks for the link, Pat.
Just to be clear to the others, I only wanted to raise some points as someone who has been on the receiving end of many reviews - merely some things to think about. If any reviewer, like authors, seeks to improve their own work, then surely we all benefit?
Obviously what Pat does seems to be effective though!
Pat has great access to authors but wastes it.
His interviews are cookie-cutter robocalls. Glen Cook was right to be confused and insulted.
On the contrary, I find the interviews here the best part of the Hotlist. It's fascinating to see the varying takes different authors have on the same questions - it highlights both their differences and their similarities very effectively.
I wouldn't want EVERYONE to do their interviews that way, but I think Pat's carved out a nice style for himself that makes a good alternative to the more traditional author interview.
@ Anon 8:44
What sort of interviews would you prefer? Maybe if you explain what you think Pat is doing wrong, he might take your suggestions into consideration for next time?
Or you could start your own book blog and show him how it's done. He must be doing something right to get those authors willing to do an interview in the first place.
Post a Comment