Professional Reviews vs. Blog Reviews

In case you've missed it, there's quite a controversy brewing in and about the Kidlitosphere concerning book reviewing. It started with a write-up at Fuse #8 about an article that I mentioned briefly in a recent round-up (which I in turn learned about from Jess). The gist of all of that was, essentially, about the eternal question regarding posting of negative reviews.

Roger Sutton, however, took that topic and went with it over at Read Roger, raising issues about whether people who have informal blogs that include interviews and the like can write unbiased reviews. There are many comments, some of them quite negative towards blogger book reviews (including what I think is a veiled dig at Readergirlz). There are also several well-thought-out responses from people like Mitali Perkins, Kelly Herold, Gwenda Bond, and Colleen Mondor in the comments. Liz Burns has just posted her own response at Tea Cozy. Gail Gauthier has also weighed in, with a reasonable, "not better, not worse, but different" approach.

I think that it's a thought-provoking debate. There are certainly annoying aspects of the "establishment" (traditional publishing) throwing darts at the bold (and mostly female) upstarts from the Kidlitosphere. There are inferences that people who write blogs, because they aren't professional reviewers writing for print publications (though some of them are, actually), are likely to be swayed by free books and "swag" from authors and publishers. For the most part this is nonsense. We're talking about free books, and the occasional cupcake, not things that people who are otherwise employed are going to sell out their integrity for.

But what makes me uneasy about the discussion is that I think that there's a tiny grain of truth to it, in regards to how we can objectively write about books written by people we consider our friends. At least for me. For example, I've been getting review copies lately from people I've had direct interactions with through the Kidlitosphere, and I wrestle with whether or not my opinion of each book is colored by my opinion of that book's author or publisher. It's easy not to review a library book that I liked but didn't love, since I have so many books that I do love that I want to talk about. But what if the author sent me a nice signed copy, and is checking my blog to see if I posted a review? What if I think that the book deserves a little extra notice, and that there's the potential for other people to love it, even if I didn't?

I'm not ever going to write a positive review of a book that I disliked, or didn't finish. I'm confident of that. But I think that I am more likely to go to the trouble of writing a review of a book that I liked but didn't love madly, if I feel some sense of personal obligation to the author or publisher. This is an issue that Wendy has raised, too, at Blog from the Windowsill, and that I know other people must struggle with. It's not necessarily wrong to do it, either, because again, I'm never recommending books that I don't like. And so many of these books do deserve a wider audience.

But the whole debate has me wanting to be more careful about accepting books, and more thoughtful about what I write. I've always tried to be up front about where my books come from, and where I have relationships with the people who wrote or published them. But I think I can do better. I appreciate this debate for forcing me to think critically about what I'm doing, and for whom.

All of that self-doubt aside, I agree with Gail that what the blogs are offering is different from what print media is offering. I know that there are parents who visit my blog looking for recommendations for their kids. Usually they don't need a full critical analysis of every book that's been published lately. They just need help sorting through the many titles in libraries and bookstores. I'm happy to do my small part to provide that. Of course these parents can, and in many cases do, also consult with librarians and booksellers and print publications.

But there's an accessibility to blogs that appeals to people. As Gwenda alluded to in her comments on the Read Roger post, people like to get recommendations from people they feel like they know. My picture is on my blog. My bio is there. People who read the blog regularly know that I care passionately about helping raise kids who love books. No, it's still not the same as talking to a librarian face to face, and a pale substitute. But for today's parents, who are at their computers all the time, knowing someone via blog works, too. And there's an anonymity to reading blogs that I'm sure appeals to some people, the appeal of not having to ask directly for help.

And of course, we all blog because we love the community, and the discussions that we have with each other. Like this one. Sorry that I went on for so long. I really started out just recapping the controversy. But it got me thinking... Thanks for listening.

UPDATED to add: TadMack and a. fortis also contribute at Finding Wonderland. And don't miss Betsy's response at Fuse #8. I think that we can all agree that we don't do this for the free books. We're people who would find copies of books anyway, and review them, even if publishers didn't send us free copies. The free copies are a convenience that lets us write about new books earlier - that's the main benefit, as far as I can see.

© 2009 by Jennifer Robinson of Jen Robinson's Book Page. All rights reserved.

Comments

[Liz B]

The bloggers prayer: "Please, let the author's book not suck...please, let it not suck."

Seriously, tho? Is that an issue? Yep; but I don't think it's anything new; it's not unique to blogs; and I think most people know that's something bloggers do, indeed, think about.

My main problem is the belief that bloggers don't think about it -- or are more easily influenced than other reviewers.

[Jen Robinson]

Hi Liz,

Valid points, all. I know that it's not a new debate, but something about this cycle just had me thinking about it all day, and I had to air my own concerns. Of course, the fact that I'm stressing about such concerns exactly validates your point, that of course bloggers are aware of and thinking about these issues. Thanks!

[Wendy Betts]

I always appreciate your honesty and willingness to ponder your own contributions to whatever issue is being discussed.

(Hey! I got to post this! And I didn't even buy a new computer!)

[Kelly]

Nice post, Jen. Roger's post also got me thinking, which is why I debated seriously with him.

I do, however, think there were too many "issues" in the post, issues that did not really relate to the question at hand and, frankly, had a bit of a "let the big boys handle this" tone. (I don't think he meant the post to be gendered, but it could be read that way by someone who doubted his intentions. I don't, for the record.)

[Kelly]

Just to reiterate: I respect Roger and his work greatly and in no way mean to suggest the post was intentionally gendered!

[Becky]

My main problem is the belief that bloggers don't think about it

As well the idea that readers might not be sophisticated enough to consider the source and what's involved.

I'm more of a book recommender than reviewer (for starters, it's faster), and for the reviews I read, I'd prefer the necessarily shorter lists of books *to* read rather than the necessarily longer lists of books *not to* read.

No, it's still not the same as talking to a librarian face to face, and a pale substitute.

Some of us just aren't lucky enough to have good librarians. In fact, some of us have only library managers (sniff) who really aren't readers in general (sniff sniff) and give the kids' section a wide berth in particular (sob). We have only one tiny library in town, so another branch isn't an option, unless I want to make a one-hour round trip. At the rate we go through books around here, I need a steady source of good titles, and I know I can depend on the kidlitosphere for that.

And it matters to me more that the kidlit bloggers I know are mother readers, godmother readers, aunt readers, family friend readers, and wicked good librarian readers than that they're getting free books or free meals. They're the ones who review and recommend books that click with my kids, and me, and whose titles I can write down and take to the library or Amazon wish list.

[Jen Robinson]

Wendy, thanks for the positive feedback! I think that you're open in your blog postings, too.

And Kelly, I do think that this "we know better than you" impression was what set a lot of people off. I think that Becky gave an excellent example of why the Kidlitosphere is necessary and helpful to some parents. Of course her point also makes it that much more important that we take care to recommend the best books that we can. People are counting on us! Thanks so much for the feedback, Becky! I feel the same way about wanting to read book recommendations, not lists of what not to read.

[a. fortis]

Another great post, Jen, and some wonderful insights from commenters, too. I agree with Becky--I'm rather irritated by the persistent belief that "readers might not be sophisticated enough to consider the source and what's involved." Aren't we taught (one hopes) to evaluate written sources critically? Isn't it reasonable to apply this critical thinking when considering less traditional media as well, and do a little research on who's saying what? Anyway! Jen, we're posting a link to your thoughts on FW a bit later.

[Colleen]

I'm sort of straddling multiple worlds here, as a blogger who covers books and as a reviewer for Bookslut and Booklist etc., but one thing I have maintained from the beginning is that if I don't like the book, I don't say anything about it at my site or in my column. I know that critical reviews are important and I know that critical reviewers are important but that is not who I am.

There are very strict rules for how to refuse to review a book at Booklist and I have reviewed many books over there that I didn't really love - or even like - but I did think were significant or important or worthy of notice. At Bookslut and my own site I get to choose what I'm going to review - and I want to give the space to positive reviews to spread the word on great books.

It's my choice in those places and that's what I choose to do. Regular readers know this about me, and they trust me to be honest as I have always been in the past.

As far as reviewing books by friends - as long as I like the book then yes, I will sing its praises everywhere. (Cecil's new book Beige is a perfect example of this.) But there are books that have been written by authors I like and have positively reviewed in the past that I have not enjoyed and thus have not mentioned. That's how I handle it - if I don't like it, I don't say anything and if they want to know why I'm silent, I'll just say it didn't work for me.

There was a lot of other stuff said at RR that I did not agree with - I posted another comment and I'll probably write about this at my site. Mostly it is the notion that because I blog about books I can be bought with books. That really ticks me off and I know I will things to say about it.

[Kelly]

Colleen:

I've been following this thread all day and I have to say I agree completely, wholeheartedly with this statement: "Mostly it is the notion that because I blog about books I can be bought with books. That really ticks me off and I know I will things to say about it.
"

WORD. WORD. WORD.

Review copies bring convenience and that's it. I still seek out books from publishers I don't receive books from (Scholastic, Bloomsbury) in libraries and in book stores. I buy books at the same rate as I did before. I send out review copies I receive to other reviewers on my own dime (for The Edge of the Forest). I donate all copies of read books to charities from here to there. It's all karma in the book world. If you love books, love stories, write stories, this is your world. You do it out of love.

You, like Jen (and Liz and Becky and Sarah and Wendy) are kindred spirits and understand this.

I will say-in conclusion and before heading off to bed--that I think Fuse has been unfairly targeted in this debate and deserves our support.

[Jen Robinson]

a. f., I linked to your post above. And I definitely agree with you about the tangible benefits of blogging.

Kelly, I must share the fact that at the same time that you were commenting, I updated my post slightly to add this sentence: "The free copies are a convenience that lets us write about new books earlier - that's the main benefit, as far as I can see." And you said the exact same thing in your comment. Which just goes to show that we are indeed kindred spirits.

Colleen, your words about "the notion that because I blog about books I can be bought with books" resonated with me, too. I didn't even really address that, because I think it's ridiculous.

I've actually contemplated (even before today) not accepting any review copies, and just doing reviews based on books that I buy and get from the library. The main thing stopping me is timing - it's helpful to get the books early. But it's not about the money. I love to buy books. Kelly said it well.

So wonderful to have you all to talk with about this, even if some of the discussion on other posts has left a bad taste!

[Jackie]

About the only rule I have for my blog is this: If I read it cover-to-cover, it will go up on my blog. Good, bad, or in-between, something will be written about it.
I blog just as much, if not more, for myself, as whatever audience I have. I think taking sometime to post about each book cements it in my head and helps me be a better librarian. This takes away the issue of "should" and replaces it with: how do I do this fairly? It takes me a lot more effort to write a negative review because it's harder for me to see the good in the title, and yeah, I struggle with not wanting to 'hurt feelings.' But ultimately, I still feel the same way, and it doesn't change the post. It just might take me longer to write. And as for those free copies? What few I get are given away as prizes to the teens at the library. Which works out well for me, and them. And aren't they the whole point of this?

[MotherReader]

Haven't been able to weigh in on this yet other than a comment at Read Roger's, but I think it's all kinda crazy. Professional reviewers get all these perks and get to know the authors, but they aren't influenced, just bloggers. Huh?

[Jen Robinson]

Jackie, I've always respected that you blog about everything that you read. Personally, it's not enough of a priority for me to find the time to review every book (that's a choice I'm making, the spend that time reading more books, instead of reviewing the ones that I'm less crazy about). But I think it's neat that you are taking the time to write about them all, and I'm sure that it does help you to be a better librarian.

And MR, I think that I didn't write so much about that whole thing - the notion that we're all falling to our knees over the free books and things - because I think that it's ridiculous. As you do.

Thanks to everyone for helping with this discussion!

[Becky]

Just wanted to let you know that I've blogged about this on my site under the title "To Blog or Not to Blog."

It's been interesting reading the comments here. I must say that Jackie and I must be kindred spirits. Because I share the philosophy that if I read it, I blog about it. My blog covers the good, the bad, the ugly. I also agree with whoever commented that they felt more like their job was recommending books instead of reviewing. I share that too. I try to do both. But I know the *main* purpose is to get people to read books. Not to analyze every little thing about a book.

[Susan]

Hey, Jen. The Horn Book has an article coming up about children's lit blogs. (Betsy B. wrote it.) In some ways, Roger is setting the stage for the upcoming article. The blog "Read Roger" is part of the marketing effort for The Horn Book. Roger raises a number of points (and I agree with some of them), but he does not mind controversy. Controversy usually draws repeat readers. Nothing wrong with that.

[Vivian]

I can't believe I take a break from blogging for a couple days and miss all this!

Thanks for such an articulate post.

[cloudscome]

I like this post a lot. It makes me realize the advantages of blogging mostly library books and not relying on review copies. I thought I was missing out on that gold mine but I guess there are some pit falls to watch out for after all. I learn so much from kidlit bloggers and I am a librarian.

[Jen Robinson]

Thanks for the feedback, Becky, Susan, Vivian, and cloudscome!

Becky, I admire the prolific reviews on your blog. So impressive! I think it's great that you have initiative/prioritization to blog about everything you read. I enjoyed the post on your blog, too.

Susan, agreed, nothing wrong with a little controversy. This whole discussion has brought me a lot of traffic, much of it directly from Roger's post (he always includes a list of posts that link to the current post). And I think that it's good stuff for us all to think about once in a while.

Vivian, I could easily have missed this whole thing, too, if I hadn't happened to be relatively caught up this week. Fortunately, the discussions are always here when we do come back.

And cloudscome, I think there are advantages both ways, in terms of receiving review books. They're a convenience, they let us review new titles earlier, and they expose us to books that we might otherwise miss. But they do come with certain pressures, implications that at least if you like them you'll review the book. That's certainly a reasonable bargain, but there is time pressure associated with it. Still, it's all fun, and great to have the opportunity to read books, wherever they come from.