A Huffington Post article yesterday asked this question of 18 major American critics and reviewers: "How can book reviewing be relevant to the new generation of readers?"
The answers vary greatly, from lamenting the decline of reviews written by authors themselves to praising new technology and efforts to move book reviews to new devices. Some thoughts that stood out to me, and why:
"...reviews should be at least as gracefully written as what they describe." - Steven G. Kellman
As one who writes for the Internet, perhaps I am biased on this point, but I don't doubt for a second that Internet reviewing can - and will - be insightful and well-written. But as for the second part of the question, regarding audience, I'm not so sure. I have over 100 followers on this blog, but do you all read each word I write and take it to heart? If I recommend a book, do you rush out and buy it? Do you value my opinion the way you would a NYTimes reviewer's?
"The real question is whether Internet reviewing will be insightful and well written, though one might also ask whether Internet reviews can command an audience large enough to prove significant for authors and publishers. The Internet is commodious but for that very reason tends to collapse into fiefdoms." - Kelly Cherry
Don't worry, I won't be offended when you answer "no" to all of those questions. But am I an accurate representation of the potential of the internet? Probably not. Blogs like The Book Lady's Blog have more followers than this little bookworm can dream of, and podcasts like Books on the Nightstand have audience participation at an all-time high. But even with my meager following, I like to think that because we form a kind of community around each blog we follow, these "fiefdoms" have more influence than one might guess at first glance.
I couldn't have said it better myself. And I think that is why these "fiefdoms" of book blogs do have such potential - we are, in effect, embodying that hybrid personal essay/criticism form. You'd be hard-pressed to find a book blogger who reviews a book without using the word "I," after all.
"First is voice. No matter what the platform--print, online, podcast, video--an engaging, witty, passionate, knowledgeable and distinctive voice is crucial. This may be why there is such a rage for the hybrid personal essay/criticism form." -Jane Ciabattari
"How easy it is for a reviewer to just say some observant things about a work and leave it at that, and how hard to take the next step, which is to discuss it with reference to the culture." -Sven BirkertsAs much as I love the personal essay/criticism form discussed by Jane Ciabattari, I think that this important reference to culture, tradition and continuity is where it is most prone to fall short. I struggle to find the right words to relate a book to both current times and future needs when writing a review; far from mastering this approach, I believe I am just beginning to even understand the need for it. But I'm glad to see it included in thoughts on how to keep review relevant, because the reviews that most turn me off when reading them are those that say "I really liked this book because it was funny," and leave it at that.
What about you? What tenets do you hold dear when writing (or reading) reviews? Did any of the other HuffPost entries stand out?
