The Emperor's New Clothes Book.
ConversesAll Writers Considered
Afegeix-te a LibraryThing per participar.
Aquest tema està marcat com "inactiu": L'últim missatge és de fa més de 90 dies. Podeu revifar-lo enviant una resposta.
1SpikeSix
When you imagine the work, time and dedication that a writer puts into even the most mediocre book, only to suffer a string of rejections, it is heartbreaking.
It is, therefore, astonishing to reflect on some of the dross that actually makes it onto booksellers' shelves. Even more astounding are the endorsements and reviews of, often well placed (and well paid!), reviewers of such obviously inferior works.
Have you ever read back-cover praise claimed for a book by The Guardian, The Scotsman, The New York Times, Metro, Daily Mail . . . . (you know the tune) - that makes you sure they reviewed a different book to the one you just finished, or didn't read it at all?
If you feel some book-critics would endorse a toilet-roll, expose them here. Life is too short for us to read rubbish, we should be able to trust media reviews.
The Emperor's new * Clothes * Book
It is, therefore, astonishing to reflect on some of the dross that actually makes it onto booksellers' shelves. Even more astounding are the endorsements and reviews of, often well placed (and well paid!), reviewers of such obviously inferior works.
Have you ever read back-cover praise claimed for a book by The Guardian, The Scotsman, The New York Times, Metro, Daily Mail . . . . (you know the tune) - that makes you sure they reviewed a different book to the one you just finished, or didn't read it at all?
If you feel some book-critics would endorse a toilet-roll, expose them here. Life is too short for us to read rubbish, we should be able to trust media reviews.
The Emperor's new *
2Meredy
>1 SpikeSix: It's a good question, and I appreciate the premise. I just don't know the answer.
I've certainly read books that not only were overhyped but seemed to have been blurbed by people who hadn't read them; The Cry of the Sloth was a recent one, and I mentioned that in my review.
But unless I still have the book in hand, I probably have no idea who wrote the review or the blurb. In fact, I think most of the time only the source publication is mentioned and not an author. Besides, we know that brief excerpts and especially isolated phrases from a review can be very deceptive.
Self-publishing that occurs when the sole gatekeeper is the author himself or herself is doing nothing to reduce the quantity of dross being ladled out to the book-buying public.
I've certainly read books that not only were overhyped but seemed to have been blurbed by people who hadn't read them; The Cry of the Sloth was a recent one, and I mentioned that in my review.
But unless I still have the book in hand, I probably have no idea who wrote the review or the blurb. In fact, I think most of the time only the source publication is mentioned and not an author. Besides, we know that brief excerpts and especially isolated phrases from a review can be very deceptive.
Self-publishing that occurs when the sole gatekeeper is the author himself or herself is doing nothing to reduce the quantity of dross being ladled out to the book-buying public.
3Cecrow
I used to think Kirkus Reviews were noteworthy when attached, but came to the discovery that these are paid reviews. That is, the author pays them in order to receive a positive review. They're entirely open about it, but somehow won from me the reputation I was ascribing to them. Now I can ignore them.
I generally put more weight on reader reviews, one of the things I love about LT where we are a very self-regulated gang; I haven't seen much misappropriation of the feature beyond some individual instances. Unlike, say, Amazon which you can't trust at all. The example of Robert Stanek is the most notorious I know of (you can't believe a single one of the positive reviews). When he tried to pull the same stunt here, he got a slightly different reaction: https://www.librarything.com/author/stanekrobert
I generally put more weight on reader reviews, one of the things I love about LT where we are a very self-regulated gang; I haven't seen much misappropriation of the feature beyond some individual instances. Unlike, say, Amazon which you can't trust at all. The example of Robert Stanek is the most notorious I know of (you can't believe a single one of the positive reviews). When he tried to pull the same stunt here, he got a slightly different reaction: https://www.librarything.com/author/stanekrobert
4Limelite
My gauge for avoiding the dross dressed in Pulitzer's (he's the 'Emperor,' no?) clothing is to avoid all books with glowing reviews by other authors who write the same kind or genre of book. The more of those gushing blurbs, the worse the book. Especially true for historical and contemporary fiction. Nonfiction is a different shade of horse.
Now if the blurbs are by authors I don't know and their books are unknown to me I receive their words without prejudice. They might be good writers with principles only to praise worthwhile books, lest their own reputations be tarnished. Or, not.
But if the blurbs come from writers whose work I have enjoyed, and in my view, proved they "did the work" it takes to make an honest effort in writing their own books, and they praise a new book, I'll tend to pick it up and give it a go.
An ex. Georgia: A Novel of Georgia O'Keeffe is by an author, Dawn Tripp, new to me. Two blurbs on my LTER copy. One by an author I've never heard of, J Courtney Sullivan, credited with Maine} and The Engagements, two titles I've never heard of. I'm unprejudiced. Second blurb is by B.A. Shapiro, whose novel, The Art Forger, I read and enjoyed, not as a mystery but for what I learned about the ""behind the scenes" art world. Not an A-list book, but I enjoyed it and appreciated the honest effort by the author in writing it.
As it turned out, Georgia is a dazzling and brilliant novel.
Guess my "system" worked.
Now if the blurbs are by authors I don't know and their books are unknown to me I receive their words without prejudice. They might be good writers with principles only to praise worthwhile books, lest their own reputations be tarnished. Or, not.
But if the blurbs come from writers whose work I have enjoyed, and in my view, proved they "did the work" it takes to make an honest effort in writing their own books, and they praise a new book, I'll tend to pick it up and give it a go.
An ex. Georgia: A Novel of Georgia O'Keeffe is by an author, Dawn Tripp, new to me. Two blurbs on my LTER copy. One by an author I've never heard of, J Courtney Sullivan, credited with Maine} and The Engagements, two titles I've never heard of. I'm unprejudiced. Second blurb is by B.A. Shapiro, whose novel, The Art Forger, I read and enjoyed, not as a mystery but for what I learned about the ""behind the scenes" art world. Not an A-list book, but I enjoyed it and appreciated the honest effort by the author in writing it.
As it turned out, Georgia is a dazzling and brilliant novel.
Guess my "system" worked.
5artturnerjr
Stephen King seems to be an easy touch when it comes to blurbs, particularly when it comes to providing them for up-and-coming writers. I'll still read stuff that he has written a positive blurb for, but no longer on the basis of that alone.
6SpikeSix
>3 Cecrow:
That is very interesting, as are all the comments here, thank you for your posts.
Do we know how that warning notice was achieved? For my part I find that this pretender http://www.librarything.com/author/selfwill is well on the way to achieving a similar status.
The problem is that for these untalented scribblers, any publicity is better than none.
That is very interesting, as are all the comments here, thank you for your posts.
Do we know how that warning notice was achieved? For my part I find that this pretender http://www.librarything.com/author/selfwill is well on the way to achieving a similar status.
The problem is that for these untalented scribblers, any publicity is better than none.
