Comments on: The Future of Newspapers and Book Coverage: A Book Reviewer Roundtable

By: Blue Tyson

Blue Tyson — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:12:51 +0000

That’s maybe a little terse, sorry.
Point is though that people don’t trust newspapers like they used to (or any of the media). I certainly don’t. It is guaranteed I am not a tiny minority, either.
However, reviewers in this sense :-
Get books for free, which certainly changes the equation
Books they didn’t choose themselves necessarily (can be good and bad)
Less likely to tell you something is complete rubbish, speaking of keeping the advertisers happy, etc.
In depth? You get things like
Jill Smith
crime novel
$39.95 (in big bold type, with publisher)
50 words
the end
So wasting space on price and who produced it, rather than information.
When’s the last time you saw a 2000 word review, (let alone multiple) of a standard SF novel in a newspaper? Granted, yank ones may be different now, but I serioiusly doubt it, but I’ve seen plenty of those from plenty of cities. Length is a silly pro-paper argument to use here, given the cost limitations.
Organised internet reviewing is not immune to some of these things, of course. The recent Black Gate mag has an editorial about SF Site and the evolution of this, as they got more popular, they actually made stuff up without reading the works. Get oceans of free material, it becomes not worth much.

By: Camille

Camille — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:10:43 +0000

Great post. I know that I will miss seeing Mark Graham’s writings in THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS. It was a fine, fine paper.

By: kheller

kheller — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:14:06 +0000

Pomerico makes an astute point–there’s value in authority. Newspapers get the respect they do because they’ve established themselves over years of hard work and a careful sifting through reviewers to find the best and most knowledgable.
Also, on SF/fantasy being mainstream: it sure does seem like we’ve gone through a renaissance of interest in the supernatural, magical, and otherworldly. Just because we the legions of industry SF folks don’t necessarily enjoy the particular works the mainstream has adopted, that doesn’t mean those works aren’t SF or fantasy. I think we’ll see more and more crossover as people’s exposure to books comes increasingly from online sources–no intimidating genre sections to walk through, that way.

By: The Hound

The Hound — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:06:49 +0000

I agree with David 100%. I think people trust reviewers to a degree, because the newspaper itself trusts the reviewers enough to read the book, analyze it, and provide sufficient information or commentary that can help a potential reader make a decision. That’s why they have columns in the papers, or had in some instances.
“Corporate Masters”? I highly doubt that.

By: dpomerico

dpomerico — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:32:51 +0000

It’s interesting, because I actually just wrote my Thesis on a very similar topic (or, rather, this exact topic), and the fact of the matter is that newspapers and blogs (the “plenty of opinions from people” I’m assuming Blue Tyson is talking about) can work together–and are both mutually beneficial to books.
One thing that’s so important about newspaper reviews is that people know where to look for them: book reviews are traditionally in newspapers, and therefore their reviews have a cachet that many blogs do not. While there are certainly excellent book reviews on the Internet (Bookslut, Elegant Variation, Maud Newton, to name just a few), separating the wheat from the digital chaff is really hard for someone who wants to know about a book but doesn’t know where to look–and, more importantly, who to trust. Newspapers, because they have established themselves as trusted sources (more or less), therefore are integral as being taste-makers and cultural investigators.
Will that change? Of course, although probably not in the way we think. As newspapers transform into a more digital platform (and recognize that they are no longer constricted to the print structure and deadlines hard-copy puts on them), I think you’ll find them becoming, once again, the forefront of book reviews. Whether they tap reviewers on a freelance basis or continue to have dedicated book-review staff remains to be seen, but they will continue to be a force into the future.
I think the main problem with Blue Tyson’s comment, then, isn’t that it’s necessarily wrong (although I wonder how we’re every supposed to get opinions from someone who doesn’t have another agenda–and I doubt book reviewers are overly pressured by “corporate masters”), but that no one is saying that newspapers are the end-all, be-all of book reviews.
What newspapers do allow for, though, is often a much more in-depth look at books, which might help bolster a readers decision on top of other blogs and (perhaps the most important factor in a reader’s decision) friends and family recommendations (in which I’m including things like comments on Amazon and BN.com and such). And, of course, the aforementioned quality of being a known entity, whether in print or on the Internet.
Either way, the most important thing is to read a number of reviewers. If you find that one consistently gives you good advice, then stick with them (and if they keep recommending clunkers, drop ‘em). But like any source of news, the more you limit yourself, the less likely you’re going to be fully informed.
Of course, that’s just my opinion.

By: Blue Tyson

Blue Tyson — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:04:43 +0000

Newspaper reviews aren’t immune to the misquoted Sturgeon, either. Let alone newspapers.
So justify your existences when we can get plenty of opinions from people not having to satisfy bosses or corporate masters?