The Great Review Mash-up: Traditional Media+Blogs=Better for Everyone
Traditional media+blogs=better for everyone
By Brian Kenney, Editor-in-Chief -- School Library Journal, 7/1/2009
Lately, there’s been a lot of talk about the differences between book reviews by bloggers and those found in the established media (like us). Panelists speaking at SLJ’s Day of Dialog (“The Blogger, the Book, and the Buzz”) and BookExpo America helped fuel this discussion, which spilled over, naturally, into the blogosphere.
Although bloggers often discuss books, I’m talking here about bloggers who routinely review them. Some bloggers are from the school of what happened and how I feel about it (“I really loved it!”), while a few provide highly professional essays worthy of the London Review of Books. Others provide a unique perspective—such as exploring the issues surrounding race and representation—not regularly found elsewhere.
Indisputably, some bloggers are highly influential. They generate buzz, help steer book buying, and sway reading decisions. I follow several bloggers faithfully, and often buy books based solely on their recommendations. But would I use the same criterion for adding materials to a library collection? Umm, no, not exactly. But then again, I’m also unlikely to rely on just one review, no matter where it comes from.
In several key ways, bloggers have a real leg up on publications like SLJ. For one thing, they can receive a galley in the morning and have a review up before lunch. Try doing that in print. The best bloggers are successful for the same reasons we return to any good columnist: a great prose style, a strong point of view, and a distinctive voice we grow to trust. It just isn’t as easy to develop that relationship between a writer and reader in 250 words, the average length of our reviews.
But there are some serious differences between bloggers and traditional review journals—or at least SLJ—in both process and perspective. And no, this isn’t some ill-disguised attempt to bolster our business model.
For starters, we assign each book to a librarian with the appropriate expertise and experience to best assess that particular work. In turn, they’re guided by criteria that have been developed over decades. That reviewer appraises both how readers will respond to the book and how the title might fit into their library collections.
When the review comes in to our office, the book is read by one of our editors and its strengths and possible shortcomings are often discussed in depth between the editor and reviewer. The review is then fact-checked and edited. Our space constraints—which bloggers don’t have—are both a bane (things get left out) and a boon (save the time of the reader). The review, in turn, is then read by other editors, some of whom may also have read the book. Finally, the review ends up in your hands.
When it comes to blogs and print publications, some take an either/or approach. Bloggers provide a fresh and honest response; traditional magazines are biased. Bloggers are unprofessional and can’t be trusted; only professional review journals should be used to make book-buying decisions. I say this is all nonsense. In my mind, the relationship between the two—to use a phrase from my 9th-grade biology class—is symbiotic. They benefit each other.
Librarians who select books today are fortunate enough to have options. There are traditional review sources to help you choose the most valuable titles. And there are blogs that offer an additional perspective. Take advantage of both resources. Study them, follow them, and decide who you can rely on. Mix it up. Taken together, they give you an opportunity to create better collections for your readers than ever before.
