Week 5 Prompt: Types of Reviews

 

Week 5 Prompt: Types of Reviews

Review Examples

The Billionaire’s First Christmas by Holly Rayner

I found neither the Amazon review nor the blog review of this book to be reliable from a professional standpoint. The reviews were poorly written, including many spelling/grammatical errors, and the content was too personal. For example, the Amazon reviewer states, “… I’ll admit when Robyn was explaining her love of Santa to Aaron I had tears rolling down my face. This book had duel POV’s which I love …” Likewise, the blog reviewer states, “I downloaded bunch of Kindle e-books last holiday vacation because I can’t bring physical copies of books in my hometown – you know, excess baggage.” I can understand why a blogger may want to share this type of information with his/her followers, but to include it in the actual book review is distracting. I would not purchase this title for my library because our e-book vendor, OverDrive, does not offer this title. Additionally, as the title has not been reviewed by any professional reviewers, and it is not available in print, I expect the demand would be low.

Angela’s Ashes by Frank McCourt

As the several professional reviews for this title are overwhelmingly positive, and it is available for our library to purchase through both Baker & Taylor (print) and OverDrive (digital), I would definitely purchase this title. Not only does there seem to be depth of content and compelling narrative, it is a true story which Library Journal recommends for "readers of any age," and Booklist predicts a high demand for it, "Many a lesser book gets the kind of publicity push that McCourt's memoir is happily slated to receive. Expect demand, not only from those seduced by blurbs and interviews, but from word-of-mouth thereafter." We are, after all, a public library. Part of our mission is to provide books which are timely and relevant.

Questions About Reviews

1.     Do you think it’s fair that one type of book is reviewed to death and other types of books get little to no coverage? How does this affect a library’s collection?

Fairness is subjective. When considering romance novels, especially self-published romance novels which are only available digitally, it makes sense that professional reviewers would not review these titles. First of all, the sheer volume of self-published romance novels is overwhelming. It would be impossible for reviewers to give equal attention to all of these titles. Second, reviewing every romance title that comes out would be a waste of time for two main reasons: 1) romance is a notoriously formulaic genre, and 2) not all of it is good. I think reviewers would find that they are essentially writing a positive or negative version of the same review over and over. Professional review sources have an obligation to seek out titles which have unique marketability and then shine a light on them for readers by reviewing those titles.

That being said, I know that money, politics, and publicity play a large part in whether or not books are reviewed and whether or not those books are reviewed positively or negatively. Large publishing houses have a lot of power and pull behind their operations, and organizations work together to promote the titles they want to see on the best seller lists. Consider the motivations behind Oprah’s or Reese’s book clubs, for example. Chosen books are often from big publishing houses and tend to align with (and capitalize upon) particular/current political movements or agendas. It is certainly the case that many well-written, “good” books are passed over and buried so that others, of equal, or even less, literary merit may shine, which is unfortunate.

The effects of primarily relying on professional book reviews are blatantly reflected in a public library’s collection. For better or for worse, the public library is often dubbed the “popular library” because public libraries prioritize carrying titles that people want most, and what people want most is largely dictated by popular culture. It’s a kind of cyclical pattern which is not likely to change anytime soon.

2.     How do you feel about review sources that won’t print negative content? Do you think that’s appropriate?

Review sources can choose which types of reviews they would like to print; it is entirely appropriate for them to have this choice and to choose not to print negative content. We, as consumers, also have the choice to rely on review sources which we believe to be the most honest, authentic, and overall helpful in choosing titles either for ourselves or for our library.

3.     If you buy for your library, how often do you use reviews to make your decisions? How do you feel about reviews for personal reading, and what are some of your favorite review sources?

I regularly use professional reviews to make decisions about what to purchase for my library. I rely most on Kirkus, Library Journal, and Publisher’s Weekly, and I appreciate how Baker & Taylor lists all of a book’s reviews together for easy reference and comparison. I also watch the New York Times and Publisher’s Weekly bestseller lists to see if I’ve missed a popular title. Additionally, I fulfill patron requests which helps to alert me to authors and titles I may not have been familiar with before.

I don’t usually use review sources for selecting personal reads. I either stick with authors I know or browse the carts and shelves for something that appeals to me. Occasionally, I will use Goodreads and What to Read Next to inform my picks.