Which Hat Is This?
Maili has started an interesting discussion about accidental cliques in romance blogland. I responded in the comments section, then realized I was going in a different direction, so I decided to bring my ideas here. I started talking about people who hesitate to comment on blogs:
I think this is almost self-perpetuating--people are reluctant to comment because they don't feel like they are part of the group. So the same people keep posting, which makes people reluctant to comment, etc. I'm not saying that people should stop commenting. I just hope that more people will jump into the discussion.I have a question about something mentioned in the comments that I've noticed before--that many people seem to put reviewers in a different category than readers.
That's where I ended my comments and decided to continue this particular discussion here. I do find it curious that people make a distinction between readers and reviewers. I've seen this distinction made more than once. As someone who is both, I consciously put on a reviewer hat (so to speak) when I'm writing a review. But I always think of myself as a reader first. In fact, I think of my blog as more of a reader's blog than a reviewer's blog. Yes, my blog links to my reviews, and I mention reviewing on occasion. However, I'm a reader first.
What do you think? What makes a reviewer different than a reader?
Alyssa
Labels: reviewing
posted by Alyssa @ 9:10 PM
9 Comments:
I think of a reviewer as a reader plus. They have to love to read in order to be a reviewer but then they have the added task of explaining why they like a book to the rest of us readers. Although I don't always agree with a reviewer, I always appreciate them. They are kind of like the umpires of the reading world, necessary but sometimes unappreciated and often called wrong :)(even when they are right). I've thought about offering my services as a reviewer but I think sometimes I would have a hard time explaining why or why not a book works. It just does, or it just doesn't isn't really sufficient.
I'm not sure about the whole reader/reviewer thing even though I'm a reviewer. I'm sorta taking a break from reviewing at one site and really slowing down on another because I'm not quite sure I want to do it anymore. I'd rather just be a reader, sometimes.
I think Kristie probably sums it up pretty well. It's not that reviewers aren't readers because are. It's just that when they might think they're speaking as a "just a reader" they really do need to be aware that there is that extra perspective they bring to the discussions, too.
I'm trying to figure out what that extra perspective is, though! I'm just trying to back out of reviewing right now because I'm sick of being so damn nice all the time.
Yeah, I've noticed this too, and I'm not sure why some think reviewers aren't readers. But I'm working on a theory:
When I'm reviewing a book I tend to be more analytical. As I'm reading a review book I think about every single word I'm reading, digest it, and analyze it to death.
When reading for pleasure, I tend to be much more laid back. I'll zip through the whole thing, then ponder it all after the fact.
Or maybe I'm just babbling to hear the sound of my own voice? I'm still working on this theory. I will say though that when it comes to how I catagorize myself - reviewer is usually towards the bottom of the list.
"I'm trying to figure out what that extra perspective is, though!"
That's a good question and I'll be honest and say I don't have an answer. At least not one I can put in a short post. (G) One way of answering it, though, might be to think about what an author's or a publisher's "extra" perspective is. Then compare. Because they, and others, are also readers with plus factors of their own.
"I'm just trying to back out of reviewing right now because I'm sick of being so damn nice all the time."
Oh, boy. I think I'll leave that one to someone like Maili (VBEG) and suggest that you may want to check out a thread on my blog -
http://bevsnotes.blogspot.com/2005/04/reviews-ugh.html
'Course the question that immediately comes to mind is why do you have to be nice all the time? Answer that and you may have your answer to the other. Or at least part of it.
Well, one site I review for is a nice-only comments one. It does good reviews, but lately I've been chafing at that when I read books that I don't particularly like or even ones I like, but that there are things that I'd like to mention, but aren't positive.
I'm beginning to think I might just stop all together for awhile and just focus on my blog. And perhaps I'll check out other review sites if I want to continue.
I appreciate all of the comments. It's interesting to get other people's views on the subject.
Kristie, sometimes it is very challenging to explain why a book works or doesn't work. It is especially difficult with three-heart books (on a scale of one to five), and I seem to have read a bunch of those lately.
Nicole, you poor thing, you definitely sound like you've burned out. Beverly asked the question I was going to ask--about whether you have to write positive reviews. I don't like writing negative reviews, but it would be much worse to feel like I had to say something positive, even if it went against what I really thought.
Wendy, I think you're on to something with your theory. I have to admit that I do take notes when I read a book for review. With books I don't review, I just go straight through them. Then I decide whether to blog about them or not. Usually that's a schedule thing. There's just no way I could write about everything I read.
Alyssa
I'm with you on the reader blog versus reviewer blog Alyssa. I don't see my blog as a reviewer blog despite its 'review' only content. I see it more as an opportunity to stand around the proverbial water cooler and chat up the book I finished the night before. Hmmm. But usually only if that book stands out. Lori and I both review only a fraction of what we read.
Post a Comment
<< Home