Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Indiscriminate Reporting
I think this might rank right up there as one of the snottiest quotes ever:
What's even funnier is that: this quote is part of an interview... ON A BLOG. The mind boggles.
Along the same lines, go read Karen Schneider's post on the problem with the campaign to save book reviews, and follow her links back to the discussion on Critical Mass. Which brings us to another fun quote of the day:
Yeah, gosh, I hate publicity, don't you? I wonder what she would think if my book club dared to discuss one of her titles -- good lord, 12 people with no knowledge of literature, all airing their views at once? As if they were of value? What's the world coming to?Q. Does your work get reviewed/discussed much on literary blogs? If so, how do those reviews compare with print reviews of your books?
A.Occasionally someone may mention my books in a blog. I believe the dangers of this indiscriminate reporting on books is that people who have no knowledge of literature can air their views as though they were of value and may influence readers. Critics may not always be right, of course, but at least they have read and studied literature, the great books, and have some outside knowledge to refer to when critiquing our work.
What's even funnier is that: this quote is part of an interview... ON A BLOG. The mind boggles.
Along the same lines, go read Karen Schneider's post on the problem with the campaign to save book reviews, and follow her links back to the discussion on Critical Mass. Which brings us to another fun quote of the day:
Seriously, though, blogs are kind of like parasitic microorganisms which feed off of a primary host. For the sake of this discussion, the host is clearly print media. Some are the good bacteria and some are transient and viral. Or maybe I can upgrade blogs to the status of some sort of interstitial or synovial fluid, buffering the vital organs of the media (newspaper, television, radio, the Internet)? But, c’mon, if newspapers are dying, then blogs are the maggots come to feast upon their corpses.Can anyone say: Gormangate?
Labels: books, kohler, litblogs, reviews
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Interesting visuals. But its not as if there isn't a certain amount of truth to them. Even the most well-read online sites rely heavily on print resources for fodder.
Hmmm...apparently she doesn't want reviews from academics with blogs, either. You know, the blogs by people with graduate degrees in English and related areas. Or, it hasn't occurred to her that someone who blogs about books might actually have experience reading and/or studying them. So much for knowing one's audience....
I wonder what they'd think of blogs that have evolved into online magazines? I write for Blogcritics, and there is a fine core group of writers on that site who are either freelance folks, skilled hobbyists, or academics. Very few book reviews get published on the site with the grade school book report formula or book group re-cap.
I thought of mentioning GormanGate, because that struck me as well, but I worried someone would say I'm flogging it to death.
Greg, the most well-read OFFline reviews heavily rely on print resources for fodder... they're called books.
Greg, the most well-read OFFline reviews heavily rely on print resources for fodder... they're called books.
kgs - I wasn't blogging during the prime gormangate years, so I feel entitled to flog now :).
greg - I think that's kind of the point: why are we setting up this artificial distinction between print and blogs? Why make assumptions that bloggers don't know XYZ, simply because they're online, and that print reviewers somehow automatically do?
greg - I think that's kind of the point: why are we setting up this artificial distinction between print and blogs? Why make assumptions that bloggers don't know XYZ, simply because they're online, and that print reviewers somehow automatically do?
Don't know if you've seen the relevant post on GalleyCat this morning... it links to my blog, Michelle Moran's blog (she's an up-and-coming historical novelist who does the History Buff site), and Kohler's NBCC interview with the now-infamous quote. I was very amused by it all, because the blogger/print critic distinction IS artificial. If people take my opinions less seriously when they're on a blog, compared to when they're in some print publication, that's their problem, but it's just silly. There's so much crossover between the two.
Oh well. Despite her comments, my review of her novel still stands - I did enjoy reading it.
Oh well. Despite her comments, my review of her novel still stands - I did enjoy reading it.
Why the distinction? Probably one reason is the same how some people think an MLS makes you a librarian. The need to show that the person in question jumped through enough hoops to be believed. That's not a perfect system but it has merit.
Rachel, I was also extremely annoyed by these comments when I first read them. I ended up asking Sheila Kohler if she really meant that, and she said that she hadn't meant to offend anyone, that she has respect for many bloggers. I guess I'm disposed to give her benefit of the doubt.
Hi Morgan -- Interesting. Well, I've said my piece (and then some!) and am leaving it alone -- the cynical side of me wonders whether the backlash she experienced had anything to do with her response, but it's nice to see, and nicely opposite the Gorman/Cronin response.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
