tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post8330464800381579795..comments2024-01-06T10:36:04.084-05:00Comments on A Commonplace Blog: SymposiumD. G. Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-76489884674248294502009-09-07T00:08:28.143-04:002009-09-07T00:08:28.143-04:00Interesting venture -- but it's too bad you be...Interesting venture -- but it's too bad you begin with the assumption that newspaper book coverage and blogs are two separate things. I don't think so -- but I realize I'm biased. I blog about books at <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/" rel="nofollow">Jacket Copy</a> for the LA Times.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12086479455318462689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-72822706922768574582009-09-06T06:38:02.408-04:002009-09-06T06:38:02.408-04:00By the way, you might be interested in this fascin...By the way, you might be interested in this fascinating thing: <br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/06/newspapers-websites-internet-advertisingMs Baroquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01836227454899083962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-3226916236305472009-09-06T05:26:40.237-04:002009-09-06T05:26:40.237-04:00These are really interesting questions. I've b...These are really interesting questions. I've been reading a lot of NON-book blogs lately and I can tell you that huge audiences seem to love blogs about how to get rich blogging, cleverly disguised as being blogs about "writing" (blog "content" [sic], so you can get rich writing your blog). And politics, of course. And anything technological will have mass numbers. An Oprah-style book blog might be able to do it, but at that point you're aiming *at* the numbers, not the books. I'm not sure how huge an audience a book blog actually needs - and influence isn't all about numbers. Better to be really engaged, think straight, get it right.<br /><br />As for the review pages, well, the downfall of the blogs can be a kind of amateurish enthusiasm, and I've seen bloggers get a little too excited that they'd been sent a free book. To some extent, in reviewing the current crop, they are working for free for the publishers, this is true. But the fact is that there are all kinds of book blogs, and they don't all replicate, or even aim to replicate, the reviews pages. <br /><br />Some of them, including some on your blogroll, like say Maud Newton and Mark Sarvas, are just as professional - are written by journalists and writers - and do a better job than the reviews pages are ABLE to do. There isn't really much in the UK that's like that; we're not as slick. Maybe it's because the market's smaller over here. <br /><br />(And by the way, here in England there are poets old and young still writing sestinas and villanelles...)<br /><br />I'll link to this, and look forward to reading your symposium results.Ms Baroquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01836227454899083962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-24363440620716688312009-09-01T12:18:39.075-04:002009-09-01T12:18:39.075-04:00The Denver Bibliophile responds http://denverbibli...The Denver Bibliophile responds http://denverbibliophile.blogspot.com/2009/09/book-blogging-present-and-future.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-15460357565678592592009-09-01T10:12:12.487-04:002009-09-01T10:12:12.487-04:00I don't see much difference between print and ...I don't see much difference between print and online, personally. Except perhaps that online can be snarkier purely because a reviewer is not beholden to anyone but their own opinion.<br /><br />But does that mean the ad hominem attacks are worse online than they ever were in print? Hardly. Anyone who thinks that needs to read historical artistic criticism—for example, Nicolas Slonimsky's "A Lexicon of Musical Invective," which consists of bad reviews of great music—and they will soon realize that not much has changed at all. The entire of Walter Winchell, similarly, can be seen as ad hominem.<br /><br />The only thing that makes things seem snarkier online than in print is the ease and speed with which one is able to toss off a heated reply. It's all too easy to hit the Reply button in the heat of the moment. In other words, the technology makes it perhaps too easy to reply in emotional haste, rather than requiring one to have slowed down and thought about one's reply before committing it to text. This is an effect of the medium, not any fundamental change in either human nature or in the nature of discourse. (It's surprising to me how many online literary types seem to really miss this basic point about the medium itself. I guess most of them haven't read McLuhan, or even Hugh Kenner.)Art Durkeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463180236975988432noreply@blogger.com