The Internet has given voice to countless readers whose views on new books were inaccessible to the rest of us back when newspapers and magazines offered the only major forums for reviews. This is especially valuable in today’s evolving media world, where many struggling newspapers have scaled back their book coverage.
Oftentimes, the reviews posted by “amateurs” on blogs and booksellers’ web sites are articulate and insightful. This is true, for example, at amazon.com, where some reviews are so well-written they could run in any major newspaper with virtually no editing.
Then, there are the others.
Littered among the thorough, and thoroughly enjoyable, reviews are far too many one- or two-sentence blurbs that often are vague, illiterate and off-topic. These pseudo reviews are especially galling when readers say they liked or disliked a book, without saying why. Some recent amazon.com “reviews” of Ken Follett’s latest novel, Winter of the World, illustrate what I’m talking about.
“Couldn’t put it down,” one reader wrote. “Rather expensive for a Kindle download,” another complained. “I especially enjoyed this book because it started the same year I did, 1933,” said another.
Many others posted comments in a similar vein, offering no more than a thumbs up or down.
Follett “really came up short this time,” said one reader, without explanation. “Not up to Ken Follett standards,” wrote another, again without elaboration.
All of which begs the obvious question: why? Why were you pleased with, or disappointed by, Winter of the World? And why do you think the written equivalent of a 15-second exchange at the office water cooler is a book review?
It’s grand that the Internet has given a megaphone to readers who had been voiceless, but it’s discouraging that so much of what appears online reads like a text message that was knocked off by some guy sitting in the drive-up line at McDonald's.
No comments:
Post a Comment