Re: Reviews--what's worth having
- From: "Patricia C. Wrede" <pwrede6492@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:48:06 -0500
"Kat R" <null.space@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:SKudnQK8ns0epSHZnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Big name publications and certain websites seem to be important (I'm
playing a bit dumb, but I'm not really that smart sometimes, so bear with
me) when talk of reviews comes up, but what/which are the really good
publications/sites? What would be your hierarchy? Is NYT more important
than Kirkus? Would you be more excited about a good review in Locus?
Optionally--which review bodies do you turn to for information about books
(if you do)? Do you prefer blogs or websites over corporate publications?
What's "good" in the land of reviews?
Ask a librarian.
No, really. The important thing about reviews is not the way they influence
readers -- to the best of my knowledge, there's not a lot of data on that.
Editorial wisdom in that regard seems to be that any publicity, anywhere, of
any sort (even a bad review) is a Good Thing for one's first few novels, at
least.
The important thing about reviews is that many librarians need to have two
to four (depending on their system) reviews in order to justify purchasing a
hardcover for their collections. I'd pick Kirkus over Locus on that basis,
merely because more librarians know and read Kirkus than know and read
Locus. I haven't a clue about web sites, but if I really wanted to know,
I'd ask some librarians which ones, if any, they and their colleagues look
at.
Patricia C. Wrede
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Reviews--what's worth having
- From: Kat R
- Re: Reviews--what's worth having
- References:
- Reviews--what's worth having
- From: Kat R
- Reviews--what's worth having
- Prev by Date: Re: Hmm - here's a topic to spark off a nice social commentary thread..
- Next by Date: Re: Reviews--what's worth having
- Previous by thread: Re: Reviews--what's worth having
- Next by thread: Re: Reviews--what's worth having
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
