I went back and read Roger Sutton's point on all the lit blogosphere discussions again last night as well as the many many comments it prompted and it has made me think about this book reviewing on blogs business that seems to engender such a visceral reaction from those of us who do it. Bloggers wonder what each other are doing, print reviewers vs blog reviewers wonder what each other are doing and then readers (in the form of commenters at sites) throw in their own two cents about what matters to them and no one ever comes to a consensus. (Even the folks who say they have no opinion, really do when you read their comments.)

What intrigues me specifically about Roger's post is first the notion that on the internet everyone is talking more than they are listening. That one really gave me pause because yes, it does happen in the comments sometimes. But the thing is, the whole story is never just in the comments. For example, during the dual blow-ups at my site in the past ten days I exchanged emails with several commenters where we sorted out our thoughts, agreed on some points and disagreed on others but still, left it so that we felt better about each other then we had at the start. As Amy mentioned at her blog the other day, she will be in Ed's next round table discussion and so will I along with a host of other bloggers. This would not have happened probably if we had not had the BEA panel discussion here which brought us all together (for better or worse... :) . Did it get harsh sometimes and were some of us talking over others? Yes, sure. But I know some good conversation behind the scenes took place and I think that is a good thing - I think it was worth it actually. And I think it proves that a lot of listening goes on all the time that you would never know just from visiting a site.

The other thing that struck me was mostly in the comments discussion at Roger's. People started weighing in about whether or not print reviews are more important/better/professional, etc then blog reviews (yes, we were back here again) and then Roger explained that really it's just different due to the likely different audiences (librarian vs general book readers) and then mommy blogs came up (they always come up - it's like "the mommys" are taking over the world or something) and then we got this anonymous comment from someone saying it's a "just like me" thing:

However, I do believe that more and more the masses are looking for some sort of personal mirroring in their "critics" rather than being thankful that, well, someone with a lot of knowledge combed through hundreds of books (or movies or CDs) a year, each year, so that they could provide you with the best information possible.

Because only print reviewers read masses of books each year - or gain a lot of knowledge about books in the process. And then there's more:

Anyone who comes from a highly informed background (years of study or professional status, advanced degree), in essence, has the power to make the masses feel bad for their taste. Don't like the latest wildly popular, crappily illustrated picture book best seller? You're "elitist."

But not "Mom Blogger" -- she's just like you!

It's easy to throw the elitism/professionalism accusation (?) around and it did show up in the wake of the BEA panel and book tours posts here. I really think a lot of stuff got conflated in the aftermath of those two discussions however and then they got munched into the first wave/second wave discussion elsewhere and while no one ever called me elitist (I think), I did see some twitters/posts/comments that suggested I was talking down to other bloggers. And the mommy blog thing did come up again. I sincerely believe this whole idea - this professional vs hobbyist, writer vs mommy, reader vs writer is what we - as bloggers - need to work our level best to get rid of. It helps nobody and it's all semantics anyway. I am a writer (because it is what I do paid or not and I've done it forever); I am a mother (one child); I am a hobbyist (not getting paid for this); I am a professional (in that I aspire to a level of professionalism). And isn't everybody, to one degree or another in one way or another all of these things? Do we all collectively want to let the suggestion pervade that we think some of us are better than others?

I mean really - when is the last time anyone commented on a review, "I loved this book and since you didn't I think you are elitest scum!!!" (I joke but you get my point.)

All of this is to say that I've been thinking about ways to be a better lit/book blogger that don't involve what other people think but mostly what I hope will matter the most. I've reached out to some bloggers I did not know a couple of weeks ago and intend to continue doing so (and hope we can all collaborate on future interblog projects). That's something I can do that is relatively easy and it helps all of us in the long run as more readers would end up hearing about more good books.

And all of us, 100%, have always agreed that is the point.

Finally, I have never thought that print reviewers were any more capable of making a book sound more or less worthy than a blogger can. It's the book itself that always appeals to me first - appeals to each of us first - and if the person reviewing/discussing it explains its merits in a way that makes me want to read it then I'm going to find a copy and do just that. Sometimes it's Jenny D who gets me excited about a book and sometimes it's the NYT. But do I analyze a blog review differently from a print review? I can't imagine any reader would say that they do - it's the book and if it sounds good that matters more than anything and weighing the question of "does this blog reviewer have the same level of experience as the NYT reviewer?" doesn't enter into that moment. This is not to say that I don't appreciate reading a piece of well written criticism nor value that on its merits alone. But when it comes to making me want a book, well in that moment, it's just what the book is about and if it is very readable, etc. that makes me want to read it. Heck - I've bought more than one book from the catalog copy or dust jacket alone (and so has everyone else). Sometimes I value and am grateful for print reviewers in newspaper, sometimes I buy a book because of an interview and book discussion in a literary journal, sometimes a mention in a magazine gets me excited and sometimes a review from an online blogger sends me right to Powells or the library. And sometimes it's when my Mom calls and tells me she's read something I absolutely have to read that makes me buy the book. Could I possibly fit all of this into a discussion of blogging? Uh, no. I just say that I read reviews and I find out about books and I turn around and write about books for other folks. And it's never about whose opinion matters more but only about the book and how much I like it (or loathe it). That's how it works for me mostly, and honestly I think that is pretty much how it works for everyone else too.

We talk all the time in the lit blogosphere. We interview and review and complain and laugh and sometimes we say a book is truly honestly horrible and sometimes we say it is truly fabulously wonderful. We have a lot of things to say about reading and writing and people who read and write. And anyone's opinion - mommy/daddy/or person with no kids at all - is valid and important when they are sharing what they think about books. That's why we have this place and that's why so many of us have made a home here.