Some things I have really enjoyed traveling the Romanceland this month:
1. The discussions of objectivity and bias in reviewing initiated by Azteclady at Karen Knows Best and Jane at Dear Author (and especially Janet/Robin’s tough questions, which I am still pondering). It may be easy to agree that some level of objectivity is desired in romance reviewing, but the devil is in the details.
2. Pub Rants. In addition to having a glamorous-sounding life and listening to cool music (she always lets readers know what’s playing in her iPod), she has great insight into the biz, and very direct advice for aspiring writers. This week Kristin talks about passing on a book that she later discovered another major press took on.
3. Wendy. I love everything Wendy writes, actually, but I especially love her posts on her work as a librarian. The posts on recommending a book to a patron, on what to do with donated books, on the panels she has organized…it’s fascinating to see the genre through her eyes. Too often we focus on the business end of romance, but I get probably 40% of my books from my local library. Libraries have a crucial role to play, I think, in determining and maintaining the romance canon, in keeping romance reading going in recession, in normalizing and integrating the genre for the general public. Wendy is an amazing ally to have!
As promised, these are all about Triple R. It’s only fair, if 100% self-indulgent, that I direct my criticism inward. Warning: Comments which dispute what I say here will be creatively edited, but you may add your own criticisms (although if you make me cry I will delete it. I can only take so much.)
1. This blog is so unattractive you couldn’t pay me to set one toe out of my reader to actually view it. Mauve? Shudder. And the “design” (note scare quotes) sucks. Can’t you center a single frigging photo? And what’s up with that nasty looking sidebar? Have some pride, woman!
2. Voice: totally inconsistent. What exactly are you doing here? One day it’s another romance review, the next it’s some wordy confusing essay, the next it’s some silly list. Is this a hobby or academic? Some weeks you post once, other weeks you post 5 times. Random and annoying.
3. Introducing new features only to abandon them. How come you have only done one “Mad to Miss It”? And what happened to “What (Not) to Do Wednesday? Irritating.
4. Infrequent contests, no ARC reviews, no breaking industry news, no author interviews, no polls. Nothing FUN! Why would I want to read a ponderous review of a two year old category? Sheesh!
5. Making mountains out of molehills. The worst example of this — although there are many to choose from, believe me — had to be your post on kerfuffles. I mean, seriously. Not everything is worth a 1000 word meditation.
I interpret bats 1-4 in the light of bat number 5 (“Making mountains out of molehills”). As for number 5, the bat’s-eye (and therefore aerial) view of a kerfuffle and meditations on kerfuffles is bound to be different from the perspective of a mole.
Hmm. That last sentence may be very profound. Perhaps I’ll have to do some meditation now.
Oh, funny! Wonderful. I couldn’t figure out who you were talking about at first with the Bats. I hunted for a link. Who is this awful blog? I need more caffeine. Pleasure Unbound in in my TBR, too.
For bat #1, see #5. For #2, see #5. Etc.
It’s your blog, not your CV. Do with it what you will. If you want it to be your magnum opus, go for it. If not, don’t sweat this stuff.
RfP wrote:
See, I can’t even criticize myself without committing the very sins I am criticizing!
Well this was a lovely post to see on a Friday! Now I really need to think of a new library-related post to do – LOL. Maybe I’ll find inspiration while weeding through moldy, oldie, neglected adult fiction this afternoon at one of our libraries. Yes, this is the exciting life I live!
Is this a hobby or academic? Some weeks you post once, other weeks you post 5 times.
And the problem with that is??? It’s your blog.
[Edited -- you were warned!] And meh, contests and author interviews aren’t necessary. I’ve decided to avoid doing any more of them myself unless authors actually ask me first.