Bob Hoover, Book Editor for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, has done me a great favor! He's pinpointed for me exactly what I'm doing:
"... rumor, mistakes, innuendo, obscenity, gossip and speculation -- the very stuff that blogs are made of..."
as well as for whom I write:
"... outside of their mothers, it's hard to figure out whom these bloggers are targeting."
I have been going about this altogether in the wrong manner. Here I've been wasting time writing my own opinions about books of literary fiction, and interviewing authors of those books, all the time knowing my mom is a lover of crime thrillers and the occasional romance novel. How stupid of me.
Not to mention all of those e-panels with editors of literary journals, and the Get Lit Journals project. My mom won't even read the monthly Ellery Queen or Alfred Hitchcock journals as she's not a fan of the short story. Don't even get her started on poetry. Nope, just another monstrous waste of time with those literary journals.
With the Get Lit Journals and the recent behind the scenes activity for the Litblog Co-op, maybe I'm just a little bit tired and have missed some intended irony by Mr. Hoover (whose column and reviews I read nearly every Sunday), but sadly, I don't think so.
Yeah, I read that Sunday and for the first time I e-mailed Hoover (he's out of the office until Jan. 30th says his auto-responder, btw).
Another sign that print reviewers are feeling the threat-- their review space is dwindling and being reserved for the same 20 or so books put out by the same 3 pub houses at any given time. Just like radio.
Yeah, keep talking about "quality control" and "standards" -- it only makes the case for alternative venues.
Hoover is generally a thoughtful reviewer, I was disappointed with that article.
Posted by: Reb | January 17, 2006 at 02:57 AM
I'm not familiar with Hoover and his record of commentary in the past -- so i cannot determine if this is an anomoly or if he's always this crummy.
My favorite line from his article: "Unlike the established media, there are doubts about blogs' accountability, dependability and durability."
Last time I checked, the mainstream, "established media" had quite a few problems with credibility as well. Funny how those in the "established media" frequently forget that fact.
Posted by: callie | January 17, 2006 at 02:33 PM
"Write about things that are true, and don't apologize. Sure, it can seem boring now and then, but you can sleep at night."
He doesn't need to get a blog; he was boring enough. It actually put me to sleep during the day.
Posted by: Em | January 17, 2006 at 07:54 PM
The guy's a dick, Dan. Next?
Posted by: Lauren Baratz-Logsted | January 19, 2006 at 01:47 PM
Now that I've made my bitchy remark for the week - quota met! - I'd like to say something less knee-jerky about this. It occurs to me that the litbloggers are, in a way, in the same place as writers of chick-lit. The conventional press, for whatever reasons, feels threatened by your success. As a result, they take these cheap shots. Of course there are crap litblogs out there - just like there are crap chick-lit novels and every other kind of piece of writing - but there are some great ones too. Me, I've found the conventional reviewing press has become culturally irrelevant, and so I turn to places like the EWN and Beatrice and Booksquare etc to get my fix. Articles like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette one are in a very real sense a compliment: If you weren't rattling their cages, they wouldn't feel such an obvious need to take you down.
Posted by: Lauren Baratz-Logsted | January 20, 2006 at 10:19 AM
Controversy.
Posted by: Gotham Image | January 27, 2006 at 01:40 AM