I read this post today, by Kara Thomas, author of the Prep School Confidential series. To summarize, in case you don't feel like clicking over and reading the link, Kara says that, essentially, the books populating all the "most anticipated" lists at the start of the year aren't going to be the debut novels. They're going to be the big books, ones publishers are pushing and trying to create buzz for.
This is true. The two books at the top of my 2015 MUST LIST are both by very established authors. (Honestly, I want to say they're both bestselling, but I'm not sure.) The truth is, unless a reader at least knee-deep in the publishing world and YA buzz, readers often don't know about the smaller books coming out. The ones by debut authors, the ones that aren't lead titles. In the year or so that I've been "blogging" over on tumblr, I've lost touch so much with what's happening in YA. Granted, I'm still better informed than nearly everyone else I know, but compared to how knowledgeable and "in the know" I was a couple years ago? Um, nope. And though I'm trying to get back into it, at least somewhat, the truth is that I might never be as crazy-informed as I used to be about what's happening in YA, what new books are coming out, who has a book deal and for how many books.
And you know what? I'm kind of more than okay with that. I'm excited for 2015, and excited to discover new books and authors that I haven't known about a year before their books debuted. There's a certain thrill in finding a flat-out amazing read that you just pull off a shelf, that you haven't read twenty thousand reviews of. That hasn't been on your TBR list for months. This is the way we find new favorite books and new favorite authors, ones whose future books we'll always be on the lookout for.
But, that all said -- I do like knowing what's coming up. So I have to ask: what lesser-known YA titles should I be on the lookout for this year?
Showing posts with label discussion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discussion. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Problems I Have With Series
In my last All The Books post I mentioned that planned trilogies and series make me nervous and I thought I'd explain that a little bit, with some reasons to be wary of planned series.
reason #1: (the obvious) YOU HAVE TO READ ALL OF THEM TO GET THE FULL STORY-- I feel like this needs no explanation. Every book lover knows this feeling of not quite knowing if they want to commit to a multiple-book story arc. And with this trilogies are one thing; three books isn't so bad. But it's the series that are planned as five or six books, or the ones where you don't know how many books there'll be, that give me the most pause before reading book one. Examples include: all the series.
reason #2: IT MIGHT NEVER END-- Sometimes, if a series does exceptionally well, it gets a bit bigger. And then a bit bigger again. And the original trilogy is actually five books and there's also a couple of spin-off series. I've mostly stayed away from these (and with the books I read, I'm much more worried about #3 below...) Examples include: Gossip Girl, The Baby-Sitters Club.
reason #3: IT MIGHT END TOO SOON-- This is a particular peeve of mine because it's happened to a few series that I absolutely loved. The books don't do as well as hoped, they fade into obscurity before the series is even finished, and then the series is cancelled. And the reader (in this case me) is sad because they (I) never know what happens! How does it end? This is infuriating, especially if the last published book ends on a cliffhanger (as is so often the case). Examples include: The Mockingbirds, The Naughty List, Bradford Novels.
reason #4: EVERYTHING FALLS APART-- You know what I mean. Things are going fine and great and omg this is the best series evarrrrr!!! but then suddenly, with a change of character or a convenient plot twist or a whatever, things are just the worst ever. Too often this happens in the last book of a series so there's no on-page redemption, which is sad. Examples include: The Luxe, Twilight.
Worry about these four things happening is what makes me so wary of starting in on a series -- and also what makes me crazy nervous for the series that I already love (there's still time for something to go wrong!). What say you, readers? Do you have the same series/trilogy issues that I do?
reason #1: (the obvious) YOU HAVE TO READ ALL OF THEM TO GET THE FULL STORY-- I feel like this needs no explanation. Every book lover knows this feeling of not quite knowing if they want to commit to a multiple-book story arc. And with this trilogies are one thing; three books isn't so bad. But it's the series that are planned as five or six books, or the ones where you don't know how many books there'll be, that give me the most pause before reading book one. Examples include: all the series.
reason #2: IT MIGHT NEVER END-- Sometimes, if a series does exceptionally well, it gets a bit bigger. And then a bit bigger again. And the original trilogy is actually five books and there's also a couple of spin-off series. I've mostly stayed away from these (and with the books I read, I'm much more worried about #3 below...) Examples include: Gossip Girl, The Baby-Sitters Club.
reason #3: IT MIGHT END TOO SOON-- This is a particular peeve of mine because it's happened to a few series that I absolutely loved. The books don't do as well as hoped, they fade into obscurity before the series is even finished, and then the series is cancelled. And the reader (in this case me) is sad because they (I) never know what happens! How does it end? This is infuriating, especially if the last published book ends on a cliffhanger (as is so often the case). Examples include: The Mockingbirds, The Naughty List, Bradford Novels.
reason #4: EVERYTHING FALLS APART-- You know what I mean. Things are going fine and great and omg this is the best series evarrrrr!!! but then suddenly, with a change of character or a convenient plot twist or a whatever, things are just the worst ever. Too often this happens in the last book of a series so there's no on-page redemption, which is sad. Examples include: The Luxe, Twilight.
Worry about these four things happening is what makes me so wary of starting in on a series -- and also what makes me crazy nervous for the series that I already love (there's still time for something to go wrong!). What say you, readers? Do you have the same series/trilogy issues that I do?
Friday, May 25, 2012
Cover Talk: Paperback Swap
Visiting the topic of covers once again, I wanted to talk about hardcover-to-paperback changes. You know what I mean. When the hardcover of a book has a great, artistic, stunning cover and then the paperback comes out and... what? Generic photo of a pretty girl glancing off to the side wistfully as her hair blows around her face? Yeah. Fortunately that's not the only kind of hardcover-to-paperback cover swap that happens, but it is the kind that bothers me most. So today we're looking at dramatic cover changes of books that I love.
Book #1: If I Stay, by Gayle Forman
One of the worst offenders. And the truly sad thing is that, not only does hardcover of the sequel (Where She Went) match the paperback cover, but the paperback, generic as it looks, actually fits the story. Which sort of diminishes this very beautiful, moving story of love and family and difficult choices and makes it seem, instead, like the basis for a Lifetime Original Movie. The book is so much better than that. My choice: hardcover.
Book #2: Bunheads, by Sophie Flack
This one is a bit trickier. Confession: I didn't like the original cover the first time I saw it. I was looking at the book from a distance and couldn't quite tell that those are dancers (and not, like, weird flowers) on the cover. But, after I saw the cover up close I realized that it's actually pretty awesome. A sort of kaleidoscope effect. But now there's this new paperback cover that focuses on only one of the dancers and I just don't know what to think of it. Not because it's not pretty (it is; they both are), but mostly because of the color/font combination. The black works on the hardcover but I feel like there's too much of it on the paperback and honestly I'm not loving the font, especially so huge. But it's still a really close call for me and this is one cover change where I feel like the covers really complement each other and both fit equally well for the story. My choice: hardcover, but just barely.
Book #3: The Mockingbirds, by Daisy Whitney
This is another tricky one, but for a different reason. There are two ways to think of The Mockingbirds: you can think of it as a book, or you can think of it as the first book in a series. Granted, this series only has two books and (because I think it was originally intended to have more books) ends on a bit of a cliffhanger. But still. There's a sequel here (The Rivals) and for that I think the yearbook-esque cover works so much better. The cover is pretty great and matches the original (hardcover) cover to its sequel. On the other hand, if you're looking at The Mockingbirds as its one, one-shot book, you can't get any better than the To Kill A Mockingbird-inspired hardcover edition. It's artsy, mysterious, and just... perfect. My choice: hardcover, which gives you a clue as to how I view The Mockingbirds.
Book #4: Imaginary Girls, by Nova Ren Suma
Too easy. It's not that the paperback cover is bad, necessarily -- it totally has the whole eerie/mystery feeling to it that matches the story. But it's bleak. Dark. It looks like a book that's all mystery, and Imaginary Girls isn't. It's a story that, at its core, is about the love between two sisters, and the hardcover, in addition to being brilliant in every way (colors. font. layout. everything.) hints at more than just a dark and stormy night. My choice: hardcover.
Book #5: Suite Scarlett, by Maureen Johnson
Let's end this with an interesting cover set. Historically I feel like Maureen Johnson's covers sort of get the short end of the stick. She has all these headless girls everywhere, but surprisingly Suite Scarlett has a cover (two, actually!) that match the book really well. The girl on the hardcover looks just like how you'd expect Scarlett to look (except that the model is probably older than Scarlett) and is seated behind a hotel desk. And the paperback has the whole hotel-key/New York thing going on. I don't dislike either of these covers, but I do much prefer the paperback. It's more simple and, despite Scarlett being the protagonist of the book, there's a whole host of important characters. My choice: paperback, surprisingly.
Thanks to space and time and not wanting this post to be so incredibly long, I'm forcing myself to stop after five cover comparisons, but there are so many others out there that I wanted to include. Anyway, what do you think: does it bother you when the paperback of a book has a drastically different cover than the hardcover?
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The Story Siren & Plagiarism Post
Thinking about writing this post makes my stomach hurt. The things I found out yesterday morning have me sad and angry, but this is one case where -- drama or not -- I feel like I should talk about what's happening because even though I'm not directly involved, I do feel that as a YA blogger it affects many of us. A quick summary, for those of you who may be out of the loop:
Back in January, a couple of fashion bloggers noticed that a YA book blogger who had been visiting their site had quite a few posts that were remarkably similar to their own. Most of these posts were in the vein of blogging self-help stuff, like the importance of Klout and other helpful-to-bloggers posts. They contacted the blogger (Kristi, from The Story Siren) and the issue was handled privately. They didn't feel, for whatever reason, a need to make it public. Which is fine and was probably the right way to handle it at the time.
But now the blog Smart Bitches, Trashy Books has gotten the story and they are making it public, which I'm glad about. They have a fantastic post with a round up of relevant posts. READ IT.
Now, I've gone through and read all of the relevant posts from all bloggers involved, and at first I'll admit that I was... wary. Hesitant. One of the posts that was allegedly stolen is a post on the importance of Klout and, to be honest, many of the similarities I found between Kristi's post and the original post are similarities that I could easy imagine in any helpful post on the topic. They're just the topics that would naturally come up.
But I kept reading. I read about how the plagiarism was discovered, read the original posts and the screen shots of the (now deleted, at the request of the fashion bloggers) the screen shots from The Story Siren's posts. And, you guys, the evidence is... well, it's pretty damning actually. Though the posts aren't word-for-word the same, nearly every point that the fashion bloggers made was reiterated in Kristi's posts, so much so that I sat here shaking my head as I read. It was as if she used their posts as a template to "write" her own posts. And the story of how the theft was discovered is pretty amazing.
There's probably some, thought not much, overlap between the fashion blogging community and the book blogging community. The fact that this didn't come to light for months shows that, I think. And the fact that the fashion bloggers didn't make a bigger deal of it reflects, possibly, the fact that they aren't (or weren't, at least) aware of just how huge Kristi and her site are in the YA/book blogging world.
But as you probably know, The Story Siren is one of -- if not the -- most popular and certainly most respected YA blogs. At this point fellow book bloggers seem to be divided between those who (a) either don't believe Kristi plagiarized or are willing to overlook it, or (b) think what she did was very, very wrong.
Personally, I think ignoring the issue or saying that it's okay is a mistake. I'm definitely not advocating any sort of bullying or "mob mentality," but ignoring the issue, thinking that it's okay because it's been resolved between Kristi and the fashion bloggers, is wrong on a couple of different levels. It's a sort of quiet compliance with content-stealing. We're saying it's okay for one of the most respected creative blogs out there to be, at least partially, built on posts that were stolen from others. I think it's a huge conflict of interest for readers and authors to support a blogger who has spoken out against plagiarism while at the same time stealing content from others. I don't like to think that this sort of conduct is okay because the blogger in question is "popular" or "nice" or "has a big following." It breaks all kinds of blogging and writing ethics and honestly, it feels like a betrayal of not only those bloggers who look up to her as an example of what to do, but also (and more importantly) the many readers, authors, and publishers who support her blog in one way or another.
I'm not sure what happens from here. As of now, Kristi has made a statement regarding the entire debacle, but honestly it's so vague and non-commital that it doesn't seem to be much of an apology or an explanation. As a fellow book blogger what I was really hoping for was either an admission or denial, as well as a real explanation of how this came to be. You can read her statement here. As for me, I'm no longer going to be reading her blog or linking to her posts from my own blog as I've done occasionally in the past. In My Mailbox is one of my favorite community memes (hosted by The Story Siren), but I'm going to have to do some thinking on whether or not to even continue taking part in that. I do think everyone concerned or interested in this should look at the posts and decide for themselves whether the content is too similar to just be coincidence. (And once again, a link to the Smart Bitches post that has links to the other relevant posts, and then Kristi's statement.) (If you want the opinion of another blogger, WORD for Teens has a nice post up, and this post from Dear Author is well worth reading.)
ETA: Kristi has since posted a much better apology in which she admits what happened and clarifies her earlier apology -- I now have no problem continuing to participate in IMM though I still don't feel quite right about reading/linking to her blog in the future. It may not be fair, but in my opinion a certain amount of damage has already been done and can't quite be un-done.
Back in January, a couple of fashion bloggers noticed that a YA book blogger who had been visiting their site had quite a few posts that were remarkably similar to their own. Most of these posts were in the vein of blogging self-help stuff, like the importance of Klout and other helpful-to-bloggers posts. They contacted the blogger (Kristi, from The Story Siren) and the issue was handled privately. They didn't feel, for whatever reason, a need to make it public. Which is fine and was probably the right way to handle it at the time.
But now the blog Smart Bitches, Trashy Books has gotten the story and they are making it public, which I'm glad about. They have a fantastic post with a round up of relevant posts. READ IT.
Now, I've gone through and read all of the relevant posts from all bloggers involved, and at first I'll admit that I was... wary. Hesitant. One of the posts that was allegedly stolen is a post on the importance of Klout and, to be honest, many of the similarities I found between Kristi's post and the original post are similarities that I could easy imagine in any helpful post on the topic. They're just the topics that would naturally come up.
But I kept reading. I read about how the plagiarism was discovered, read the original posts and the screen shots of the (now deleted, at the request of the fashion bloggers) the screen shots from The Story Siren's posts. And, you guys, the evidence is... well, it's pretty damning actually. Though the posts aren't word-for-word the same, nearly every point that the fashion bloggers made was reiterated in Kristi's posts, so much so that I sat here shaking my head as I read. It was as if she used their posts as a template to "write" her own posts. And the story of how the theft was discovered is pretty amazing.
There's probably some, thought not much, overlap between the fashion blogging community and the book blogging community. The fact that this didn't come to light for months shows that, I think. And the fact that the fashion bloggers didn't make a bigger deal of it reflects, possibly, the fact that they aren't (or weren't, at least) aware of just how huge Kristi and her site are in the YA/book blogging world.
But as you probably know, The Story Siren is one of -- if not the -- most popular and certainly most respected YA blogs. At this point fellow book bloggers seem to be divided between those who (a) either don't believe Kristi plagiarized or are willing to overlook it, or (b) think what she did was very, very wrong.
Personally, I think ignoring the issue or saying that it's okay is a mistake. I'm definitely not advocating any sort of bullying or "mob mentality," but ignoring the issue, thinking that it's okay because it's been resolved between Kristi and the fashion bloggers, is wrong on a couple of different levels. It's a sort of quiet compliance with content-stealing. We're saying it's okay for one of the most respected creative blogs out there to be, at least partially, built on posts that were stolen from others. I think it's a huge conflict of interest for readers and authors to support a blogger who has spoken out against plagiarism while at the same time stealing content from others. I don't like to think that this sort of conduct is okay because the blogger in question is "popular" or "nice" or "has a big following." It breaks all kinds of blogging and writing ethics and honestly, it feels like a betrayal of not only those bloggers who look up to her as an example of what to do, but also (and more importantly) the many readers, authors, and publishers who support her blog in one way or another.
I'm not sure what happens from here. As of now, Kristi has made a statement regarding the entire debacle, but honestly it's so vague and non-commital that it doesn't seem to be much of an apology or an explanation. As a fellow book blogger what I was really hoping for was either an admission or denial, as well as a real explanation of how this came to be. You can read her statement here. As for me, I'm no longer going to be reading her blog or linking to her posts from my own blog as I've done occasionally in the past. In My Mailbox is one of my favorite community memes (hosted by The Story Siren), but I'm going to have to do some thinking on whether or not to even continue taking part in that. I do think everyone concerned or interested in this should look at the posts and decide for themselves whether the content is too similar to just be coincidence. (And once again, a link to the Smart Bitches post that has links to the other relevant posts, and then Kristi's statement.) (If you want the opinion of another blogger, WORD for Teens has a nice post up, and this post from Dear Author is well worth reading.)
ETA: Kristi has since posted a much better apology in which she admits what happened and clarifies her earlier apology -- I now have no problem continuing to participate in IMM though I still don't feel quite right about reading/linking to her blog in the future. It may not be fair, but in my opinion a certain amount of damage has already been done and can't quite be un-done.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Authors and Negative Reviews
If you've been reading my blog for a while, you may have noticed that the topic of reviewers, authors, and negative reviews comes up every so often. Mostly it comes up in the context of authors (or aspiring authors) writing reviews and the ethics and problems that come up.
But today I want to talk about something else, and that is the more widespread issue of authors responding (or not responding) to negative reviews.
As a reviewer and a reader, there are some books I don't like. There are books (though not many, thankfully) that I hate. There are plenty of books I don't care enough about to finish. I'm hones in my reviews and if I don't like something, I'll talk about it. I don't usually rant or get too personal/emotional (though I can think of an exception to this). I should also mention that I've never had an author personally get upset at me for a review of their book. I like to think that this is because my reviews are non-inflammatory, but the more realistic option is probably just that the authors I review critically/negatively either don't see my reviews or handle criticism well.
Authors, from a reviewer's POV, that negative review is not about you. It's not. It's about this book that they spent their time and money -- or if not their money, at least their time -- on and that disappointed them or annoyed them or, okay in some cases, even angered them. It's not about you, sitting behind your computer, writing this book that they didn't like.
It's easy for me to say that. I'm not an author.
But from my perspective, there are certain things you can and can't (or at least, shouldn't) do when you get a negative review.
Do not comment on it.
Do not write a blog post about it.
Do not tweet about it.
Because no matter how innocuous and "not mean" you think that comment/post/status update is, the reviewer or one of their friends or a potential reader is going to read it and think you're a little bit crazy maybe and definitely a lot unprofessional. There is no way for this to be a good thing. I know this because I've seen authors do it again and again, many of them having no idea the can of worms they're opening when they respond to or talk about a negative review online.
On the flip side, here's what you can do as an author.
You can cry. Or scream. Or whatever it is you do when you're sad or angry.
You can rant to your close friends, mother, spouse, or another trusted person.
You can decide that reviewer is stupid and ugly and you never liked them anyway. Just don't actually tell this to people. Keep your mean thoughts to yourself and those closest to you.
Additionally there's something else an author can do. I know that different reviewers have different thoughts about this, but if you really feel offended by something in a review -- if you honestly, honestly think the reviewer was attacking you and not your book, approaching them privately via email might not be the worst idea. But if you do this, choose your words carefully. It's one thing to say: I'm sure you didn't mean this personally, but what you said about my looks/beliefs/intelligence/family/whatever came across as personally offensive and saying something like: It's not nice to say [whatever it is they said]; that's not what a book review is supposed to be.
Again, different reviewers have different thoughts when it comes to this type of approach. Personally, I never mean to offend anybody and if I do, even if it's in a critical review that authors shouldn't comment on, I wouldn't be upset at this being brought to my attention. And I have a feeling that many other reviewers probably feel the same.
Reviewers and authors (and everyone!): what are your thoughts on an author responding to a negative review? Additionally, though I didn't discuss it in this post -- when do you think a review crosses the line between being critical of the book and being critical about the author? And is it okay for a reviewer to cross that line?
But today I want to talk about something else, and that is the more widespread issue of authors responding (or not responding) to negative reviews.
As a reviewer and a reader, there are some books I don't like. There are books (though not many, thankfully) that I hate. There are plenty of books I don't care enough about to finish. I'm hones in my reviews and if I don't like something, I'll talk about it. I don't usually rant or get too personal/emotional (though I can think of an exception to this). I should also mention that I've never had an author personally get upset at me for a review of their book. I like to think that this is because my reviews are non-inflammatory, but the more realistic option is probably just that the authors I review critically/negatively either don't see my reviews or handle criticism well.
Authors, from a reviewer's POV, that negative review is not about you. It's not. It's about this book that they spent their time and money -- or if not their money, at least their time -- on and that disappointed them or annoyed them or, okay in some cases, even angered them. It's not about you, sitting behind your computer, writing this book that they didn't like.
It's easy for me to say that. I'm not an author.
But from my perspective, there are certain things you can and can't (or at least, shouldn't) do when you get a negative review.
Do not comment on it.
Do not write a blog post about it.
Do not tweet about it.
Because no matter how innocuous and "not mean" you think that comment/post/status update is, the reviewer or one of their friends or a potential reader is going to read it and think you're a little bit crazy maybe and definitely a lot unprofessional. There is no way for this to be a good thing. I know this because I've seen authors do it again and again, many of them having no idea the can of worms they're opening when they respond to or talk about a negative review online.
On the flip side, here's what you can do as an author.
You can cry. Or scream. Or whatever it is you do when you're sad or angry.
You can rant to your close friends, mother, spouse, or another trusted person.
You can decide that reviewer is stupid and ugly and you never liked them anyway. Just don't actually tell this to people. Keep your mean thoughts to yourself and those closest to you.
Additionally there's something else an author can do. I know that different reviewers have different thoughts about this, but if you really feel offended by something in a review -- if you honestly, honestly think the reviewer was attacking you and not your book, approaching them privately via email might not be the worst idea. But if you do this, choose your words carefully. It's one thing to say: I'm sure you didn't mean this personally, but what you said about my looks/beliefs/intelligence/family/whatever came across as personally offensive and saying something like: It's not nice to say [whatever it is they said]; that's not what a book review is supposed to be.
Again, different reviewers have different thoughts when it comes to this type of approach. Personally, I never mean to offend anybody and if I do, even if it's in a critical review that authors shouldn't comment on, I wouldn't be upset at this being brought to my attention. And I have a feeling that many other reviewers probably feel the same.
Reviewers and authors (and everyone!): what are your thoughts on an author responding to a negative review? Additionally, though I didn't discuss it in this post -- when do you think a review crosses the line between being critical of the book and being critical about the author? And is it okay for a reviewer to cross that line?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
My Rambling Post on Love Triangles in YA
(via PublicDomainPictures.net)
I keep reading reviews and articles about The Hunger Games movie and I really shouldn't because I inevitably read the comments and find people who...
{{SPOILER ALERT}}
...think that Katniss should have killed Peeta at the end of the Games and/or that the only reason she didn't was because Suzanne Collins knew her audience and knew that a YA series needs a "juicy love triangle."
Now, my gut reaction to comments like that is something along the lines of NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, like a small, angry child. But then I keep reading and thinking and, hey, here's a question: Does YA need love triangles? No, wait, better question, because of course it doesn't need love triangles; there are plenty of YA books and series without them. But what's the deal with love triangles? And, on a more personal level, do I like books better when this element is present?
I'll be the first to admit there are books and series where I absolutely love the "love triangle" (even if I think the term itself is a bit ridiculous) and The Hunger Games series fits the bill. One of my favorite elements of that series is the love aspect and the complications that arise from Katniss' relationships and complex feelings about both boys. To me, it went beyond your typical "romance" in that, romantic or not, there were incredibly strong feelings and dynamics at play with the three of them. Another series where I love the "triangle" aspect is Jenny Han's Summer series (The Summer I Turned Pretty; It's Not Summer Without You; and We'll Always Have Summer). This is another story where that storyline was written incredibly well and the relationships and characters within it treated with real insight and respect. As in Katniss' case, there were real, complicated-but-strong feelings and dynamics at play.
In those books it works. And it works so, so well.
But then there are tons of books, even ones I really like, where the love triangle is something I couldn't care less about. Sometimes it's because apart from the central character, the two love interests have no personalities or their own, or sometimes just because it's obvious from the outset who the protagonist is going to end up with and the hurdles that get in the way present no real challenge. Twilight is a perfect example of this: we know Bella's going to end up with Edward. It's not even a question. Jacob isn't so much a romantic rival as he is a boy with a crush. If I were describing the bare bones of this series to someone who'd never heard of it, I'd have to mention Edward, but I wouldn't have to mention Jacob. It's not a love triangle, not really.
Which brings up this other, sort-of-related point that's been in my head for a while: in real life, "love triangles" are rarely one girl torn between two boys who are unendingly devoted to and in love with her. No, in real life it's more like A(my) likes B(ryan), who likes (C)helsea. And probably, Chelsea likes someone else. There's rarely a happy ending, at least within those three characters/people. There's more ambiguity in real life, and I like that ambiguity reflected in the romance storylines of books, whether or not the romance is part of a triangle. Books like Bittersweet (which has a love triangle) and The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks (which does not have a love triangle, no matter how much I wanted Frankie to end up with Alpha) capture that ambiguity well, making the romance and the book itself stronger for it.
So, no, YA books don't "need" love triangles. Or rather: not all of them do. Most don't. Some don't need a romance at all (and I'd love to see more books like this). But when it's done right, when all of the characters are important and the relationships are well-crafted, books with this element that has become almost cliche in YA can be pretty amazing.
What are your thoughts on love triangles in YA?
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Sisterhood Everlasting and Series Thoughts
Reading Sisterhood Everlasting, the "fifth" book in the series that begun with The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, was a bit of a surreal, strange experience for me. Like many YA readers in their 20s, I read the Traveling Pants series as a teenager and was deeply, deeply invested in the lives of Lena, Tibby, Carmen, and Bridget. They were and are such well-written characters, so complex and intricately developed, that it was almost impossible to not be swept away in their lives and struggles.
I loved that series. Loved it. There was no way for me to not read the fifth book, the grown-up book, the one that can exist as a stand-alone if you haven't read the other four. But reading it there was something wrong. These girls had gone through so much, and now they were going through even more. And it was, to a certain extent, more of the same. The issues and struggles the girls went through were similar to, if not the same as, ones they'd battled in the series.
It made me think that as much as I love these characters and as interested as I was to know where they ended up, maybe it's okay to leave them in the past. Because another book means more troubles, more drama, and to a certain extent it has to be contrived, doesn't it? In order to keep the same style/voice/mood/whatever of the series? With this series, I felt like it sort of did.
And I thought of what Gayle Forman has said in response to reader requests for a third Mia and Adam book. It's brilliant and right on the nose. I really encourage you to read this post, by Gayle Forman (especially the fifth, sixth, and seventh questions) because it says so much about stories and series that's really smart. She's talking specifically about If I Stay and Where She Went, but I think it applies so well to many contemporary series and stories.
I loved that series. Loved it. There was no way for me to not read the fifth book, the grown-up book, the one that can exist as a stand-alone if you haven't read the other four. But reading it there was something wrong. These girls had gone through so much, and now they were going through even more. And it was, to a certain extent, more of the same. The issues and struggles the girls went through were similar to, if not the same as, ones they'd battled in the series.
It made me think that as much as I love these characters and as interested as I was to know where they ended up, maybe it's okay to leave them in the past. Because another book means more troubles, more drama, and to a certain extent it has to be contrived, doesn't it? In order to keep the same style/voice/mood/whatever of the series? With this series, I felt like it sort of did.
And I thought of what Gayle Forman has said in response to reader requests for a third Mia and Adam book. It's brilliant and right on the nose. I really encourage you to read this post, by Gayle Forman (especially the fifth, sixth, and seventh questions) because it says so much about stories and series that's really smart. She's talking specifically about If I Stay and Where She Went, but I think it applies so well to many contemporary series and stories.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Talking Copyright, Artwork, and Pinterest/Tumblr
I want to talk about copyright.
But first some disclosure here: I'm not a lawyer. I've never even taken a class on copyright; I only know some about it because the topic has always interested me and I've looked up various laws regarding sharing, fair use, and copyright holding before. An article about Pinterest that I found via author Tahereh Mafi's twitter got me thinking about the issue once again, as I do every once in a while, especially with sites like tumblr., weheartit, and now Pinterest.
The thing about these sites (and Pinterest is included only because many of the photos pinned are from tumblr/weheartit) is that there are a ton of really, really pretty pictures. For writers looking for inspiration, they're a gold mine. I, and many other published/unpublished writers have Pinterest boards dedicated to our various stories/books. The way Pinterest works is when you "pin" something to your pinboard, it automatically links back to the original site and includes a link below as credit. No problem. Right?
Wrong.
Aside from the fact that, according to Pinterest's Terms of Use, individuals are responsible for getting permission from the rights-holder to pin/repin images (and, I'd assume, other creative works such as writing and videos -- but for simplicity's sake let's just focus on images), there's also the issue of where these images are coming from. I use both tumblr and weheartit and have rarely, if ever, found images that are properly credited on either site. Tumblr in particular is tricky to link back to or give credit. Even if the artist/rights-holder is on tumblr, linking back to the original site only leads to the user's dashboard or tumblog -- not an individual post. This makes it nearly impossible to find the original source for an image.
It's a bigger problem than just getting permission or providing credit to the artist; when you can't find the original source, posting, pinning, repinning, or reblogging an image throws you into murky legal -- and moral -- waters.
Legally, can you be sued for pinning an image to Pinterest without proper permission? Even if you don't know who to get permission from in the first place? I'm not a lawyer, but from the article I read (written by a lawyer) and what I've learned about copyright laws I feel pretty comfortable saying, "yeah, probably." It can probably happen, but that doesn't mean it will probably happen.
Morally is it okay to pin or post an image without having permission from the artist? Is this the same as stealing? Even if you're not doing anything with the image other than (in the case of me and other writers I know) using it as your own inspiration? This is a tricky area for me. I don't illegally download music. I don't illegally download or stream tv shows or movies. I firmly believe that unless the artists are making their work available for free, I shouldn't be taking it. Because making art is work. People deserve to be paid for this work. They deserve to have a measure of control over it. What they don't deserve is me taking it because it's easy and available and I maybe don't have the money at that moment to get it through the right and legal channels. (Note that I know these issues are pretty big moral grey areas. I'm not trying to judge anyone else for what they do/don't do, but simply stating the views I hold for myself.)
But images posted on the internet, easily available, with no source to gain permission from or link back to -- is that different? It does change the equation a little bit, I think, though to be honest I'm not sure how or why. Is it because not being able to find an original source might, you could argue, show that the artist intends their images for the public? Is it because I am not taking these images -- not printing them or downloading them or storing them anywhere on my computer -- and only have them on a website?
Or is it only different because I want it to be different? Because I like having boards full of inspiration for my stories, like having an easy way to access images that are important to me? I don't know. I don't know and this post isn't meant to give anyone advice nor chastise anyone for their online habits regarding creative works. It's more meant to be a springboard for what I hope will be a discussion of the topic. I don't think I'll be sued, though I do think it's a remote possibility. What bothers me more than the legal grey area is the ethical grey area here.
The lawyer who wrote the article I linked to at the beginning of this post has deleted all of her Pinterest boards. I'm not quite there yet, but I do think the topic of reblogged and found images (especially those that seem to have no original source) is a copyright conversation that needs to happen. I think that everyone who is an artist, who makes creative work, has a stake in this sort of dialogue.
So what are your thoughts?
But first some disclosure here: I'm not a lawyer. I've never even taken a class on copyright; I only know some about it because the topic has always interested me and I've looked up various laws regarding sharing, fair use, and copyright holding before. An article about Pinterest that I found via author Tahereh Mafi's twitter got me thinking about the issue once again, as I do every once in a while, especially with sites like tumblr., weheartit, and now Pinterest.
The thing about these sites (and Pinterest is included only because many of the photos pinned are from tumblr/weheartit) is that there are a ton of really, really pretty pictures. For writers looking for inspiration, they're a gold mine. I, and many other published/unpublished writers have Pinterest boards dedicated to our various stories/books. The way Pinterest works is when you "pin" something to your pinboard, it automatically links back to the original site and includes a link below as credit. No problem. Right?
Wrong.
Aside from the fact that, according to Pinterest's Terms of Use, individuals are responsible for getting permission from the rights-holder to pin/repin images (and, I'd assume, other creative works such as writing and videos -- but for simplicity's sake let's just focus on images), there's also the issue of where these images are coming from. I use both tumblr and weheartit and have rarely, if ever, found images that are properly credited on either site. Tumblr in particular is tricky to link back to or give credit. Even if the artist/rights-holder is on tumblr, linking back to the original site only leads to the user's dashboard or tumblog -- not an individual post. This makes it nearly impossible to find the original source for an image.
It's a bigger problem than just getting permission or providing credit to the artist; when you can't find the original source, posting, pinning, repinning, or reblogging an image throws you into murky legal -- and moral -- waters.
Legally, can you be sued for pinning an image to Pinterest without proper permission? Even if you don't know who to get permission from in the first place? I'm not a lawyer, but from the article I read (written by a lawyer) and what I've learned about copyright laws I feel pretty comfortable saying, "yeah, probably." It can probably happen, but that doesn't mean it will probably happen.
Morally is it okay to pin or post an image without having permission from the artist? Is this the same as stealing? Even if you're not doing anything with the image other than (in the case of me and other writers I know) using it as your own inspiration? This is a tricky area for me. I don't illegally download music. I don't illegally download or stream tv shows or movies. I firmly believe that unless the artists are making their work available for free, I shouldn't be taking it. Because making art is work. People deserve to be paid for this work. They deserve to have a measure of control over it. What they don't deserve is me taking it because it's easy and available and I maybe don't have the money at that moment to get it through the right and legal channels. (Note that I know these issues are pretty big moral grey areas. I'm not trying to judge anyone else for what they do/don't do, but simply stating the views I hold for myself.)
But images posted on the internet, easily available, with no source to gain permission from or link back to -- is that different? It does change the equation a little bit, I think, though to be honest I'm not sure how or why. Is it because not being able to find an original source might, you could argue, show that the artist intends their images for the public? Is it because I am not taking these images -- not printing them or downloading them or storing them anywhere on my computer -- and only have them on a website?
Or is it only different because I want it to be different? Because I like having boards full of inspiration for my stories, like having an easy way to access images that are important to me? I don't know. I don't know and this post isn't meant to give anyone advice nor chastise anyone for their online habits regarding creative works. It's more meant to be a springboard for what I hope will be a discussion of the topic. I don't think I'll be sued, though I do think it's a remote possibility. What bothers me more than the legal grey area is the ethical grey area here.
The lawyer who wrote the article I linked to at the beginning of this post has deleted all of her Pinterest boards. I'm not quite there yet, but I do think the topic of reblogged and found images (especially those that seem to have no original source) is a copyright conversation that needs to happen. I think that everyone who is an artist, who makes creative work, has a stake in this sort of dialogue.
So what are your thoughts?
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Such Interesting Questions, Young Reader!
In reading reviews for a certain YA book I came across one Goodreads reviewer who, though they didn't particularly care for the book itself, thought that it brought up some good questions to discuss with young adults. My first thought in reading this was something along the lines of, well, that's kind of crap. I mean, are the teenagers supposed to read this book that isn't very good just because there are some good questions for them in it?
Then I thought: self, hold up a second.
Isn't it true that sometimes the books that have good questions in them, interesting things to think about, aren't necessarily the ones we five-star and rave about? Take The Future of Us for instance: I liked that book. Liked, but didn't love. I thought there were some big flaws and it often came across as unintentionally funny; as if I were laughing at the book instead of with it. Still, I couldn't help but think that wow, the book was bringing up some really interesting topics. In my review I mentioned the questions of changing your future.
Like I said, The Future of Us was a good book and I enjoyed it, but what if you don't enjoy a book? Is it worth reading a book with plot, characters, or both that you don't like, if it raises interesting questions? And if so, is this more important as a teenager than a grown person?
As far as fiction is concerned we read (or at least, I read) for the stories. But should we sometimes be reading for the questions/topics instead? What are your thoughts on this?
Then I thought: self, hold up a second.
Isn't it true that sometimes the books that have good questions in them, interesting things to think about, aren't necessarily the ones we five-star and rave about? Take The Future of Us for instance: I liked that book. Liked, but didn't love. I thought there were some big flaws and it often came across as unintentionally funny; as if I were laughing at the book instead of with it. Still, I couldn't help but think that wow, the book was bringing up some really interesting topics. In my review I mentioned the questions of changing your future.
Like I said, The Future of Us was a good book and I enjoyed it, but what if you don't enjoy a book? Is it worth reading a book with plot, characters, or both that you don't like, if it raises interesting questions? And if so, is this more important as a teenager than a grown person?
As far as fiction is concerned we read (or at least, I read) for the stories. But should we sometimes be reading for the questions/topics instead? What are your thoughts on this?
Thursday, September 29, 2011
On Titles
Whenever I try to do a post on titles it turns into a mess, but the truth is that titles intrigue me. Especially titles for books that aren't out yet and might not even have a title or synopsis. For those of us who follow our favorite authors on Twitter and their blogs, a title is often the first we find out about any upcoming books and I often find myself adding books to my wishlist based solely on the author and title. And then, once I read a book, the title often takes on a slightly new meaning. The book either lives down or lives up to its title, depending on how good the story and title are.
Here are some titles to a few books I've read somewhat recently.
Jessie <3 NYC - Honestly, even if I hadn't read Keris Stainton's previous novel and wasn't already a fan of her having talked to her a bit on Twitter, I still would have wanted to read this based on the title alone. It's so cute! So New-York-y and also a bit internet-y at the same time
The Day Before - I'm sure this title is probably one meant to provoke questions (the day before what, exactly?) but for me it just hit as a very bland title, similar to Sometimes It Happens. What drew me to this book instead was the fact that I like the author (are we sensing a trend here?) and the fact that the book is told in verse, which I love.
Before I Fall - You guys, it took way too long for me to actually "get" this title, but now that I do I absolutely love it and think it fits the book perfectly.
How to Say Goodbye in Robot - This is one of those titles that I completely love and it was a huge part of the reason I wanted to read the book in the first place. And it does fit the story, but I think the title is, overall, better than the book, which always leaves me with a strange feeling of unmet potential.
So what about you guys - do you pay attention to titles? And if so, how much? Does it affect your reading/buying habits? What are some of your favorite titles?
Here are some titles to a few books I've read somewhat recently.
Jessie <3 NYC - Honestly, even if I hadn't read Keris Stainton's previous novel and wasn't already a fan of her having talked to her a bit on Twitter, I still would have wanted to read this based on the title alone. It's so cute! So New-York-y and also a bit internet-y at the same time
The Day Before - I'm sure this title is probably one meant to provoke questions (the day before what, exactly?) but for me it just hit as a very bland title, similar to Sometimes It Happens. What drew me to this book instead was the fact that I like the author (are we sensing a trend here?) and the fact that the book is told in verse, which I love.
Before I Fall - You guys, it took way too long for me to actually "get" this title, but now that I do I absolutely love it and think it fits the book perfectly.
How to Say Goodbye in Robot - This is one of those titles that I completely love and it was a huge part of the reason I wanted to read the book in the first place. And it does fit the story, but I think the title is, overall, better than the book, which always leaves me with a strange feeling of unmet potential.
So what about you guys - do you pay attention to titles? And if so, how much? Does it affect your reading/buying habits? What are some of your favorite titles?
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Crazy Shenanigans in Books vs. Movies and Television
Last month I read Susanne Colasanti's latest novel, So Much Closer. In it, a girl finds out her longtime crush is moving to New York City, so she follows him there and enrolls at his new school in the hopes that he'll notice, and fall in love with, her. It's not a bad book, but the entire time I found myself thinking about how unbelievably unrealistic the whole thing was. I mean, really? It just seems crazy. The whole time I was thinking about how insane this character is and how I couldn't believe what she was doing.
It just wasn't very believable.
And then Saturday night I watched television. More specifically, I watched iCarly and then Legally Blonde, both of which I love. In the first, a girl checked herself into a mental institution because she likes a boy. And I assume everyone has seen Legally Blonde, but on the off chance you haven't, she follows her ex-boyfriend to law school in order to become a lawyer so that he'll go out with her again and ask her to marry him. Now, these things are equally as unbelievable as the plot of So Much Closer, but I accepted them so much easier. A mental hospital? From vapid sorority girl to law school student? No problem.
And the craziness doesn't stop there. In Pushing Daisies, a character joins a convent to get away from the guy she's in love with (and also there's a dead girl who's never recognized by her family, but that's another type of crazy); Lizzie McGuire passed for an Italian pop star for, like, a long time. And I easily went along with those things.
So why is it that the most unbelievable (and, let's face it, usually pretty stupid) things happen in a TV show or movie, but when similar things happen in books it's so difficult to get past? All of the shows and movies I mentioned? Love them. The book? Well, the idea that The Office references were so obscure people wouldn't get them was my breaking point.
There is something wrong here, some disconnect between the fictional stories we see on television and the ones we read in books. Is it because the on-screen stories are comedies while most books aren't? Maybe, but even those books that are comedies couldn't get away with the type of storylines and character choices we see here. There are some things not even Scarlett and Spencer Martin can make believable and realistic.
And if it's not comedy, what is it? Is it easier to accept that worlds, though they look like our own, are their own universes when those worlds are shown on screen instead of in pages? Is it easier, somehow, to nitpick books? Are story mediums like television and movies more about escapism, whereas books are about relating? I don't know, but the more I think about it the more interesting the question becomes.
What do you think? Is it easier for you to accept the crazy things characters do if those characters are in TV/movies instead of books? And why?
It just wasn't very believable.
And then Saturday night I watched television. More specifically, I watched iCarly and then Legally Blonde, both of which I love. In the first, a girl checked herself into a mental institution because she likes a boy. And I assume everyone has seen Legally Blonde, but on the off chance you haven't, she follows her ex-boyfriend to law school in order to become a lawyer so that he'll go out with her again and ask her to marry him. Now, these things are equally as unbelievable as the plot of So Much Closer, but I accepted them so much easier. A mental hospital? From vapid sorority girl to law school student? No problem.
And the craziness doesn't stop there. In Pushing Daisies, a character joins a convent to get away from the guy she's in love with (and also there's a dead girl who's never recognized by her family, but that's another type of crazy); Lizzie McGuire passed for an Italian pop star for, like, a long time. And I easily went along with those things.
So why is it that the most unbelievable (and, let's face it, usually pretty stupid) things happen in a TV show or movie, but when similar things happen in books it's so difficult to get past? All of the shows and movies I mentioned? Love them. The book? Well, the idea that The Office references were so obscure people wouldn't get them was my breaking point.
There is something wrong here, some disconnect between the fictional stories we see on television and the ones we read in books. Is it because the on-screen stories are comedies while most books aren't? Maybe, but even those books that are comedies couldn't get away with the type of storylines and character choices we see here. There are some things not even Scarlett and Spencer Martin can make believable and realistic.
And if it's not comedy, what is it? Is it easier to accept that worlds, though they look like our own, are their own universes when those worlds are shown on screen instead of in pages? Is it easier, somehow, to nitpick books? Are story mediums like television and movies more about escapism, whereas books are about relating? I don't know, but the more I think about it the more interesting the question becomes.
What do you think? Is it easier for you to accept the crazy things characters do if those characters are in TV/movies instead of books? And why?
Monday, August 8, 2011
The Imperfection of My Reviews
So recently I read this book and OH MY GOODNESS, it was sort of like listening to Band of Horses and drinking hot chocolate with salt and caramel. In other words, I loved it. If I'd reviewed the book according to how I felt about it, there would have probably just been a picture of me hugging the book. Because there are those books you just want to hug, right? (I am not crazy.)
The thing is though, I try hard not to review books based purely on how I felt about them, because not only is it often hard to turn feelings to words, but more importantly, I'm not reviewing just for me. I'm reviewing for other readers who may or may not have the same tastes as I do, who might know nothing about the book, who might love that book or might love one that I couldn't stand. I don't want to say this book was good and this book was bad, but rather here's what you should know about this book and here's what I thought was done well, not well, different, etc. This means that even when I absolutely love a book the review is sometimes/often more neutral, more... even-keeled.
If the pace is slow, I mention that. If the writing style is one not everyone will appreciate, I mention that. Same if the dialogue feels stilted or subplots feel contrived.
But I'm also going to mention if the relationships are great, if there's a well-written family element, if the writing is beautiful. And often, for me, these things will far outweigh the weaker points. But I'm not every reader; I'm just me. Which means that the books I love don't always get perfect reviews. And the ones I don't love sometimes get better reviews than I'd give if I were going off of just how I feel about the book.
This doesn't mean my reviews aren't honest, because they are, 100%. But they're also more logical and thought-out than how I instinctively feel toward the books. They're critical. The books I absolutely love, regardless of review, are in bold over here. (And, of course, on my ace-list shelf on Goodreads.)
And what about you, fellow book bloggers? Do your reviews always reflect how you feel about a book or is there sometimes discrepancy?
The thing is though, I try hard not to review books based purely on how I felt about them, because not only is it often hard to turn feelings to words, but more importantly, I'm not reviewing just for me. I'm reviewing for other readers who may or may not have the same tastes as I do, who might know nothing about the book, who might love that book or might love one that I couldn't stand. I don't want to say this book was good and this book was bad, but rather here's what you should know about this book and here's what I thought was done well, not well, different, etc. This means that even when I absolutely love a book the review is sometimes/often more neutral, more... even-keeled.
If the pace is slow, I mention that. If the writing style is one not everyone will appreciate, I mention that. Same if the dialogue feels stilted or subplots feel contrived.
But I'm also going to mention if the relationships are great, if there's a well-written family element, if the writing is beautiful. And often, for me, these things will far outweigh the weaker points. But I'm not every reader; I'm just me. Which means that the books I love don't always get perfect reviews. And the ones I don't love sometimes get better reviews than I'd give if I were going off of just how I feel about the book.
This doesn't mean my reviews aren't honest, because they are, 100%. But they're also more logical and thought-out than how I instinctively feel toward the books. They're critical. The books I absolutely love, regardless of review, are in bold over here. (And, of course, on my ace-list shelf on Goodreads.)
And what about you, fellow book bloggers? Do your reviews always reflect how you feel about a book or is there sometimes discrepancy?
Monday, July 25, 2011
My Average Stars
One of the comments on my post about Goodreads reviews was really interesting to me. In it, Anonymous said...
So I looked at the books I've read in 2011.
79 books, not including a couple of ones I didn't rate and another that was a reread. My average rating for those 79 books is 3.3 stars. Well within this prescribed range.
But then I started to break it up by genre. Adult, Young Adult, Middle Grade, Children's, and Non Fiction. And this is where the ratings started to get a little funny, to not accurately reflect how much I like each genre.
Children's: 3.7
Middle Grade: 3.2
Young Adult: 2.8
Adult: 2.3Non Fiction: 4.8
I know. YOUR MIND IS BOGGLED. Honestly, so was mine. How could my average rating for non fiction be nearly perfect when the rating for YA wasn't even a solid 3.0?
Here's how:
Children's: The Children's books were six picture books and of course they were all adorable, so it was easy to give them high ratings.
Middle Grade: Again, there weren't many books. Only six and this is because I find it incredibly easy to not finish middle grade novels. Many of them are slow-moving and easily lose my interest. Typically if I finish one, it's because I really enjoyed it.
Young Adult: I read a ton of YA novels. The vast majority of the books I've read this year are YA and in a paradoxical way, because I love the genre so much and I'm less likely to not finish a book, I end up reading a lot more so-so YA compared to other genres.
Non Fiction: I've only read four Non Fiction books and with only one exception they were pretty light books. More importantly, they were books I really really wanted to read. For the most part I became enthralled with these books, absolutely amazed. None of them were books I picked up on a whim. So it's no wonder the score was so high.
Aside from the 3.7 average for children's books, none of these are within the range of 3.25-3.75. And now I'm wondering if this does mean I hate too much, or if it's just that I use the star ratings a bit differently than the person who left the comment. Or if maybe the only average that counts is that of all books, not just each individual genre.
I'd love to hear what others think of average ratings, so... thoughts on this?
...I generally don't trust anyone whose average rating isn't between 3.25 - 3.75 stars. Any less, you're hating too much. Any more, you're constantly spewing love.This interested me for many reasons, one of them being that, if you go by Goodreads' "guidelines" for their stars (which I use), three stars means that you liked a book and it's not until you get down to one star that you're saying you didn't like a book. And also I wanted to see where my reviews fell.
So I looked at the books I've read in 2011.
79 books, not including a couple of ones I didn't rate and another that was a reread. My average rating for those 79 books is 3.3 stars. Well within this prescribed range.
But then I started to break it up by genre. Adult, Young Adult, Middle Grade, Children's, and Non Fiction. And this is where the ratings started to get a little funny, to not accurately reflect how much I like each genre.
Children's: 3.7
Middle Grade: 3.2
Young Adult: 2.8
Adult: 2.3Non Fiction: 4.8
I know. YOUR MIND IS BOGGLED. Honestly, so was mine. How could my average rating for non fiction be nearly perfect when the rating for YA wasn't even a solid 3.0?
Here's how:
Children's: The Children's books were six picture books and of course they were all adorable, so it was easy to give them high ratings.
Middle Grade: Again, there weren't many books. Only six and this is because I find it incredibly easy to not finish middle grade novels. Many of them are slow-moving and easily lose my interest. Typically if I finish one, it's because I really enjoyed it.
Young Adult: I read a ton of YA novels. The vast majority of the books I've read this year are YA and in a paradoxical way, because I love the genre so much and I'm less likely to not finish a book, I end up reading a lot more so-so YA compared to other genres.
Non Fiction: I've only read four Non Fiction books and with only one exception they were pretty light books. More importantly, they were books I really really wanted to read. For the most part I became enthralled with these books, absolutely amazed. None of them were books I picked up on a whim. So it's no wonder the score was so high.
Aside from the 3.7 average for children's books, none of these are within the range of 3.25-3.75. And now I'm wondering if this does mean I hate too much, or if it's just that I use the star ratings a bit differently than the person who left the comment. Or if maybe the only average that counts is that of all books, not just each individual genre.
I'd love to hear what others think of average ratings, so... thoughts on this?
Saturday, July 23, 2011
YA and Age
One of the main marks of a Young Adult novel is the age of the protagonist - somewhere between 13 and 18. Sometimes, but rarely, is the main character as young as 12 (these books often fall into the Middle Grade genre). But what about those YAs with protagonists who are older than 18, either at the book's start or by its end. I can think of three books off the top of my head where this happens.
Hooked, by Catherine Greenman - Though not out yet, this book follows Thea Galehouse as she becomes pregnant as a teenager (18) and moves in with her college boyfriend to raise the baby. A mother's love for her child is one of the biggest themes here and, let's face it, this isn't a teenage theme. Thea's identity becomes that of a mom before she really has a chance to develop her own identity as a person. A few times during the course of the book I wondered if it really fit as a YA novel or if the story is better suited to that broad category of general fiction. While some of the themes are the adolescent issues of first love and relationships with parents as well as changing friendships, others - like the motherhood issue - are more adult. Thea starts the story as an eighteen year old but ends years later as a young 20-ish woman.
Other Words for Love, by Lorraine Zago Rosenthal - This novel, in most ways, fits age and theme-wise into the loose guidelines of YA. It covers first love, friendships, and identity. Still, by the end of the story Ari is looking back on her teen years and the events that helped change her, which is decidedly different from most YA novels that take place in the present, not past, of a character's life.
I Now Pronounce You Someone Else, by Erin McCahan - Like Hooked this book also tackles themes and events that aren't typically teenage. Bronwen doesn't have a baby, but she does get engaged during her senior year of high school. Marriage, or at least the time leading up to marriage, isn't something most YA novels tackle. (Because, really, why would they?) And, like Other Words for Love, it ends by giving us a glimpse of Bronwen's life post-high school. Tying up the loose ends, if you will.
Are these novels YA?
Yes. And no. Really it depends on how we're defining YA (which is a conversation I find endlessly fascinating). Hooked takes the most liberty with the protagonist's age, which is often the guideline most talked about when it comes to "defining" the genre. But I think it's more complicated than just age. Or even than age and themes discussed. There's a certain feeling to YA stories that, though impossible to explain, is very different from general fiction. There's an immediacy, no matter what tense or person the story is told in. Even Other Words for Love, with its hazy atmosphere and post-teenage ending has that kind of feeling throughout Ari's story.
So are these books YA? In some ways they aren't, maybe, but overall... yes. I think so. But, if you've read either of these books... what do you think? Do you think there are YA novels that really aren't YA? Why? What's your "definition" of YA? (My own definition - of sorts - is over here.)
Hooked, by Catherine Greenman - Though not out yet, this book follows Thea Galehouse as she becomes pregnant as a teenager (18) and moves in with her college boyfriend to raise the baby. A mother's love for her child is one of the biggest themes here and, let's face it, this isn't a teenage theme. Thea's identity becomes that of a mom before she really has a chance to develop her own identity as a person. A few times during the course of the book I wondered if it really fit as a YA novel or if the story is better suited to that broad category of general fiction. While some of the themes are the adolescent issues of first love and relationships with parents as well as changing friendships, others - like the motherhood issue - are more adult. Thea starts the story as an eighteen year old but ends years later as a young 20-ish woman.
Other Words for Love, by Lorraine Zago Rosenthal - This novel, in most ways, fits age and theme-wise into the loose guidelines of YA. It covers first love, friendships, and identity. Still, by the end of the story Ari is looking back on her teen years and the events that helped change her, which is decidedly different from most YA novels that take place in the present, not past, of a character's life.
I Now Pronounce You Someone Else, by Erin McCahan - Like Hooked this book also tackles themes and events that aren't typically teenage. Bronwen doesn't have a baby, but she does get engaged during her senior year of high school. Marriage, or at least the time leading up to marriage, isn't something most YA novels tackle. (Because, really, why would they?) And, like Other Words for Love, it ends by giving us a glimpse of Bronwen's life post-high school. Tying up the loose ends, if you will.
Are these novels YA?
Yes. And no. Really it depends on how we're defining YA (which is a conversation I find endlessly fascinating). Hooked takes the most liberty with the protagonist's age, which is often the guideline most talked about when it comes to "defining" the genre. But I think it's more complicated than just age. Or even than age and themes discussed. There's a certain feeling to YA stories that, though impossible to explain, is very different from general fiction. There's an immediacy, no matter what tense or person the story is told in. Even Other Words for Love, with its hazy atmosphere and post-teenage ending has that kind of feeling throughout Ari's story.
So are these books YA? In some ways they aren't, maybe, but overall... yes. I think so. But, if you've read either of these books... what do you think? Do you think there are YA novels that really aren't YA? Why? What's your "definition" of YA? (My own definition - of sorts - is over here.)
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Goodreads and the Review
Though it took me a while to see the value in it, I now use Goodreads constantly. I love the website but have seen many authors who definitely don't love the site and it's not hard to see why. While Goodreads is essentially a book-centric Facebook that's great for browsing books, keeping track of what you've read, and seeing what your friends are reading, there's a decidedly uncool downside to it that's been apparent to me for a while now.
And that is this: Goodreads, for some reason, lends itself to reviewers being absolutely ruthless. Not ruthless in the brutal, honest way but in a needlessly negative and mean-spirited way. While most bloggers are, if not nice, at least tactful in the reviews they post to their blogs, some are less so on Goodreads. It's not uncommon to see Goodreads reviews that bash not only the book, but also the author -- as a writer and, sometimes, as a person.
It's disconcerting on a few levels.
For one thing, I get now why so many authors seem to be anti-Goodreads. Though I think it's a great tool as a reader and will probably never stop using it as a reader, I also know how easy it is to stumble upon absolutely cringeworthy reviews and/or comments. And I know if those were my books getting the beat down I'd definitely want to hide under the blankets with lots of loud music to distract me from the outside world. There's nothing wrong, as a reader, with disliking a book, negatively reviewing it or even giving a scathing, bashing review. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of this, I think. It could be seen as mean or it could be seen as critical analysis of books that (at least in the reviewer's opinion) aren't very good.
The problem -- and it's nobody's fault -- is that Goodreads is a strange little cross-section of the internet. It's reader-centric, but not reader-exclusive. Many authors have profiles and the meeting of authors, readers, and books makes it incredibly easy both for authors to find their negative reviews (either accidentally or accidentally-on-purpose) or for readers to complain and commiserate about a particular book or author's failings. In some ways I feel like the culture of Goodreads lends itself to more negativity than you'd find on book blogs or even Amazon reviews. On Goodreads it's as much about the readers as it is the book. And since readers are people and people sometimes like to complain together... well, you see what happens.
On another level there's a trend I've seen for a while that, as a reader, saddens me. It's reviewers who seem to be habitually unhappy with the books they read. Usually these are people who stick with a few genres or subgenres (fantasy, for instance, or dystopian) and -- seemingly without fail -- find the books they read horribly lacking. Either the characters were flat and cliche or the writing was subpar or details of the world-building just didn't work. These are all legitimate issues in books and I've complained about them myself in certain books. But with some readers there's a sense of superiority and the underlying message that they're better than the authors they're reading, the books being published today, the books they choose to read. It often culminates in bashing of the author or the entire genre in the review itself or comments below.
Even if I haven't read the book in question it often leaves me feeling a bit upset and I can't help but think if you're finding these huge, overwhelming problems in every single book in a certain genre, maybe you don't actually like the genre. Maybe the books just aren't a good fit for you. Maybe you used to like it and now you don't. Maybe it's time to find books you're going to enjoy, even if they're outside of your comfort zone. It makes me feel like readers are needlessly and consistently exposing themselves to books it's obvious they hate and then what's the point? After eighteen years of reading I don't know what the aim of this activity should be, but I know it shouldn't make you angry and hateful towards others.
Authors work hard on their words that, sadly, end up being a "product." It's one thing to critically review a book, point out its flaws, even rip it a new one if you think the book deserves it. But it's something else entirely to also bash the author and infuse your words with what comes off as disgust and a spiteful, superior attitude. There's something to be said for honesty delivered in a thoughtful way.
Opinions? Have you found that there's a negative atmosphere to Goodreads?
And that is this: Goodreads, for some reason, lends itself to reviewers being absolutely ruthless. Not ruthless in the brutal, honest way but in a needlessly negative and mean-spirited way. While most bloggers are, if not nice, at least tactful in the reviews they post to their blogs, some are less so on Goodreads. It's not uncommon to see Goodreads reviews that bash not only the book, but also the author -- as a writer and, sometimes, as a person.
It's disconcerting on a few levels.
For one thing, I get now why so many authors seem to be anti-Goodreads. Though I think it's a great tool as a reader and will probably never stop using it as a reader, I also know how easy it is to stumble upon absolutely cringeworthy reviews and/or comments. And I know if those were my books getting the beat down I'd definitely want to hide under the blankets with lots of loud music to distract me from the outside world. There's nothing wrong, as a reader, with disliking a book, negatively reviewing it or even giving a scathing, bashing review. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of this, I think. It could be seen as mean or it could be seen as critical analysis of books that (at least in the reviewer's opinion) aren't very good.
The problem -- and it's nobody's fault -- is that Goodreads is a strange little cross-section of the internet. It's reader-centric, but not reader-exclusive. Many authors have profiles and the meeting of authors, readers, and books makes it incredibly easy both for authors to find their negative reviews (either accidentally or accidentally-on-purpose) or for readers to complain and commiserate about a particular book or author's failings. In some ways I feel like the culture of Goodreads lends itself to more negativity than you'd find on book blogs or even Amazon reviews. On Goodreads it's as much about the readers as it is the book. And since readers are people and people sometimes like to complain together... well, you see what happens.
On another level there's a trend I've seen for a while that, as a reader, saddens me. It's reviewers who seem to be habitually unhappy with the books they read. Usually these are people who stick with a few genres or subgenres (fantasy, for instance, or dystopian) and -- seemingly without fail -- find the books they read horribly lacking. Either the characters were flat and cliche or the writing was subpar or details of the world-building just didn't work. These are all legitimate issues in books and I've complained about them myself in certain books. But with some readers there's a sense of superiority and the underlying message that they're better than the authors they're reading, the books being published today, the books they choose to read. It often culminates in bashing of the author or the entire genre in the review itself or comments below.
Even if I haven't read the book in question it often leaves me feeling a bit upset and I can't help but think if you're finding these huge, overwhelming problems in every single book in a certain genre, maybe you don't actually like the genre. Maybe the books just aren't a good fit for you. Maybe you used to like it and now you don't. Maybe it's time to find books you're going to enjoy, even if they're outside of your comfort zone. It makes me feel like readers are needlessly and consistently exposing themselves to books it's obvious they hate and then what's the point? After eighteen years of reading I don't know what the aim of this activity should be, but I know it shouldn't make you angry and hateful towards others.
Authors work hard on their words that, sadly, end up being a "product." It's one thing to critically review a book, point out its flaws, even rip it a new one if you think the book deserves it. But it's something else entirely to also bash the author and infuse your words with what comes off as disgust and a spiteful, superior attitude. There's something to be said for honesty delivered in a thoughtful way.
Opinions? Have you found that there's a negative atmosphere to Goodreads?
Monday, July 4, 2011
Thoughts on Small Town YA
Lately I've been noticing a lot of YA novels set in small towns. Since I'm a sucker for settings and an even bigger sucker for small town settings, this should be awesome. I should love it. And kind of I do love it, but also kind of I don't. It's complicated. I tend to agree with what Donald Maass says about setting in Writing the Breakout Novel, which is this...
Some books set in small towns pull it off spectacularly. The setting serves as a centerpiece, almost a character in its own right. It feels authentic, like a real place, even if it isn't. More importantly, you can really tell that the setting has affected the characters. That they fit -- or don't fit -- in this place. And unless a setting has its own atmosphere and feeling to it, who really cares if a character fits there? How can you even tell?
When a setting is part of the story it should be part of the story. A part of the plot or characters, not an excuse for the plot or characters. I don't think this would bother me except for the fact that so many books I've read recently have had the same type of setting, for the same type of reason, and it doesn't feel real. In an otherwise awesome book a shabby setting can make me shake my head and wish the book was just a little bit more.
Fellow readers (and authors!) -- what do you think of all the small town settings in YA? Like? Or not? Do you feel, as I do, that some of the stories would work better if the setting had been relegated to the backseat altogether?
Also! Here are some YA books (both older and newer) with phenomenal small town settings. Seriously, bravo.
In my experience there is no advantage in either being pro-setting or anti-setting: however, one is at a distinct disadvantage by feeling indifferent to the time and place in which one's story is set. Relegate setting to the backseat or make it the chassis on which everything else rides, but do not ignore it. [bolding mine]That says it better than I can and it illustrates my problem with many of the small-town novels I've been reading: I get the feeling that the settings are being ignored. That they're there, but they don't actually matter. It sometimes seems as if the small town setting is just a device, a reason for the character to go after that scholarship (to get out of the town) or a reason to dislike the (familiar, annoyingly nosy, possibly uneducated) people around. It often feels more like an excuse than a setting, which always ends up ruining a part of the book for me. Because the thing is that a book doesn't need to devote time to talking about setting. It can slide setting to the backseat and let the characters and their story take over completely. But when a setting is involved? Especially one that is specific and often demanding? I want it to live up. I want it to be handled well. I want to get a feeling from it. Because the setting isn't just the size of a school or whether roads are paved or dirt or if there's a mall, but also -- and overwhelmingly -- a feeling of culture, of community. A sense of place. An atmosphere.
Some books set in small towns pull it off spectacularly. The setting serves as a centerpiece, almost a character in its own right. It feels authentic, like a real place, even if it isn't. More importantly, you can really tell that the setting has affected the characters. That they fit -- or don't fit -- in this place. And unless a setting has its own atmosphere and feeling to it, who really cares if a character fits there? How can you even tell?
When a setting is part of the story it should be part of the story. A part of the plot or characters, not an excuse for the plot or characters. I don't think this would bother me except for the fact that so many books I've read recently have had the same type of setting, for the same type of reason, and it doesn't feel real. In an otherwise awesome book a shabby setting can make me shake my head and wish the book was just a little bit more.
Fellow readers (and authors!) -- what do you think of all the small town settings in YA? Like? Or not? Do you feel, as I do, that some of the stories would work better if the setting had been relegated to the backseat altogether?
Also! Here are some YA books (both older and newer) with phenomenal small town settings. Seriously, bravo.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
On the Books I Don't Want
This past week I got a surprise book in the mail for review. It fell perfectly within my review guidelines, yet I immediately knew (based on what I'd heard about the book as well as its back-cover pitch), that I wasn't going to be reading it. There was just too much that was going to bother me. I packaged up the book to send on to another book blogger who's been wanting to read it, but while all of this was happening I had a thought, one that's been slowly brewing for a while.
Lately I've read quite a few books that I either didn't finish or finished but wasn't that jazzed up about. I don't get a ton of review books sent to me out of the blue, but I get enough to realize that the books I get out of the blue aren't always ones I'd otherwise read. A lot of times this is great because there's a good chance I wouldn't have read the incredible books The Extraordinary Secrets of April, May, and June or The Unwritten Rule. It's just that sometimes it takes a lot to get through a review book; not because the books are badly-written, but just because the particular stories/characters/writing doesn't appeal that much to me personally. There have been quite a few books that everyone absolutely adored while I didn't quite "get it." There have been others I haven't finished or have finished out of a sense of obligation more than anything else.
This isn't right with me. I love reading and I want to keep it fun. The second my blog becomes obligatory work is the second a huge part of my love and joy for reading dies, and I don't want that to ever happen.
I love getting books for review; it's awesome. But I do have to set a few ground rules for myself--
Lately I've read quite a few books that I either didn't finish or finished but wasn't that jazzed up about. I don't get a ton of review books sent to me out of the blue, but I get enough to realize that the books I get out of the blue aren't always ones I'd otherwise read. A lot of times this is great because there's a good chance I wouldn't have read the incredible books The Extraordinary Secrets of April, May, and June or The Unwritten Rule. It's just that sometimes it takes a lot to get through a review book; not because the books are badly-written, but just because the particular stories/characters/writing doesn't appeal that much to me personally. There have been quite a few books that everyone absolutely adored while I didn't quite "get it." There have been others I haven't finished or have finished out of a sense of obligation more than anything else.
This isn't right with me. I love reading and I want to keep it fun. The second my blog becomes obligatory work is the second a huge part of my love and joy for reading dies, and I don't want that to ever happen.
I love getting books for review; it's awesome. But I do have to set a few ground rules for myself--
- I'm no longer going to finish a book out of that sense of obligation, that feeling that I "have" to write a review for it. If the only reason I'm reading a book is to write about it, I'm wasting my time.
- If there's a book that I know I'm not going to be reading (or sometimes if I don't finish a certain book), I'll do my best to get it to someone who does want to read it -- blogger, author, librarian... someone who might also write a review or talk about it if they like it.
So, if you're a fellow blogger -- what do you do about "review" books you find it hard to get through?
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Literary v. YA... WAIT, WHAT?
I rarely ever highlight books of genres other than YA and MG here; it's not the focus of the blog and while I feel somewhat qualified to talk about YA, having read so much of it, with other genres I feel less steady on my feet. That said, the topic of literary novels has been coming up again and again, often in articles comparing YA (negatively) to literary fiction. And then in the comments of those articles that compare literary fiction (again, negatively) to YA.
I DO NOT LIKE THIS.
My dislike is based not only on the fact that (obviously) I love YA lit, but also because I also kind of love literary books. I mean, I'm allowed to like both, right? The problem with many of these articles I've read is that it sets up an us vs. them mentality, as if YA lit and literary fiction are on opposite ends of the spectrum, battling it out. As if YA is a threat to literary novels, is somehow diminishing them, as if there's no overlap between the people who enjoy YA and those who enjoy literary fiction.
But it's just not true. It's true I've read more YA than any other genre, but it's also true that some of my most cherished books fall under the category of "literary." I can't help it. I have a thing for pretty words and complex characters and beautiful beautiful breathtaking settings. Just like not all YA is vampires/dark/badly written, not all literary novels are dry/pretentious/boring. I don't like feeling as if the two facets of publishing are enemies because I don't like choosing sides, because both of these genres have greatness in them.
The History of Love? Brilliant. Beautiful.
Sea? Again, brilliant. Beautiful.
I have as hard a time believing that literary writers are all pretentious artistes as I do thinking that YA authors don't care about the quality of their stories and words. After reading certain articles this past week I almost feel like shouting can't we all just get along?? Because, really.
What are your favorite literary novels (if you read them)? What can you recommend for someone who loves The Lovely Bones, Downtown Owl, and The History of Love?
I DO NOT LIKE THIS.
My dislike is based not only on the fact that (obviously) I love YA lit, but also because I also kind of love literary books. I mean, I'm allowed to like both, right? The problem with many of these articles I've read is that it sets up an us vs. them mentality, as if YA lit and literary fiction are on opposite ends of the spectrum, battling it out. As if YA is a threat to literary novels, is somehow diminishing them, as if there's no overlap between the people who enjoy YA and those who enjoy literary fiction.
But it's just not true. It's true I've read more YA than any other genre, but it's also true that some of my most cherished books fall under the category of "literary." I can't help it. I have a thing for pretty words and complex characters and beautiful beautiful breathtaking settings. Just like not all YA is vampires/dark/badly written, not all literary novels are dry/pretentious/boring. I don't like feeling as if the two facets of publishing are enemies because I don't like choosing sides, because both of these genres have greatness in them.
The History of Love? Brilliant. Beautiful.
Sea? Again, brilliant. Beautiful.
I have as hard a time believing that literary writers are all pretentious artistes as I do thinking that YA authors don't care about the quality of their stories and words. After reading certain articles this past week I almost feel like shouting can't we all just get along?? Because, really.
What are your favorite literary novels (if you read them)? What can you recommend for someone who loves The Lovely Bones, Downtown Owl, and The History of Love?
Friday, June 17, 2011
What to Look for In A Book Blog
I find Klout, the website that measures your influence via Twitter and Facebook, incredibly fascinating. According to them, I have a Klout score of 45, influence 133 people (all on Twitter since I don't have a Facebook account), am a "specialist," and am influential mostly about blogging and authors. Aside from Klout thinking I'm also influential on the topics of Facebook, relationships, and moms, it all seems pretty spot-on to me.
I mention this by way of a discussion on influence and true reach on the internet. Those 133 people I influence are what Klout considers my "true reach." It's less people than the 361 that follow me on Twitter, but still way more than I'd expect considering I don't have a hugely popular blog or a book deal. And this brings me to the main point... book blogs. More specifically, the "true reach" and power of book blogs. Thanks to a conversation on Twitter and this post, I've found out that some publishing companies really prefer a blog to have at least 1,000 followers before sending review books.
The reason this bothers me (and it definitely bothers me) is probably the same reason it's bothering a lot of other book bloggers: because a flat follower count is not an indication of a blog's influence or quality. As I write this post Ten Cent Notes has 263 followers -- a modest amount that I'm happy with, but definitely not the 1,000+ I've recently come to feel like I should be aiming for. This doesn't include any email subscribers or people who actually type in the URL, of course, but more than that it doesn't take into account content. I know that there are some people -- even with all the other blogs and reviews out there -- who rely on my reviews and trust what I say about books. I put a lot of time and thought into my reviews (as well as the rest of the blog) and having readers who appreciate what I say is an amazing thing. But knowing that my blog, based solely on follower count, isn't popular enough to build a relationship or be considered by publishers is incredibly disheartening. And if I'm being honest it kind of makes me angry.
Because -- and I'm not saying anything that my fellow bloggers don't already know -- the easiest way to get new followers is by running contests that require or give extra entries for following. And while I love blogs that run giveaways, there are a lot of blogs that have thousands of followers based solely on the giveaways they host. It has nothing to do with content and it's obvious because, often, there isn't much content. I definitely agree that, especially with how many book blogs there are now, there needs to be some standards in order for ARCs/review copies to be sent. I just think that the 1,000 follower mark leaves out too much information and more often than not targets the wrong blogs.
Publishers, if you're listening, here are some things (I think) you should actually be looking at:
I mention this by way of a discussion on influence and true reach on the internet. Those 133 people I influence are what Klout considers my "true reach." It's less people than the 361 that follow me on Twitter, but still way more than I'd expect considering I don't have a hugely popular blog or a book deal. And this brings me to the main point... book blogs. More specifically, the "true reach" and power of book blogs. Thanks to a conversation on Twitter and this post, I've found out that some publishing companies really prefer a blog to have at least 1,000 followers before sending review books.
The reason this bothers me (and it definitely bothers me) is probably the same reason it's bothering a lot of other book bloggers: because a flat follower count is not an indication of a blog's influence or quality. As I write this post Ten Cent Notes has 263 followers -- a modest amount that I'm happy with, but definitely not the 1,000+ I've recently come to feel like I should be aiming for. This doesn't include any email subscribers or people who actually type in the URL, of course, but more than that it doesn't take into account content. I know that there are some people -- even with all the other blogs and reviews out there -- who rely on my reviews and trust what I say about books. I put a lot of time and thought into my reviews (as well as the rest of the blog) and having readers who appreciate what I say is an amazing thing. But knowing that my blog, based solely on follower count, isn't popular enough to build a relationship or be considered by publishers is incredibly disheartening. And if I'm being honest it kind of makes me angry.
Because -- and I'm not saying anything that my fellow bloggers don't already know -- the easiest way to get new followers is by running contests that require or give extra entries for following. And while I love blogs that run giveaways, there are a lot of blogs that have thousands of followers based solely on the giveaways they host. It has nothing to do with content and it's obvious because, often, there isn't much content. I definitely agree that, especially with how many book blogs there are now, there needs to be some standards in order for ARCs/review copies to be sent. I just think that the 1,000 follower mark leaves out too much information and more often than not targets the wrong blogs.
Publishers, if you're listening, here are some things (I think) you should actually be looking at:
- Time. How long has the blog been up and running -- three months? Six months? A year? Blogging is one of those things that doesn't really seem like it would be work until you go and do it; in my experience most bloggers who stick around after the 6 month mark are doing this because they honestly love books and want to share that love. These are the bloggers who are going to stick around and build a readership.
- How often do posts go up? Different people have different opinions on this one but for me unless there's at least a post a week I'm going to lose interest... and I'm betting a lot of other readers will as well.
- Quality. This is, of course, unquantifiable, but generally posts should be fairly well-written and thought out. And interesting.
- Stats. Follower count, site hits... whatever. The tricky thing here is that I'm not sure any one form of stat counts includes everything and some bloggers don't keep track of counts. That's why there are so many other variables that should be looked at.
- Reader participation, a.k.a. comments. Blogs that get comments are doing something right.
That's about all I can think of right now, aside from the obvious common sense stuff like making sure the blog actually reviews the genre in question. Bloggers? What do you think of all of this -- should follower count be the be-all-end-all? What else should be considered? Did I miss anything?
Monday, April 25, 2011
Cover Perfection
For a while now I've been thinking about covers and how a lot of times the cover a book has doesn't really convey the essence of the story. Because that's what I love: the essence of the story. And it's difficult to capture that with a visual image, but when it happens it makes me insanely happy inside. I'm one of those readers who, as sad as it seems, is scary dependent on covers. When a cover is bad I don't want to read the book, no matter how many great things I've heard about it (I usually move past this, though) and when a cover is good I want to read the book no matter what.
Here are a few of my favorite, most spot-on covers. Ones that are not only gorgeous, cute, or wicked funny, but that -- above all else -- portray the story inside.
Here are a few of my favorite, most spot-on covers. Ones that are not only gorgeous, cute, or wicked funny, but that -- above all else -- portray the story inside.
The paperback (if that is the final cover for it) of this book is, dare I say it? Just as amazing. I love the feeling of hope through tribulation that comes through in this cover; it's absolutely brilliant and fits the novel so perfectly. On the paperback I love the addition of the girl and the trees it the distance; same feeling, just a different image.
There's something undeniably creepy about this cover. Though I personally love it I know quite a few people who've found it scary. Which makes sense: it's a minimalist image but there's a hint of violence here that's just so incredibly well done for what the novel is about. This, like the cover above, is one of those covers that -- while gripping -- doesn't have quite the same effect until you've read the book. (And seriously - GO READ THIS BOOK.)
Something about the torn-and-taped paper dolls on this cover (as well as the chipped nail polish) perfectly portrays what the book is about: a girl with a messed-up family, trying to patch things up with her mother. The great thing about this cover is that it gives you an idea of the story and what lies ahead even before you turn that first page.
Just like with Fixing Delilah, this cover gives an idea of what the story is about. There's so much more to this book that just a girl planning her wedding while still in high school, but that's definitely the central idea and the cover portrays that perfectly. Even without reading the blurb for this book I knew I wanted to read it just because of the evocative and interesting cover.
Alright, a special mention to this book's cover because even though it doesn't really tell you what the story is about, it references a very specific part of the book and its events in a perfectly eerie way. Sure, it screams SCI-FI!, but it does it in a way that's personal to the book and its story, not generic to the genre as a whole. This, I love.
What about you? What covers do you think perfectly portray the story inside? And what do you think of my choices?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)