Was just sitting here, looking at the hundreds of unread feeds in Google Reader (and this, after completely flushing it out just the other day to start fresh), trying to figure out which subscriptions to cancel. I’ve had a love/hate thing with Critical Mass (no link; keep reading) – they, at times, offer up interesting interviews, point out new titles that interest me. Other times – well.
As your pal the Rake understands it, members of the NBCC were asked
to participate in an "Ethics in Book Reviewing" survey. Peep some of
the responses to the litblog-centered questions from these professional book reviewers:
Should literary blogs adhere to the same rules of
ethics, whatever the consensus may turn out to be on them, as newspaper
- I don’t know what a literary blog is.
- Blogs seem to me nearly irrelevant, so unregulated are they.
- kind of an irrelevant question; so far as I can tell, no ethics apply to blogs.
- Frankly at the moment review blogs are such jokes, it doesn’t
really matter. It’s like asking what rules apply to people’s comments
on Amazaon (sic)
- No, they shouldn’t. Blogs are the toilet paper of reviewing — quality varies, but none of it is worth keeping.
YPTR goes on to comment:
Do you know who litbloggers (and litblog aficionados) are, anonymous commenter? Dedicated and passionate readers.
I understand that the general perception is that bloggers are an unruly
and unwashed horde, and it’s true that some are more wild and dirty
than others, but for the most part it’s as simple as saying that
litbloggers are readers.
Therefore, you’ve just announced, along with other likeminded
colleagues, that readers do not matter, and that, in a nutshell,
explains the trouble that you find yourself in. Or, that is, the
trouble in which you find yourself.
Yup. Critical Mass: there’s the door.