Comments on: The Delicate Art of Recommending a Book http://blog.vromans.com/the-delicate-art-of-recommending-a-book Independent Bookstore Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:54:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Freeman http://blog.vromans.com/the-delicate-art-of-recommending-a-book/comment-page-1#comment-54 John Freeman Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:44:00 +0000 http://blog.vromans.com/the-delicate-art-of-recommending-a-book/#comment-54 Peter, Thanks a lot for caring enough to make such a thoughtful comment about the list. I really appreciate it. I worry about these things, too, and you bring up some good points. We live in a world where writers are becoming brand names, and there is an argument to be made for the fact that many of the writers on the first list (and some on the second) fit into that category. <br/><br/>I'm not terribly worried, though, about giving very good books another shot at reaching readers. I'm more worried about the speed with which we're supposed to metabolize books now. Johnson's novel was out in September, won an award in November, and I feel by December we're all supposed to have moved on because it's had 'success.' It's a big book, which took him a decade or more to write, and raises some very serious issues -- I think reviews have just scratched the surface. I don't think readers who wander into the store are on that speeded up schedule and the critical world (and publishing world) does them a disservice by our restlessness.<br/><br/>I suppose you could say that there are a lot of other books waiting for their turn, and I agree. There are far too many books being published now than a culture can possibly devour (and we're not even very good at translating books!). It's good to spread the wealth. But I also believe that the discussion about books shouldn't be driven by a desire to help out small presses or new authors -- worthy as those impulses are -- but simply to find the best, even if it is obvious choice, while keeping an eye on the institutional or structural impediments against getting books which are very good (like say Geoffrey O'Brien's poems, Sleeping and Waking, or Dinaw Mengestu's novel Children of the Revolution) their fair due. <br/><br/>About the methodology: I believe that asking a large group of writers and critics (many of whom are skpetical of the new new thing) to recommend a book should help us make a list of the best books possible. Because the really good books do travel on a different space-time continuuum. Edward P. Jones' The Known World, which won our award a few years back, was published into a vacuum created by the decade or so it took him to write it. His first book sold very few copies. But the Known World emerged and got several dozen reviews and I bet it'd have made our Good Reads list if we'd had one back then. Would it have been an obvious choice? By the time a list was compiled, it would have seemed so, but it's a tremendous, tremendous book and came from a less than obvious writer. <br/><br/>My hope with the Good Reads list is that people drill down a little to the longlists (which I've been asking people to link to when I send it out). Lydia Millet very nearly made our first list, she's on the longlist again. On our new list, Steve Erickson emerged out of the first longlist to beat out Roth and Petterson. J.M. Coetzee got on the shortlist. He's no spring chicken, sure, but he's on there for a rather difficult book written like a neopolitan ice-cream scoop. <br/><br/>Who is this list for? It's for readers first and foremost. I think ultimately people who follow reviews very very closely, and work in the book trade and read the blogs are not going to be surprised -- no matter what we pick -- because there is just so much book information out there now, with review sections on the internet, and online booksellers, and all the blogs -- a good thing, yes, but it leads to name fatigue. My hope is people would talk back to the list, like you!, so their own preferencs could be registered and recorded on the internet. What would you have put on there?<br/><br/>Finally, I think some of this will change as we move into a new year. The parameters for this vote were Spring '07 to Spring '08, since I wanted to account for the fact that even if a book is getting lots of reviews now, people who are buying contemporary fiction are following at a slight lag to the media, which has become obsessed with reviewing right on or before the pub date.<br/><br/>I think as we turn deeper into the new year the Good Reads list will contain a few more wild cards, and it might spin off a few siblings. The name won't change -- Good Reads is just a phrase and that website, far as I can tell, doesn't have it trademarked (which would be like trademarking Good Eats). <br/><br/>I can imagine the NBCC creating a list specifically for booksellers and/or other reviewers, made up, say, of 7 titles recommended by individual writers and critics, like Cynthia Ozick or John Updike or Eliot Weinberger, then emailed around to critics and booksellers. Do you think that would be helpful? Since these people read ahead of the curve it might actually lead to some discoveries as they say.<br/><br/>Hope that answers some of your questions, Patrick.<br/><br/>My best,<br/><br/><br/>John Freeman Peter, Thanks a lot for caring enough to make such a thoughtful comment about the list. I really appreciate it. I worry about these things, too, and you bring up some good points. We live in a world where writers are becoming brand names, and there is an argument to be made for the fact that many of the writers on the first list (and some on the second) fit into that category.

I’m not terribly worried, though, about giving very good books another shot at reaching readers. I’m more worried about the speed with which we’re supposed to metabolize books now. Johnson’s novel was out in September, won an award in November, and I feel by December we’re all supposed to have moved on because it’s had ‘success.’ It’s a big book, which took him a decade or more to write, and raises some very serious issues — I think reviews have just scratched the surface. I don’t think readers who wander into the store are on that speeded up schedule and the critical world (and publishing world) does them a disservice by our restlessness.

I suppose you could say that there are a lot of other books waiting for their turn, and I agree. There are far too many books being published now than a culture can possibly devour (and we’re not even very good at translating books!). It’s good to spread the wealth. But I also believe that the discussion about books shouldn’t be driven by a desire to help out small presses or new authors — worthy as those impulses are — but simply to find the best, even if it is obvious choice, while keeping an eye on the institutional or structural impediments against getting books which are very good (like say Geoffrey O’Brien’s poems, Sleeping and Waking, or Dinaw Mengestu’s novel Children of the Revolution) their fair due.

About the methodology: I believe that asking a large group of writers and critics (many of whom are skpetical of the new new thing) to recommend a book should help us make a list of the best books possible. Because the really good books do travel on a different space-time continuuum. Edward P. Jones’ The Known World, which won our award a few years back, was published into a vacuum created by the decade or so it took him to write it. His first book sold very few copies. But the Known World emerged and got several dozen reviews and I bet it’d have made our Good Reads list if we’d had one back then. Would it have been an obvious choice? By the time a list was compiled, it would have seemed so, but it’s a tremendous, tremendous book and came from a less than obvious writer.

My hope with the Good Reads list is that people drill down a little to the longlists (which I’ve been asking people to link to when I send it out). Lydia Millet very nearly made our first list, she’s on the longlist again. On our new list, Steve Erickson emerged out of the first longlist to beat out Roth and Petterson. J.M. Coetzee got on the shortlist. He’s no spring chicken, sure, but he’s on there for a rather difficult book written like a neopolitan ice-cream scoop.

Who is this list for? It’s for readers first and foremost. I think ultimately people who follow reviews very very closely, and work in the book trade and read the blogs are not going to be surprised — no matter what we pick — because there is just so much book information out there now, with review sections on the internet, and online booksellers, and all the blogs — a good thing, yes, but it leads to name fatigue. My hope is people would talk back to the list, like you!, so their own preferencs could be registered and recorded on the internet. What would you have put on there?

Finally, I think some of this will change as we move into a new year. The parameters for this vote were Spring ’07 to Spring ’08, since I wanted to account for the fact that even if a book is getting lots of reviews now, people who are buying contemporary fiction are following at a slight lag to the media, which has become obsessed with reviewing right on or before the pub date.

I think as we turn deeper into the new year the Good Reads list will contain a few more wild cards, and it might spin off a few siblings. The name won’t change — Good Reads is just a phrase and that website, far as I can tell, doesn’t have it trademarked (which would be like trademarking Good Eats).

I can imagine the NBCC creating a list specifically for booksellers and/or other reviewers, made up, say, of 7 titles recommended by individual writers and critics, like Cynthia Ozick or John Updike or Eliot Weinberger, then emailed around to critics and booksellers. Do you think that would be helpful? Since these people read ahead of the curve it might actually lead to some discoveries as they say.

Hope that answers some of your questions, Patrick.

My best,

John Freeman

]]>