Week 5 Prompt

If I was deciding whether to add The Billionaire's First Christmas to a collection, the two reviews were not wildly convincing. The Amazon review, however, did a nice job of explaining some of the book's appeals and characteristics and giving helpful information (e.g. the book is part of a series, it has multiple points-of-view, there's no explicit sex, etc.). Unfortunately, it did not convince me of the book's quality, and neither did the blog reviewer, who didn't even seem to know what they actually thought about the book after reading it, much less write about it coherently. I would hesitate to add the book to my library's collection, but I wouldn't forget about the appeal factors listed by the Amazon reviewer in case I wanted to recommend the book in a readers' advisory capacity.

The professional reviews for Angela's Ashes, on the other hand, do an excellent job of convincing the reader to add the book to their collection. The reviews are much better written than those for the romantic suspense book, and are given added clout by the publications they're printed in. Because they can more competently describe the appeals of the book, they make it easier for me to understand why I should add it to my library's collection.

I don't think it's entirely fair that print books are reviewed more often and favorably than ebooks or self-published books, but I also think there's something to be said for filtering out lower quality books from being reviewed in order to give more attention to higher quality books. Despite Ranganathan's insistence that every book has its reader, I don't believe all books are created equal, and I appreciate the work of professional reviewers who do their best to identify good writing and excellent books. But I think there are certainly biases in the publishing industry that make it easier for particular types of novels to be published and well-reviewed (literary fiction, for example) and harder for others (like romance).

I think the most important thing when considering to add a book to a library's collection is to consult multiple reviews from different types of sites. I think Goodreads is a fantastic place to get people's opinions on a book, even if there is a range of quality to the reviews, because reviewers are unafraid to make very clear what aspects of the book did and did not appeal to them. But I think it's helpful to also cross reference those reviews with reviews from more prestigious publications like Library Journal, Booklist, and Kirkus to make a more informed decision. I also think it's worth tracking down reviews of genre fiction from places that specialize in that genre. For example, Tor.com's science fiction and fantasy blog probably has a more nuanced review for new sci-fi/fantasy titles than Kirkus does because it assumes a certain level of reader familiarity with the genre, allowing it to place the book under review in the context of the rest of the genre and provide a more granular feel for its appeals.

I don't have strong feelings about review sources that don't print negative reviews, because I think positive reviews are generally more helpful (from a collection management, readers' advisory, and personal reading perspective) than negative ones. I'd rather read reviews that get me excited about a book and that communicate the passion the reviewer has for it than reviews that just dunk on a mediocre book. The latter type of review may be fun to write and is occasionally fun to read, but ultimately feels like a bit of a waste of time to me if I'm looking for something to read rather than something not to read. So I appreciate when reviewing sites take the time to pick through a lot of books and only review the ones they find most exciting.

I do a lot of purchasing for my library and it's the really positive reviews that give me the best sense of what to order and what might be most exciting for our readers. My library is quite small, though, and our budget isn't huge, so maybe if I had more books to purchase each month I would welcome more negative reviews to narrow down the field of potential acquisitions.