Have you ever thought about the type of blog you wanted to run? Like whether you wanted to aim for a more professional view. Or maybe more personal, with your posts relating to your everyday life. And of course, don't forget the GIFs. Do you pour out all your feelings of a book through a post, in a way that incorporates humor?
It's no surprise that all of us once started a blog as a hobby (and I'm sure this is still the case for most of us). However, sometimes, maybe even most of the times, blogging is viewed as a job. We generally strive to make publishers happy by reviewing ARCs and eARCs on our blog. Yet, is there a "right" way to review a book? Or does it not matter as long as you get your point across?
It's no surprise that all of us once started a blog as a hobby (and I'm sure this is still the case for most of us). However, sometimes, maybe even most of the times, blogging is viewed as a job. We generally strive to make publishers happy by reviewing ARCs and eARCs on our blog. Yet, is there a "right" way to review a book? Or does it not matter as long as you get your point across?
A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
BLOGGERS AND REVIEWERS?
BLOGGERS AND REVIEWERS?
I got this idea through Shannon @ It Starts At Midnight, who kind of mentioned the idea of being professional in passing. You've heard of reviews that all authors strive to achieve, the ones in Publisher's Weekly or Kirkus Reviews, or wherever else reviewers get paid to express their opinion of a book (unfortunately I'm not too informed about this area of reviewing). Then, there are blogger reviews, which are made up of a diverse variety of review styles (I do not know if this also holds true for professional book reviewers, so I won't say that that is not the case). I know that I, personally, read hilarious negative reviews by my favorite reviewers and bloggers just to be entertained.
AM I PROFESSIONAL? (Nope)
If we look at my blog, it isn't exactly professional in that I 1) Do not get paid for reviewing books and 2) Do not review books in a serious, professional manner (not that I even know what this means. I guess in a way that is not informal to readers) and lastly 3) Do not have a professional layout (I have a little version of myself up there, I feel like that counts as unprofessional).
WHY THIS DOESN'T MATTER
Yet we still review books. Even though we mostly aim for a more personal connection with our readers, we still get the job of reviewing across. I mean, who's to say that our reviews do not hold as much weight as the reviews from well-known reviewers? Reviews are to express our opinion of a certain book, right? So no matter what review you read, you still wouldn't truly know if you will like or hate a book unless you read if for yourself. There have been a number of times where I thought I was going to hate a book based on a review I read, but then after reading it, I ended up loving it (Notable examples: Red Rising and The Kiss of Deception).
To rephrase, a review's worth should not be weighted by a reviewing style. In the end, we are all reaching the same goal, which is reviewing the book and expressing our thoughts about it. (Even GIFs alone give me a good idea of how the reader felt about the book, and that in itself is amazing.)
TO CONCLUDE, KEEP DOING YOU
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it matters how you review books, whether it is in a professional, serious, a humorous way, or a combination. Just because your review is entertaining to read, does not mean that your opinion is any less relevant than professional reviews. And you shouldn't let other people decide your style of reviewing. Or let anyone influence how you blog.
