I'm so glad I've got thick skin, 'cos here's yet another drubbing to add to the list!

Remember the shitstorm that ensued after I pissed off most of the "elite" litbloggers about my post on the pitfalls of receiving free books? Now it looks like the mainstream media ain't too happy with me either -- at least one mainstream journalist from the national press thinks my blog is a little on the dull side.

You see I came in for a bit of a drubbing in today's Observer, as did Grumpy Old Bookman and Dovegreyreader scribbles, two sites I respect and visit on a daily basis.

Here's what Rachel Cooke said about us:

...I went to a site all bloggers recommend, Dove Grey Reader, which is written by a 'sock-knitting quilter' from Devon. I was pleased that she was 'truly hooked from the first line onwards' by Arnaldur Indridason's thriller Silence of the Grave, and it does sound good - but I have friends to recommend thrillers to me. Grumpy Old Book Man is, according to the Guardian, one of the top 10 book blogs. Eh? Even its author admits it's an 'acquired taste' (here he is on Jeffrey Archer: 'Good old Jeffrey. He's always good for a laugh, isn't he?') Finally, to Reading Matters by 'kimbofo', an Australian in London. Do we really need to know that Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go has been on her TBR (To Be Read) pile for a year, or that she bought it as part of a discounted set of Booker novels? Pooter lives!

Click to read full article.

The thing is, I don't entirely disagree with Cooke, because I do think there's an awful lot of "populist warblings" which clutter up the blogosphere. And, as I eluded to in my "pitfalls of free books" rant, I agree with her statement that "so much of the stuff you read in the so-called blogosphere is so awful: untrustworthy, banal and, worst of all, badly written".

But, by the same token, there's a lot of truly wonderful, thought-provoking, insightful stuff being written and discussed by book bloggers -- it's just a pity Cooke didn't find any examples, but then she's probably never even heard of Metaxucafe.

Book blogs also offer a sense of community that the mainstream press really can't offer. Visiting certain blogs is a bit like sitting in a friend's living room, perhaps curled up by the fire with a warming beverage at hand, where you get to discuss books and other bookish-things in an open and receptive environment -- you don't have to be an academic or a literary scholar or a professional critic, you just need to love books.

I've been reading book blogs for a couple of years now, and there are certain bloggers I trust. I take note of what they're reading and what they think of certain novels and certain authors and often I go out and buy books based on their opinions. I much enjoy the fact that book blogs allow me to gain recommendations from across the globe. When was the last time the Observer reviewed a book by an unknown Australian author or someone from Latin America, for instance?

I think Cooke is very fortunate to have friends who "recommend thrillers to me". Some of us are not that lucky. None of my immediate friends or colleagues are fiction readers. I cannot recall the last time someone I know in the "real" world thrust a book in my hand and said "you must read this". I gain most of my recommendations from book blogs, because I find newspapers review the same small circle of books, very few of which are fiction titles, and I like to discover the "secret" stuff that's slipped under the radar and hasn't got a costly marketing push behind it.

Finally, Cooke said that she "devoted an entire day to book blogs, trying to give them a fair chance" and that she found the experience not particularly edifying or interesting. Funny that -- because I could say exactly the same about reading the Observer's review section, which I might add, I stopped reading at least a year ago. And guess what, I don't miss it.

<Thanks to Crimeficreader for alerting me to this article, I would have missed it otherwise.>

Comments

[crimeficreader]

Kim,

Your blog has always impressed me immensely. It looks as if a lot of hard work, dedication and love for your topic has gone into it. Anyone giving it enough time, (a very small requirement to get started), will find it reads the same too. Your is the only blog I know of with its own book group community discussion.

All of that is a great achievement and I'm sure there's much more to come too.

[crimeficreader]

Sorry to have been the bearer of bad news by the way!

[dovegreyreader]

Kimbofo,your blog is a complete credit to you and suggests a great deal of hard work on your part which is why I was TRULY honoured to be dissed alongside you! Yeh thanks for the tip off crimefic reader:-) You've made so many more valid points and I have to say the one about the friends rings true for me too. I've just set up a local reader's evening to try and get a group of book lovers together in the same room to do just that , press books on each other and it's a huge success so far.I too work with non-readers and it's probably a good thing or we'd never get any work done!And how I love to find the books that slip under the radar.Keep blogging along!

[Brandon]

Your blog is one of my favorites. Like you, I get most of my recommendations from blogs. Book reviews usually bore me to tears, and while I read literary criticism from time to time, I'm not apt to pick up a book because I want to be wowed by symbolism or whatever literary terms scholars like to toss around. I just want to know whether or not the book is good, and bloggers do the best job of giving honest opinions without being snobbish about it. Not all of us have the luxury of PhD in English literature. Nor do all of us want to bore readers with mind-numbing literary criticism. I'll take the "pooters" over the critics any day.

And I take a certain amount of pride in my banal, badly-written blog.

[Equiano]

I like your concept of reading book blogs being like "sitting in a friend's living room." I do feel a bit like that about book blogs: it is the virtual equivalent of scanning the shelves when you visit someone's house and having a chat about the books they like. To be honest, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about - can't both book blogs and traditional print reviews coexist? I don't see them as the same thing at all, but they can be complementary.

Keep blogging away - I'll be over for that virtual cuppa...

[Maxine]

I broadly agree with your post, Kim. I think there were flaws in Cooke's arguments, mainly in the way she chose and slanted her examples.
There was a good article about this (deconstructing the Observer article) on Literary Salon, and I posted about it earlier also.
Links:
http://petrona.typepad.com/petrona/2006/11/bloggers_vs_pub.html

http://www.complete-review.com/saloon/archive/200611c.htm#uu9

[Philip Young]

I am struggling to find any difference bewtween you writing about not yet having read and Ishiguro and Rachel Cooke saying she doesn't find much of interest in book blogs; two people chatting about their opinions.

In fact the only difference I can think of is that I read your posts most days... I just happen to like them.

[Steve Clackson]

Well we have to take what Cooke says with a grain of salt. She's not a blogger and after reading her reviews it would be pointless to challenge her to a game of wits...
unless we used half of ours to make it fair!

[shameless]

Ms Cooke should just quickly get a life and smell the coffee. The media is changing. Those precious columns look tired and corrupt. She would do us more of a journalistic service by wandering down the corridor to the room where books are chosen for her paper’s reviews, and write us a nice, honest piece about how it actually works in there. That would be something worth printing, if she had the balls to tell the truth about her colleagues practices!!

[Perry Middlemiss]

The Observer article reads like it was written with a specific agenda in mind.

What Rachel Cooke doesn't seem to understand is that we aren't attempting to take her job away from her - she's welcome to hers. For most of us this is just a hobby: we are enthusiastic about books and want to put that point across. Maybe we don't write at the top of our form all the time, but really: "it does sound good - but I have friends to recommend thrillers to me". That comes across as petulant and pathetic.

[Perry Middlemiss]

I've now read the full Observer piece and Cooke's aim was made clear by her statement: "What they wanted wasn't the right to critique films or books for themselves (thanks to the net, they've got that anyway) but for those people who are paid to do so to cease to exist - to shut up."

What she has done is extrapolate from one blogger's outburst to generalise for all of us.

It reads like she was slammed on a blog somewhere and decided to get her own back. Don't drive when angry, don't email when drunk, anddon't lecture when pissed off. I think I've done all three at some time in the past. It never comes to any good.

[Dean]

She's just jealous. And maybe a little bit scared. Note that Susan Wyndham has started her own blog on the Sydney Morning Herald website:

http://happyantipodean.blogspot.com/2006/11/susan-wyndham-who-has-been-most.html

Dont' let 'em bother you. They don't phase me one bit.

[marydell]

A very, very interesting article. Cooke and the blog post linked at the end both mention ethics with regard to book blog criticism. They're right in that bloggers are not held to the same standards as journalists but expect the same amount of respect. Yet, isn't that exactly what you got dumped all over recently? You were trying to offer a little ethical education and the big book bloggers all freaked out, which is what keeps the mainstream media from taking us seriously.

[Danielle]

I guess if I want to know the latest literary controversy I should come here, eh? I always enjoy reading your posts--personally I like getting different views of books and it is nice to discover books that the mainstream media doesn't bother with! Now you must move the Ishiguro to the top of your pile--it is an excellent book! :)

[Janelle M.]

Fascinating article and an interesting discussion. Thanks for pointing out something I would have otherwise missed.

[Claire]

I've always enjoyed reading your posts, and hearing about the height of your towering TBR pile (we all have one of those). I love the personal touch you give to your reviews (as with many other book bloggers), which is why I read them alongside the more traditional book reviews...

[kimbofo]

Wow! So many genuinely nice comments. Forgive me if I don't reply to each one individually. I was blushing when I read some of them, because honestly, this blog might be a labour of love but I never really see it as being anything particularly special. It keeps me occupied in the evenings (instead of watching the TV or drinking in the pub!!) and brings me a lot of enjoyment, not just through the creative aspect of writing the posts, but in being able to 'engage' with readers. I have met some truly lovely people through this blog and, as I said above, when none of your friends are bookish, it's wonderful to discover "virtual" people with whom you have something in common!

As to this whole 'Cooke thing' and the journalists/professionals vs bloggers, I feel a little torn in two. I have a foot in both camps: I'm a professional journalist by day and a blogger by night, so I can see both sides of the coin, as it were. I do think this debate is an important one, however, even if seems we are all talking at cross-purposes at times! I can't wait for the next installment!

[David Thayer]

Kim, Didn't The Guardian recently start a book blog? If I have that wrong, I apologize. By the way journalist by day, blogger by night sounds very cool.

[cormerod]

Kim-
Your comments have been taken very seriously by both bloggers and those formerly known as media gatekeepers. For that, you should understand that you struck a nerve. The firestorm or shitstorm, as you call it, that followed actually is an indication that your ideas and your wonderful blog are worrying others.
I was a senior staff member of a grass roots political campaign that almost unseated a powerful US politician... some of the vitriol and nonsense that has been directed at you seems very familiar to me. They are people who are threatened by new ideas, new medium, new constituencies... new terrain...You handle it well, they can't.

This is your blog, you set your standards and remain true...You have a readership... others fear and in fact may be losing theirs...You reasoned while others ranted....

Keep up the good work...

[cormerod]

Can someone interpret "pooter" for me?

Thanks!

[kimbofo]

David, yes, they've recently revamped the Guardian blog (I preferred the old one better) and funnily enough one of their writers did a hatchet job on Rachel Cooke yesterday. See this:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/11/in_defence_of_the_blogerati.html

[marydell]

Cormerod, I asked the same question about "pooter" on my blog. A kind soul stopped by and left this comment:

"Pooter is the name of the diarist in Diary of a Nobody by George and Weedon Grossmith. He writes a diary for publication because 'everyone is doing it,' but everything he writes is inane, self-obsessed and boring.

I guess its clear what the Observer columnist is trying to imply by this."

[kimbofo]

marydell, that explaination is perfect. I always understood pooter to mean something along the lines of people with small minds working ineffectually. But your definition is much more appropriate.

[Simon]

The more I think about it the more you have to come to the conclusion that what is motivating these people who attack literary bloggers is fear. The Internet allows you to have a shot at putting yourself in a shop window regardless of where you went to college, who you know or what you know – if you are no good then you will not get the traffic and fail. However if you are a worthwhile voice then what is wrong with providing a platform for you to share your thoughts and views? The only thing that could be wrong is you might actually challenge the cosy world of those that sit by the fireside in the literary club and fear new members joining.

If Web 2.0 can do anything it can level the playing field and those lit hacks holding onto their precious kingdoms need to face up to the changing world where not only will the way people communicate change but the names they search for might very well be different as well.

[Maxine]

Just to add, I have really enjoyed reading this discussion, and I shall continue to read and enjoy the book blogs -- writers, readers, publishers and literary. Also I like the Times Saturday books section most weeks. yes, there is room for us all. Kim, I wouldn't come to your blog, or other book blogs, most days if there wasn't a lot in it for me -- i have about one hour a day left over after being a professional journalist like you (an editor in my case), a commuter, a mother, and an adult trying to keep a life going. Like you, I prefer to blog than watch TV or go to the pub. But time is very short so I am very focused in what I do in my precious hour. I'm here! And, for example, I will just as likely be over at Marydell's blog (one of your commenters) discussing Wuthering Heights, which is great fun. You can't do that with a book review section.

but I stress that i'm one of the "we can all coexist" party.