Type
Article

more on the future of litblogging

With more and more book reviews and commentary migrating online, we need to be conscious of what we’re gaining and what we’re losing. This is harder than it seems, since the gains and losses are often deeply entwined. For instance, one of the most liberating aspects of blogging is the release from the strictures of conventional commercial publications. You want to be opinionated? Be opinionated! You want to write in the first person? You can! You want to post pictures of your chickens? Why, go ahead! Blogging seems like writing at year zero. Everything is possible, nothing is forbidden.

Naturally, there’s much to reject from the world of commercial journalism. Most obviously, your book blog isn’t owned by Rupert Murdoch, and you don’t have the same financial pressures breathing down your neck. If you want to devote your time exclusively to, say, reviewing regency romances, there’s no-one to suggest that the advertisers would prefer something broader.

That being said, the difficulty with working in year zero is that you are just as likely to lose the best aspects of the old world as the worst. The culture of newspaper book reviewing has been established over many years and, alongside all kinds of malign influences, it also reflects progressive pressures from writers and readers. The list below contains a few aspects of that culture that need more discussion.

1. Pay.

This is obvious but still needs to be said. If you review for a newspaper, you get paid. If you review online, by and large, you don’t — or at least not very well. The shift from print to digital media is being used to carry out a massive pay cut throughout the industry, with the difference between freelancing for a newspaper and for their online equivalents involving a drop of about two-thirds. Most bloggers, of course, get paid nothing. None of this is good.

2. Quality control.

A book review for the print version of Overland goes through an elaborate process of fact-checking, structural and copy editing, proofing and so on. Most of what appears on this blog is more-or-less stream of consciousness. We don’t have the time nor the staff for anything much else.

Most bloggers review as a hobby (see point one above). For that reason, there’s none of the infrastructure that supported old-style newspaper reviewing (few blogs have copy editors).

3. Relationships with the industry.

Over the years, newspaper book reviewers have had to establish protocols for their dealings with the publishing industry. These have never been perfect but nonetheless they exist. At the most basic level, the fact that a newspaper is a major organisation provides some distance between the publisher and the book reviewer.  When publicists start sending books out to bloggers, it’s a much more fraught relationship. In part, it goes back to the first point — if people are not paid at all, the provision of free review copies becomes much more significant. The Age doesn’t have to worry about falling off the publicity list after writing a bad review; a small-time blogger does.

Which is not to say that bloggers get bribed, just that they don’t have the infrastructure to insulate them from these inevitable conflict. What’s more, most book bloggers also write fiction, which adds another pressure to their relationship with publishers.

4. Relationships with individuals.

On the Overland blog, I’ve posted a number of references to Kalinda Ashton’s new novel, as well as to my own book. I’d never be able to do that in a newspaper — or, at least, not in the same kind of way. Again, professional reviewers have various protocols to govern how they deal with books by people they know. In the blogosphere, that’s all much more murky. Literary circles are very small. Almost by definition, if you are writing a books blog, you are going to festivals, attending launches and so on. It’s very, very difficult to prevent these kinds of relationships impacting on your reviewing.

None of these things are insurmountable — or any less insurmountable than in old media forms — but IMO they need to be talked out more, as the landscape of book reviewing changes.

Overland is a not-for-profit magazine with a proud history of supporting writers, and publishing ideas and voices often excluded from other places.

If you like this piece, or support Overland’s work in general, please subscribe or donate.

Jeff Sparrow is the former editor of Overland. He is the co-author (with Jill Sparrow) of Radical Melbourne: A Secret History and Radical Melbourne 2: The Enemy Within, the editor (with Antony Loewenstein) of Left Turn: Essays for the New Left and the author of Communism: a love story, Killing: Misadventures in violence, and Money Shot: A Journey into Censorship and Porn.  On Twitter, he's @Jeff_Sparrow.

More by

Comments

  1. . . . to elaborate (premature send) Meanjin does want to pay contributors to Spike, and build in copyediting time. Whether that's realistic (it involves issues such as funding, as well as, obviously, time), I'm not yet sure.

  2. Yes, what a great post. I'm an online theatre reviewer and while my reviews are edited, the pay is very minimal and makes reviewing for a newspaper so much more appealing.

  3. Interesting post. I personally tend to not review for cash, or place as much importance on it, as writing fiction or articles. I guess people like me can be responsbile for watering down the quality of even blog book reviews because of this.

    But I tend to love the relationships fostered through blogging, as a writer with other writers, but haven't had to give a person I work with a bad review which could open a whole other experience.

  4. Lit reviewing is all inbred in bed all the time. Only difference is that with the rise of blogging you can track back and see the rumpled sheets and wine glasses by the bed that led to the birth of the screaming, bouncing, healthy fantastic review. Australia has such a small literary world, but for some reason, particularly with print reviews we try to pretend otherwise.

  5. Can only agree with Genevieve, I'm afraid. The world of writing on the internet seems to be about four years (which is a long time on the internet) in front of Australia's editors and academics. But that is not necessarily a bad thing since editors and academics are mostly concerned with chronicling and analysing things that have already happened.

  6. I blog on a fortnightly basis on my website and I think it's great. I get to write non-fiction pieces that reflect what is happening in our society but also what I am passionate about or think is unjust. I don't get paid for it. With all the writing that's getting published at the moment I think it would be difficult for me to get it published – I am an emerging writer and don't have much of a publishing history. I blog because I have so much I want to get off my chest and I always feel better after I write a piece, like I've unloaded a piece of myself onto cyberspace. I think it's great publicity for my writing career. You never know who is reading. So as an emerging writer I don't think I'm losing anything at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>