I receive (as I suspect Curly does) a number of writing-related e-newsletters. I appreciate the resources they offer in terms of markets and manuscript calls. Sometimes, I appreciate the articles as well.
Unfortunately, more often than seems reasonable, I find articles--articles that are supposedly meant to instruct and advise writers on how to go about various aspects of writing and publishing--filled with bad advice.
Such an article arrived in my e-mailbox a few days ago. Its premise: that "reviews are one of the best and quickest ways to gain visibility, expand my portfolio, and make money from writing, for the least amount of time and effort."
Huh? I'll acknowledge that reviews can help gain visibility and expand one's portfolio. Definitely. But the process is rarely "quick." And in my experience, not to mention that of others I know (want to chime in here, Curly?), reviewing is by no means among "the best and quickest ways" to make money from writing, especially considering the amount of time and effort required!
For the amount of time and effort I put into to identifying review possibilities, requesting review copies, reading and then re-reading the book (I'm primarily a book reviewer rather than someone who reviews restaurants, videos, or music), and THEN writing the review AND reviewing the galley when it's sent back to me, the job is about as far from "quick and easy"--or lucrative--as one can imagine.
Maybe the article's author is just a much faster reader than I am. Maybe she's simply not as much of a perfectionist, and can complete the selection, evaluation, and writing up of a product for review in, as she suggests, a mere two hours or so. Maybe for her, reviews really "are not labor intensive." But that's certainly not my review style or experience, and again, it does not correspond with what I know to be the style or experience of many other reviewers.
I worry not only that this kind of "advice" is misleading (at one point, the article also implies that writers can easily place reviews of used books--again, huh?), but that it will prove harmful. Because I worry that sloppy advice will lead to sloppy writing.
And I'm peeved when such "advice" gets promulgated (not to mention paid for!).
--Prunella
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wow, that article was infuriating! I completely agree with your appraisal, Prunella. Reviews take a lot of work and you need to know about the area you are reviewing -- it isn't just a matter of finding something and giving an "everyman's view" on it, as she seems to imply. And it certainly requires a lot of time and effort -- researching markets, carefully reading the text or watching the film or eating at the restaurant (multiple times, if possible), learning about the author/other related books/direct/chef/whatever, and writing up a detailed analysis. I personally would not trust this woman's reviews!
Also, I have not heard of being able to review used books or films (except perhaps for some desperate publications).
And I found this especially annoying: "For food reviews, simply dine out for dinner or lunch, and take a pad and pen to record your experience." -- What? Um, no. I have written restaurant reviews and you have to have experience with food in order to do so. You need to know about the kind of cuisine, about cooking, about composing recipes, setting out food on the plates, and so much more. It isn't just about your experiences! No one cares about that, frankly. People want (and deserve) a knowledgeable analysis.
--Curly
Thanks, Curly. Somehow, I suspected you'd understand why that piece ticked me off.
--Pru
Post a Comment