Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Man Booker Prize judge thinks book bloggers are killing lit crit.

"Eventually [book blogging] will be to the detriment of literature. It will be bad for readers; as much as one would like to think that many bloggers opinions are as good as others. It just ain't so. People will be encouraged to buy and read books that are no good, the good will be overwhelmed, and we'll be worse off. There are some important issues here."

Boo-fricking-hoo, I say. 

Does he seriously think readers don't know that not all opinions are created equal?

Has he not considered that bloggers are sometimes (often) beating professional critics because their opinions are more useful?Perhaps because they embrace more genres (e.g. romance) and more reasons for reading (e.g. entertainment).

High literary institutions are all very well, but they do not own the readership, and they do not autmatically get the right to lead, represent and determine the purchases of the entire readership. The don't get to unilaterally decide what is "good".  Or force people to buy books that don't meet their needs.

Frankly, Sir Peter needs to grow up and realize that we know that not all opinions are create equal.  And most people would not rank his opinion near the top of the personal list when it comes to deciding what books to buy and read.

See also

1 comment:

Natalie St.Clair said...

boohoo I say too, I think Sir Peter is still living in the stone age and does not understand that bloggers are the new critics and are revolutionizing the book industry, the same way the fashion bloggers changed the fashion industry.