Week Five Prompt Response

1) Different publications review different types of books and they allow different types of conversations. For example, Booklist will not publish negative reviews, while, as you have all seen, Kirkus has no problems with it. Ebook only books, which are increasingly popular (especially in the romance genre) see little to no reviews in professional publications unless they have a big name author, and then still it's usually only RT Reviews (formally Romantic Times) or other genre heavy publications. How does this affect collection development?

Every source having different rules and procedures is bound to make the collection development process disorienting. It’s hard to compare or get a comprehensive sense of a title with uneven coverage. It’s also hard to get a good sense of a title with only one review source as well, so it’s not exactly like acquisitions staff can avoid this issue. The ability to track down an even selection of titles with consistent reviews seems to take a great deal of effort and critical thought, and anything less will make a collection suffer (which seems incredibly unfair to acquisitions staff, the library, and its patrons).

Issues of omission, such as negative reviews with Booklist or ebook only titles, make it almost impossible to judge (let alone select) something for a collection. Reviews are supposed to be a tool to help inform readers about what’s out there (and whether it’s worth exploring), but how can they do that if they deliberately leave titles out? It’s almost impossible to collect everything (especially considering the size of the Internet), but purposeful omission will keep acquisition staff from making informed decisions.

2) Look over the [The Billionaire’s First Christmas] reviews - do you feel they are both reliable? How likely would you be to buy this book for your library?

Even though the reviews don’t seem to be very professional, I think that they give a good insight into what patrons may say about the book itself. I would want to look at more reviews to get a better sense of the book and stronger reliability, especially since there’s no guarantee that the two reviews are impartial (for example, the Amazon review could have been from a friend of the author). Since the book is free from Amazon, it wouldn’t be any cost to acquire. However, there seem to be many books similar to this, so it may set a precedent to get any book just because it’s free. Unless there is a known patron demand for this title or author, I would most likely skip this title.

3) How do the reviews make you feel about the possibility of adding Angela's Ashes to your collection?

The breadth of reviews speak to the title’s prestige more than the content. Sad and hopeful memoirs are a huge genre, and many people have strong connections to their content. However, I personally find it hard to distinguish one from the other based on pure summary. The fact that these four major reviewers were uniformly impressed (“extraordinary work in every way,” “a wonderful book; strongly recommended,” “expect demand…from word of mouth thereafter,” “a vivid, wonderfully readable memoir”) speaks strongly to the book’s virtues.

Frankly, even mixed reviews would have made me consider adding it to the collection (possibly sparking a conversation among patrons to the title’s merits). Since everyone seems to agree that this book is truly exceptional (and apparently also quite buzz-worthy), I wouldn’t hesitate to add it to the collection.

4) Do you think it’s fair that one type of book is reviewed to death and other types of books get little to no coverage? How does this affect a library’s collection? 

This is unfair to a degree. While books should have a fair chance at review, there are limited resources with which to do this. This is especially true with the rise in self-publishing- how can a source identify, let alone read and review, thousands of titles scattered across the internet? Many good (or even excellent) titles are definitely being ignored, and there should be a stronger effort to find, review, and acquire them. At a certain point, though, there may be a risk of information overload.

I am unsure how reader/patron interest (or potential interest) plays a role in what does or doesn’t get reviewed. If selection is skewed towards what people are more likely to read, this practice could be slightly (but only slightly) justifiable. At what point would that become a self-fulfilling prophecy, though?

This practice definitely hinders a library’s collection, as they are bound to miss out on great but overlooked titles. Depending on the library’s acquisitions budget, though, a smaller selection from which to choose may be a silver lining.

5) How do you feel about review sources that won't print negative content? Do you think that's appropriate?

Refusing to print negative content is a complicated but ultimately negative practice. It definitely becomes an issue if the source reviews all books. This can easily lead to misleading false praise. One could argue that if they only print reviews of “good” books, it allows the reader to only focus on positive titles and (especially in a library sense) know what to select more efficiently.

However, it also keeps the reader from being able to determine a title’s merits for themselves. For example, Kirkus’s review for Blood Crime outlined how ridiculous the book seemed, but many readers purposefully seek out “ridiculous” books for a light, fun read. At a certain point it just becomes self-censorship. Readers can always check another source, but at this point why not just go to the other source instead?

I definitely understand the pressure to not alienate anyone with negative reviews, but if there is a reasonable opportunity to give a full spectrum of reviews, everyone will benefit.

6) How do you feel about reviews for personal reading, and what are some of your favorite review sources?

(I do not have any acquisitions responsibilities at my workplace)

I almost never read reviews for personal reading. I try to know as little as possible about a title going in, mostly because I find that reviews (or even back-of-the-book synopses) skew my perception of the book. I end up going in with expectations that are completely different from what the book actually delivers and it throws me off mid-read. Everyone reads differently, though, and I can definitely see why other people may want to read reviews before diving into a new book.

I do like informal reviews (mostly word of mouth). The most formal review source I check is Goodreads, although I don’t use it very much. Friends, coworkers, patrons, and (occasionally) Tumblr make up most of my unofficial review sources.