Week 5 Prompt Response

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. How does this affect collection development?

Not publishing reviews for books only available in eBook format, especially because these books belong primarily to the romance genre, adversely affects collection development by narrowing the scope of authors and genres available. Librarians may overlook lesser-known authors and titles while overrepresenting larger-name writers or well-known titles if romance is not their preferred genre. Another way not publishing reviews for books only available in eBook format negatively affects collection development is by potentially excluding authors of color, authors belonging to the LGBTQIAP+ community, or authors with disabilities, writing characters who fit within these demographics.

I have posted two more documents in the week five files. One is two reviews of an ebook only romantic suspense novel, one from a blog and one from Amazon. Look over the reviews - do you feel they are both reliable? How likely would you be to buy this book for your library?

I do not think the Amazon review is reliable, but it is helpful because it highlights an appeal factor for readers who do not enjoy sex scenes in romance novels, which is that this book is a “clean Christmas romance” (Deborah, 2014). However, I do find the blog review trustworthy despite being subjective. Although not as reliable as reviews posted in newspapers, magazines, or professional journals, the blog review, unlike the Amazon review, shares more characteristics with those published by more professional sources. Specifically, they highlight the type of romance book that The Billionaire's First Christmas is, a romance novel following a conventional formula or trope, which may or may not be an appeal factor for another reader, depending on their interests. Furthermore, the reviewer notes that their feelings about the characters are subjective opinions, not facts, and therefore, not applicable to every reader. I would purchase The Billionaire's First Christmas for my library, but specifically for the holiday collection because of the specialized or niche interest—Christmas romance—which this book covers.

The other document contains some reviews of Angela's Ashes, by Frank McCourt, an incredibly popular memoir. These reviews are all from professional publications, feel free to find more on your own I just nabbed a few from the Book Review Digest database for you. How do these reviews make you feel about the possibility of adding Angela's Ashes to your collection?

Although I would not add Angela’s Ashes to a personal collection, I would purchase it for my library. All the reviews contain the same basic overview of McCourt’s memoir, but each incorporates at least one additional detail to capture the reader's interest. Furthermore, their reviews rely on pathos, that is, the emotions McCourt’s memoir evokes in the reader, which is an effective method of persuading potential readers or librarians to read or purchase this book.

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? 

I do not believe it is fair that one type of book garners many reviews while other types of books receive few or none. This inconsistency in the number of reviews negatively affects collection development by skewing the collection. Librarians can only choose books for their library that they know exist, based partly on prior knowledge and partly on research, which includes locating and analyzing book reviews.

Therefore, if one or more book types receive few or no reviews, the librarian cannot accurately judge whether they would fit into an existing or a new collection. Instead, they must choose book types with more book reviews and other forms of coverage from which to select.

And how do you feel about review sources that won't print negative content? Do you think that's appropriate? 

I believe sources should print negative reviews. However, a requirement should exist that the reviews are forms of constructive criticism rather than content meant solely to be malicious. Constructive criticism presents a learning opportunity, whereas cruelty does not.

If you buy for your library, how often do you use reviews to make your decisions? If not, how do you feel about reviews for personal reading, and what are some of your favorite review sources?

I do not buy for my library; I also do not utilize reviews for my personal reading. However, I believe reviews can be helpful for this purpose. I do not subscribe to or pay for any review sources. Therefore, I can only access a few review sites. Kirkus Reviews is my favorite review source; aside from the physical layout of their website, which I find aesthetically pleasing, I have yet to encounter a paywall or subscription wall preventing me from accessing a review. In past classes, my professors have assigned article readings from Library Journal, but I have also used this review source to find book reviews for assignments. I enjoy many aspects of this site, including the simple layout of the site, as well as the inclusion of the publisher, publish date, number of pages, ISBN, price of the book, and genre. Additional factors I appreciate include that clicking the name of the reviewer at the bottom of the page directs the reader to other reviews the reviewer has written, the related reads on the right side of the page, and the judgment portion at the bottom where the reviewer summarizes their opinion on the book. Two other review sources I find helpful are Barnes and Noble and NoveList because both sites include reviews from sites like Kirkus Reviews or Publishers’ Weekly that would otherwise be inaccessible because of a paywall or subscription wall.

 

References:

Deborah. (2014, December 10). [Review of The Billionaire’s First Christmas]. Amazon.