Week 5 Prompt Response

The question of reliability when it comes to reviews is a knotty one. The reviews for Billionaire’s First Christmas, for example, while “unreliable” in terms of whether or not they objectively address the novel’s artistic quality (they do not, for instance, talk about whether or not the novel is a good representative of its genre, how effectively the author uses figurative language, etc), they are certainly reliable in representing how an average reader is likely to respond to Rayner’s book. As a collection developer or reader’s advisor, this kind of information is probably just as useful as the more polished reviews published in recognized review journals--but only as a method for determining whether or not the book in question is likely to circulate and be enjoyed. As mentioned above, these reviews do not address the fact that this book is clearly not romantic suspense, and should therefore not be purchased for a library as a representative of this genre.

It seems advisable, then, that more informal, reader reviews and more polished, published reviews be used in tandem. As much as the reviews for Angela’s Ashes, for example, suggest that the novel is indeed a promising read and will be a worthwhile addition to any library collection, it is difficult to determine from these reviews alone whether a book such as this (one of those “reviewed to death”) will indeed be enjoyed by the average library patron, or whether it is simply a media darling chosen and pushed by the publishing company. A chicken-and-egg scenario, while these “chosen” books are not necessarily any better than the many books surely under-reviewed by the media, they are the books that will probably be in higher demand at the library, simply because they are the titles people know. This lopsided characteristic of the reviewing media fundamentally affects the library collection by influencing which books it collects.

On that note, negative reviews seem just as useful as positive reviews, and I would personally shy away from review sources which are purely positive. While I wouldn’t necessarily decide not to buy an item due to a negative review--especially if patrons are likely to request the item either way--I think negative reviews can still be quite useful. From a reader’s advisory standpoint, a negative review could, for instance, alert you to a jarring change in a long-running series, which you might want to mention to loyal readers, or serve as the deciding factor in whether or not you’d recommend a book described as poorly-plotted to a particularly literary reader.

While I do not purchase for a library or use reviews very much to influence my own reading choices, I do use reviews to help me find good literary candidates for my work with children. School Library Journal’s reviews have been instrumental in helping me stay up to date on what’s happening in the world of children’s lit and helping me determine whether or not a given book is worth looking into for a certain age group. Another review source I’ve frequently consulted is Common Sense Media. Their reviews of both books and media for youth have been invaluable, and their web site hosts a very user-friendly interface, with easy-to-browse lists of books and media organized by different categories, such as age group, genre, topic, and “multicultural” reads.