I've been thinking more about Larry's post, and decided I needed a longer post to give more thoughts. I won't recap his post (and the long list of comments) here, so check it out then come back here :)
Below is a list of some points raised in Larry's post, or in the comments. I will follow with my thoughts.
-Bloggers host giveaways to boost their traffic.
To this, my answer simply is: So what? Maybe there are bloggers out there who will blog even if they have no visitors. I'm not one of them, and have said so many times. I'm not trying to be the biggest or the best blog out there. But, I do like to know other folks stop by here, as i like to promote books and hear people's opinions on books. It would be rather boring if I was carrying on such a conversation with only myself. The day I feel like I'm talking to no one will be the day this blog goes away. Blogs are a lot of work if you do them "right". What's wrong with wanting others to get some enjoyment out of the work you put into your blog? None that I can see, but maybe I'm in the minority. The lack of book giveaways on this blog isn't due to some "I'm above running giveaways" idea. I honestly don't get asked to host a giveaway very often. Pretty much any time I have been asked, I have participated. I've even paid for a giveaway myself to promote a book I liked. The only thing I am leary about with giveaways, is that I don't want to run a contest or giveaway that is also being run on 5 other blogs.
-Sites whose content is mostly giveaway or promotion are "lighter-natured"
This I can agree with. Sites that host primarily contest and giveaways will get removed from my Reader. I haven't noticed this being a problem on most sites, but I have come close to removing Pat's site from my Reader. His blog is the one that comes to mind the most when reading Larry's post. But to prevent me from getting off topic with Pat's site, I'll just move on.
-You run giveaways to build "ties" with the publisher, presumably for free books
Again, I say to this: So what? AS LONG AS THE PROMOTIONS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH YOU GIVING AN HONEST REVIEW. Again, blogging can take a lot of time, and I don't see anything wrong with wanting/hoping for review copies of books. You certainly aren't (most likely) making any money off the blog, and you aren't making money off the arcs. You might be saving some cash by not having to buy as many books, but thats about it. In fact, as I have said before, if I like a book, I will go out and buy a 'real' copy of the book to support the publisher and author. Its kinda nice getting access to books you really want to read, a couple months before they hit stores. And I'm big enough (and honest enough) to admit that it does make me feel "cool" when I see that arc sitting on my doorstep.
Honestly, I think the using the term "whoring yourself out" is way too strong and judgmental. A blog is personal. Folks that enjoy the blogger's thoughts and opinions will read the blog. Those who do not, will not. Sure, you can say that the answer "its your blog, do what you want" is an easy way out of answering Larry's post. But I think its an easy way out because it is absolutely true. Unless you talk to EVERY blogger and understand their motivation behind their blog, I don't see how its fair to judge how they run their blog. And I don't see anything wrong with hoping that the results of your blogging lead to review copies, author interviews, or other "inside" stuf, as long as you don't let those privileges taint your honest opinions and thoughts on the blog.
Subscribe Now
Email me if you would like me to review a book. Digital ebooks are accepted. (Address: bossfan2000 AT yahoo DOT com)
Follow me on Twitter at bossfan2000
Links to Fantasy Reviews Around the Web (By Author Last Name) - 1434 Total Links of 616 Books
Blog Archive
Blogs/Review Sites
- A Dribble Of Ink
- Book Cynic
- Bookie Monster
- Dark Wolf's Fantasy Reviews
- Dragons, Heroes, & Wizards
- Fantasy & Sci-Fi Lovin' Book Reviews
- Fantasy Book Critic
- Fantasy Cafe
- Fantasy Debut
- Graeme's Fantasy Book Review
- Grasping For The Wind
- Joe Sherry
- Neth Space
- OF Blog Of The Fallen
- Pat's Fantasy Hotlist
- Realms of Speculative Fiction
- Sandstorm Reviews
- Sci Fi Songs
- SciFiChick
- Speculative Horizons
- Strange Horizons
- The Bodhisattva
- The Book Swede
- The Bookbag
- The Deckled Edge
- The Gravel Pit
- The Swivet
- The Wertzone
- WJ Fantasy Reviews
Message Boards/Forums
Author Sites
- Brandon Sanderson
- Brent Weeks
- Brian Ruckley
- David Anthony Durham
- David B. Coe
- David Farland
- Eldon Thompson
- Greg Keyes
- Janny Wurts
- Jennifer Fallon
- Jim Butcher
- Jim C Hines
- Joe Abercrombie
- John Marco
- Joshua Palmatier
- Karen Miller
- Kate Elliott
- L.E. Modesitt Jr.
- Michael A. Stackpole
- Patricia Bray
- Patrick Rothfuss
- Paul Kearney
- Paul S. Kemp
- Russell Kirkpatrick
- S.L. Farrell
- Terry Brooks
- Tom Lloyd
- Trudi Canavan
Book Publishers
About Me
Extra HTML
18 comments:
one thing to keep in mind about Larry is that he often intentionally provacative to get a rise out of people (and get discussion going). I've 'known' him for about 8 years now and from what I've seen, the approach works (see the numerous comments and other posts it's inspired). But it also tends to rub people the wrong way and lead to people finding him arrogant or worse.
As to your post, I'm in general agreement.
I think that was well said. Most people write to connect with readers with the same interests. With the millions of blogs out there, how else will you attract people? You can't force someone to read your blog, but you can encourage them to come and look.
And that's where the rest of the content plays a part. You may end up at a blog because of a contest, but if the other posts aren't of interest, readers are unlikely to come back.
Oddly enough, ranting about something is also a good way to get traffic...
Ken-- you're absolutely right. He's got a post up now that mentions me by name. I suppose I get to be the poster child of blog whoring since I had the audacity to defend the practice of doing giveaways. Calling him arrogant is being nice.
This whole giveaway thing got me thinking also but for other reasons. I think a lot of bloggers took a lot of things out of context, I really don't think it was in terms of hosting a few giveaways. There are blogs out there that host more giveaways then reviews or talking about books and therefore are running into the freebie blog catagory.
Strong words aside, and if you read between the lines a little there is a point.
But I am always under the belief that your real readers are going to come back and find your blog one way or another.
As you said there are people who do giveaways to make the publisher happy. I have no problem hearing what they are interested in and saying yes or no, and in all honesty it hasn't effected my relationship with any of the publishers. Like the one you said you felt dirty doing, there were so many people doing it that it makes you wonder if people really went to your site and looked around because it was everywhere.
I know some people got upset and a little burnt about it, but no blood, no foul. To me, it looked like the one taking the toughest grind in all of that was Pat, but not a peep out of him. I'd put up another giveaway by posting the cover art and leave everyone to figure out how many words a picture equals. Ahh, whatever.
Totally OT, I knew I remembered seeing a bossfan2000 somewhere before. You on sffworld?
**Waves in the direction of I-65 South @ Jeff**
Way too many comments on Larry's post for one more, but Adam (Wert) summed it perfectly when he said that "whores" make money; you do sff blogging, you do it for fun, you want to make money blogging better do politics, cats or tech...
Also it's a good idea to talk about books most of the time when you do sff blogging...
The thing that gets me about all this is that I don't even like taking up too much blog space with giveaways. I think the weekly post idea is a good one.
I'm taking the shots on this just because I defend giveaways without throwing in any caveats like as long as the reviews aren't affected...
The way I see it, people will come to a blog based on its merits and the taste of the reader. I'm not going to change what I do because someone might not like it. If I did that I'd never get anything done.
At the same time, I doubt Larry really cares too much about giveaways. His newest post was too deliberately provocative and designed to get a reaction out me and my readers for me to take it seriously. He's clearly agitating for an argument and I see no reason to grant him one.
Neth: I hope he isnt been intentionally provocative just to get a rise out of people in this case. I don't see how that is any better than what he is accusing other people of. I'm gonna choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise I have no use for following blogs that intentionally bait folks. Its ok to take an extreme view for sake of discussion, as long as you are honest about it and state so up front. But making arguments to stir the pot and see how people react, no thanks.
Merrilee: thanks, and I agree with your last point.
PeterWilliam: Yep, i use the bossfan2000 handle on all the forums, so that is me on SFF World. Sounds like you live up I-65 somewhere?
I don't think Larry's original post was all that provocative - beyond the title anyway. It was mostly an introspective post where he was discussing his own thoughts and motivations. It was also a 'clever' way of explaining why he's not posting so much these days and an ascertion that he won't post for the sake of posting - in some ways it was also self-mocking since to fill space on his blog he often posts introspective thoughts with a question or two hoping it will inspire discussion on his blog and elsewhere (in my comment over there I called him on this in a bit of snarkiness that Larry apparently understood immediatly).
That post seemed to touch a real nerve with bloggers. I believe it's because most of us think often about what we are doing, what we want to do, what other people think about us, and how can we keep evolving with the times. It's a weird existential examination that seems to erupt every month or two on the blogospere in one form or another. This whole discussion is just another version of this IMHO. I've learned to not get involved all that often in these (though they can make for good traffic and good discussion) and this time I'm fighting tooth and nail to just keep it to a few responses rather than a dedicated post on my blog.
With all that said, SQT, I think you're overreacting a bit. Larry's latest post was not actually an attack on you as I read it. He used you and the commenters on your response as an example of what he goes on to describe as a form of tribalism. Personally, I think it's an interesting observation. Even though in your response post today you say you don't want to give him the satifaction, it does fit nicely into his argument of tribalism - but I think it's not a good idea to take it personally or to think that Larry is reveling in some form of satisfaction - he's an intellectual kind of guy who values discussion, often heated discussion. While he does come across quite often as arrogant or 'elitist', I think it's a good thing to step back and look at from the perpective of interesting discussion. His methods may be questionable at times, but I honestly believe he doesn't mean it to be personal.
anyway, I've gone on a bit too long here.
If I get a copy from an author I know doesn't make a full time living out of it i'll usually buy a copy for a friend or pick up some of their previous books in support. Good post.
Neth, I get what you're saying. But I disagree. I think the second post was specifically designed to stir the pot. I don't take it too personally because it's not about me but a means to end for Larry. And the whole "tribe" thing is ridiculous. Calling people on my blog a tribe, or a mob, as he writes to his followers who support his is an interesting little bit of hypocrisy. I think people are giving Larry way too much credit as an intellectual and not really looking at the deliberate button pushing he's doing here.
I followed the comments here and also over there at Larry's blog.
And this is my final comment which I posted at Larry's blog:
"A lot of comments. I also added one before this one. I don't want to add another pro/con statement.
But there is something which I find worth to mention: Most of the comments have been written by ...... blogger.
What does this mean? "Normal" readers or lurker are not interested in? Is this an academic discussion between blogger?
I'm not sure. Would be interesting to know how many people read the post and the comments.
Anyway my conclusion:
Blogger are human beings who have different understanding about their blog. That was/is interesting for me and I recollected an interesting post from 26th of April 2009 by Harry Markov who runs Temple Library Reviews.
Reviewer Time: The Official Blog Post!!.Harry started a series with reviews of ....BLOGS !
To be honest I really appreciate the Review of Blog Results so far and I hope he will continue. You learn a lot about the people behind blogs."
The main concern for me is civility; Larry's posts overall stayed in bounds imho maybe excepting the titles but tempers get easily heated as we saw recently...
I have been around the online sff scene since usenet in the early/mid 90's and I am participating for fun, to show my appreciation for great books, to find out about such or spread the word, but personal attacks can easily take the fun from that - usenet for example was excellent at first, a place to share your sf interests, then it devolved quickly into insults and so on, so I avoided un-moderated places, but now with the explosion of blogs, it's easy to spread fires so to speak, take things out of context...
And I still do not get why picking on Pat is fun...
@ Jeff
Yeah, I'm in Louisville.
My wife and I like Louisville. You've also got a nice minor league baseball park there.
Never really had the time (or energy) to respond until now, but I'll just note a few things:
1) As I've said on my blog recently, the "whoring" was at least as much a reference to myself as it was to any aggregate group.
2) I was referring to aggregates in my first post, so it was rather odd that quite a few had to ask if I meant X or Y specifically. The answer to that is no.
3) As for that second post, Ken is right: I had already begun thinking about writing about "new tribalism" ever since that Strange Horizons blowup, so I used an immediate example to highlight a larger concern. Seems that this was taken as me wanting to start some sort of confrontation. I don't do confrontations with people. I do confrontations with ideas.
4) I have nothing against giveways in and of themselves. Again, let me reiterate what I was musing about: The sense of things that don't appeal to me as a reader. I too like to look for information.
5) I don't do much of the social networking thing these days, so learning that my comments are being analyzed and linked to and twittered about is rather bemusing, if not annoying (since I don't follow Twitter or actively follow any blog these days.
There, have I said enough to make a (greater) fool out of myself? :P
Hey Larry,
I think I partially got the idea you were talking as much about yourself as other blogs, but only partially. And I read your post at least 3 times trying to figure out what you were saying. I will say I did not think you were talking about a specific blog, as all of that stuff came up in the comments. Thanks for the clarification, not that you owed it to anyone :)
Post a Comment