Submitted by Bibliolatrist, Jun 16, 2007 14:07

A spirited debate has been raging over the bookblog, a medium soundly denounced by many literary critics, who condemn bookblogs as untrustworthy, poorly written, and entirely too personal. Many critics agree that while bloggers have a right to write about books, they should not be taken seriously but instead ignored on the whole. Just for fun, and because I do feel as though I'm doing meaningful work on my blog (www.bookworship.blogspot.com), I'll try to argue in my defense and in the defense of all bookblogs.

Let me be clear that it is not my intention to besmirch the importance of serious book reviews or literary criticism in general; rather my aim is to prove that both are absolutely necessary to foster a love of reading in a society that desperately needs its attention redirected to more important, more intellectual pursuits. However, I cannot help but notice that denunciations of the bookblog come after many newspapers have decided to cut their book coverage; can it be possible that such condemnation is more akin to a literary death howl, the last bitter stand of a dying and wounded animal? One has to admit the possibility.

Do I believe literary criticism should die? Again, absolutely not, but I do believe that it is too stuffy and impersonal for the everyday reader and generates no enthusiasm for reading outside the small sphere of professionals who make literature the focus of their lives. While that in my opinion is certainly a glorious way to live, such is not the way for the everyday citizen -- the exact person who needs to feel more passionate about reading. Because the bookblog is exactly the vehicle by which to inspire this enthusiasm, I believe that it is just as important to the literary world as is serious literary criticism.

Why? Well let's see. My main priority in writing my blog is to get people excited about reading. No matter what the book, I want to be moved by it — for better or for worse. My reviews are never objective, never "serious," because rarely does such discussion provoke passionate debate, and such passion is absolutely necessary in a society in which books are rarely the focus of mainstream attention (unless, of course, you happen to be a certain boy wizard). My aim is to get people talking about books, about reading – to remove one's attention from the vapidities that often fritter away our time and attention. It is a sad world indeed when we are more concerned with scrutinizing rehabbing celebrities than with following political leaders. If people talked about books like they talked about television and movies, the world would be a different place. The bookblog allows for this form of discussion among (if you will) the proles in a way that more serious criticism does not. In other words, the blog is the best place for enthusiastic, democratic dialogue about books.

The first general argument against bookblogs is that they are badly written and therefore lack any merit whatsoever. Style is, of course, a matter of taste. Admittedly, some are badly written; however, to say that all are badly written is an assertion only too easy to knock down, even though what constitutes good style varies from reader to reader. It may be possible that Ms. Cooke didn't find any blogs to her liking, but even she can't deny her bias against the bookblog to begin with. At any rate, just because bookblogs might be badly written does not bring shame on the entire bookblogging world. There are many badly written books, songs, movies, you name it; of course, it then stands to reason that badly written blogs exist as well. We do not have to pay attention to them, but they do no harm in existing. Hell, there are many ugly children out there in the world, but they have a right to life just as their prettier counterparts do. I mean, really, must we start picking on ugly babies now? Let's leave the little beasts alone.

The second general argument against bookblogs is that they are untrustworthy, which is interesting coming from critics clearly biased in their own right. That's not a bad thing, though: literature is intensely subjective, intensely personal – can a truly trustworthy review be written? I submit that no review is entirely trustworthy: "real" critics can have as much of an agenda as a blogger. I've read many an awful book praised, and I've read many excellent books panned in the press as well. That's okay, though: reading is an intensely personal act, and reviews will vary to fit the tastes and perceptions of the reader. To say that bookblogs are untrustworthy because bloggers feel disenfranchised and resentful is such a glaring generality, however, that it cannot possibly be true. Certainly some are, but an always/never argument is simply too easy to disprove.

I don't mind if Mr. Kirsch prefers to believe that bloggers feel disenfranchised and resentful (I certainly don't but I can admit that others might) or that "those who can, do, while those who can't, blog" (although that's kind of a low blow), but it does seem downright silly to claim that "the blog form, that miscellany of observations, opinions, and links, is not well-suited to writing about literature." Why not? Because "it doesn't offer multiple events every day for the blogger to comment on"? Sure it does – if you're constantly reading. The experience of reading is multi-faceted and affects all areas of one's life; if one is immersed in books on a daily basis, there is always something to talk about. Only one who does not live a daily life of reading would have trouble writing daily about books. Interestingly enough, I believe newspapers include only a weekly literature supplement; does that mean they too lack material to fill a daily column about literature? Apparently. But saying the newspaper is therefore "not well-suited to writing about literature" sounds as silly as saying that the blog is ill-suited for the same reasons.

The final gripe against book blogs involves their highly personal nature. I cannot agree that personal reflection is a negative when it comes to reviewing books. As I've already noted, the great thing about literature is that it is personal; it allows an individual to reflect on her life and the world around her – she internalizes it, using it as a mirror by which to reflect her own experiences. If one's experience of literature is deeply personal, why shouldn't reviews be? Why is it wrong to say that you've been meaning to read a given book for some time or that you bought it discounted? Do not all of these experiences factor into one's subconscious experience of the work? Should we not appreciate and even celebrate all aspects of reading? The bookblog is just the thing to allow for the every day reflection of literature, and not the newspaper or magazine, both of which cannot maintain daily (in some cases even weekly) lit discussion.

To reiterate: literary criticism is all well and good; I read it often and find it necessary to the discussion of serious literature. It is not, however, something the everyday reader wants to read and it is exactly that sort of person who needs to get excited about literature and who will benefit from bookblogs. It is inconceivable that the validity of one is antithetical to the validity of the other. Generating literary conversation and writing about literature is what is ultimately important.

As I've said many times before – in fact, my entire blog is centered around this idea – I believe that reading enables one to live better. Reading enriches our experiences and opens minds. If we propagate the idea that a valid discussion of literature comes only from the elite, we are alienating the large part of society who wants no part of literary criticism. A passionate discussion of books must be praised wherever it is found; doing so will hopefully generate more readers, more people living better because of being richly-read.

Perhaps then I have argued that I am not writing so much about books as I am about the experiences my reading occasions. So be it. But such passionate discussion (whether prompted by books or the life that is affected by them) is something I see daily on this and several other bookblogs, and it has got to be better than remaining silent, analyzing instead the latest celebrity baby bump.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.