Book bloggers rule OK

I know we are all bored with the "book reviews on blogs vs publications" argument that has been rolling round everywhere for the past few days. To my mind, the argument is a straw man probably initiated to get a few names better known and/or to sell a few papers (or more accurately these days, adverts).

But in case you have missed one particular contribution, I thought I'd note that Alan Bissett has taken apart each point made by Rachel Cooke in her poorly researched anti-blogger Observer/Guardian piece (link below). On the Guardian book blog, naturally -- keeping it all in the family.

Link: Guardian Unlimited: Arts blog - books: In defence of the blogerati.

Postscript. Norman Geras has written a truly excellent analysis of the issues on his blog normblog (which unfortunately does not allow comments). He writes:

"The 'end of civilization as we know it' comes across as a comical theme often enough. But at least where it involves an imagined catastrophe of world-historical scope, it can possess dramatic charm. In the present case, however? A snooty fear of the imminent collapse of reviewing standards? My God, my God, now that truly is belly-laugh stuff."

Comments

[Lee]

Generally a good post by Geras, but in his second-to-last paragraph he argues that poor newspaper reviewing has not managed to banish good reviewing from newsprint. However, it remains to be seen what effect poor reviewing in *blogs* will have on *newspaper* reviewing - in other words, two different media, and both the cross-currents and the consequences may be different.