Friday, December 14, 2007

A delinquent blogger returns

I just spent two hours writing a single book review (for my own magazine, sigh) and my brain hurts. At the same time, I'm relieved that I managed to make my own deadline; I would have felt guilty if I hadn't. For those of you who review, especially short pieces like this one (300 words or less), how long does it take you to write the things? I'm trying to figure out why I can dash off readers' advisory pieces for my NoveList column relatively quickly, while "formal" reviews take an hour or more. I may need to work on my mindset.

The past two weeks have been crazy, what with finals week at the library, various other work-related things, editing reviews as they arrive, and my need to finish up my Historical Adventure chapter. It's done now, finally, and I've laid the framework for the next one, Historical Fantasy.

I promised to mention that Kelly Hewitt at Loaded Questions will be giving away five signed copies of Yannick Murphy's Signed, Mata Hari, so visit her site to sign up for the drawing and read an interview with the author.

Next week, I hope to post my (highly personal and extremely idiosyncratic) top 10 historical novel reads from 2007. It won't be anything like the New York Times top 10 best books list, I can promise you that.

I also need to get some review books mailed out soon, but that may not happen until Monday because we may be snowed in tomorrow.

Finally, for your amusement I'll post some search terms that people have used to find this blog recently:

rett butler the new book
50 page long novels
the unusual information on the medieval castle
jane rochford photo
should juliet have gotten married so young
eric bana was the best

Now I'm going to find a new book to read.

8 comments:

  1. It can take me a good two hours to write a 200-300 review, I'm afraid--I guess I'm so slow because every word counts! (Now that I've turned all my reviews in, I can get online without guilt!)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Glad it's not only me! I spent another 30 minutes fiddling with my review last night, and I think I'm finally happy with it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lynn Spencer12:49 PM

    I don't review for your publication, but with the one for which I reivew, it takes me about 1-2 hours to write a review as well. Distilling a book(especially one with any complexity) down into a short review is much harder than writing a longer piece.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm pretty sure I've read your reviews, Lynn! Did you review Carla Kelly's latest for AAR? It's what convinced me to pick it up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. An hour or two for a review sounds pretty fast to me :-)
    Looking forward to your list!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lynn Spencer8:06 AM

    Yes - I did review Carla Kelly's latest. How did you enjoy the book? I really like her writing style and wish she were better known.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gosh, I'm really slow--it takes me hours to write a review! Usually takes several hours to actually get something I can work with down on the computer; then I go back to it many times over a period of days or weeks and refine it. Sometimes I end up starting all over! (I guess that's why I review such a very few books.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's actually good to see that reviewers are putting so much time into their reviews. There are rare times when I know exactly what I want to say and how to say it, but other times, I get stuck and muddle things over in my head for a few days before getting anything down on paper. Even after I've written it, I often make changes to the text until it's in its final form.

    It can help to take notes as I'm reading, but the more involved I am in the novel, the more I forget to do that.

    Lynn, I loved Beau Crusoe! Hope to have my comments on it posted within a day or so.

    ReplyDelete