In a post at the Litreactor website, horror/thriller novelist Gabino Iglesias posted "10 Reasons Why Bookstagrammers are Awesome." Lists always intrigue me, so I was drawn to Iglesias' post. (The fact that I enjoy the author's work contributed to my interest, sure.)
Iglesia notes that, "Not many book reviewers will go into the feelings they experience when reading a book, but bookstagrammers will." The payoff is that such "honesty" encourages interest, perhaps leading to more book sales. For authors the prize is that these posts provide "a different version of what their work is accomplishing out there in the world."
Another point Iglesias makes is that blookstagrammers are "a positive force" insofar as they generally won't share a book they disliked, but will express great passion to support a novel they enjoyed.
And that leaves me wondering about the role of the critic. But are "amateur" online book reviewers "critics?" Are they even reviewers? Can their posts qualify them as "hobbyists?"
But wait, why bother asking these questions? One of the most important observations makes is that bookstagrammers "are great at building community." And if there's anything we need in this age of neoliberalism, it is the building of communities. What better community can we find than the community of book readers?
No comments:
Post a Comment