A killer withdrawal

Last year, in a fit of madness, I pledged to read and review all of the books being published by the "Killer Year" gang of debut authors. At the time, I didn't think it would be a problem. Unfortunately, that hasn't proven true.

My reading and reviewing schedule has grown so tight these days that I have very little time to read any books that are not likely to appear in my newspaper column. And since the focus of my column has shifted (with a greater emphasis on books by well-known authors, bestsellers, etc.), it's not likely that I'm going to be able to include many KY books.

I also don't have nearly as much time to read overall as I wish I did. (My daughter and my job keep getting in the way.) One of the downsides to being a professional reviewer is that it puts a serious crimp in your discretionary reading. I have almost no time to read purely for pleasure. (Yeah, I know...  Waah, waah, poor me.)

I'm still trying to read as many of the Killer Year books as I can. And I hope to be reviewing some of them as well. But I'm not going to be able to do all of them as I had originally hoped. I hate having to back off from something like this, but I don't have much choice.

I'm sorry about that, folks.

Comments

[JT Ellison]

We appreciate all your support, David! Good luck with all the new gigs!

[Roddy Reta]

It's a shame that the focus of your column is shifting to writers who are already famous and well-known, since I seriously doubt that reviews make much of a difference for such authors.

[David J. Montgomery]

To a certain extent I agree with you, Roddy, although not all the authors I will be writing about are household names. The paper is trying to change the focus of its coverage, to write more about the books people are reading and are most interested in. In most cases, that means authors who are already (or soon will be) "big names."

Ultimately, I think, it comes down to how you view the purpose for book reviews. Is it to write about the books people are reading, or to write about the books people should be reading? Or is it both?

In a perfect world, I'd be writing about a lot of different kinds of books, and I hope to still do that as much as possible. Given the realities of print reviewing today, though, I consider myself fortunate to have a prominent outlet for my work, even if I have to make some sacrifices.

And the good news is, I'm still able to write about a lot of good books, which is all I ever wanted to do in the first place.

[Robert Gregory Browne]

I think Roddy brings up an interesting point. I think it's much the same in the movie and music world. There are many talented people out there who don't get press because they haven't somehow established themselves as a mainstream attraction.

It's the same sort of Catch 22 aspiring screenwriters run into: you can't sell a screenplay without an agent and you can't get an agent without selling a screenplay.

While I completely understand the needs of the marketplace, it saddens me that entertainment writers aren't allowed to broaden their view a bit.

That said, I thank you David for your always candid posts and the great reviews you DO get to do.

[David J. Montgomery]

A lot of it depends, I think, on the publication (and the audience) that you're talking about.

Obviously, the coverage given by, say, People magazine is going to be different from that of The Atlantic.

This is an area in which I think the internet really opens up a lot of possibilities, as people can review as many (and as diverse) books as they have the time and the interest for.

[spyscribbler]

I don't know anything, but I imagine that if a reviewer didn't review popular authors and mostly reviewed debut authors, readers wouldn't know which reviewer to "identify" with or listen to. If that happened, they wouldn't have readers to sell debut authors to. I'm sure it's a difficult balance.

I *do* appreciate being turned on to a new author by a reviewer whose favorites tend to run along the same vein as mine.