One of the authors has reposted her book, so it's difficult to tell how well-rated the original version was, but the other two books had not done all that well in the ratings, or even been reviewed all that often, compared to some. This lends some credence to the folks who complain about the ratings being too socially-based, but I think that's beside the point. Authors are not often the best judges of their own work, so it's not all that surprising that they don't necessarily pick the most marketable books as their favorites. And besides, there is and will always be a subjective element to what an editors buys.
-
- karen_w_newton (
karen_w_newton) wrote,
karen_w_newton
karen_w_newton
The online slush pile comes through!
One of the authors has reposted her book, so it's difficult to tell how well-rated the original version was, but the other two books had not done all that well in the ratings, or even been reviewed all that often, compared to some. This lends some credence to the folks who complain about the ratings being too socially-based, but I think that's beside the point. Authors are not often the best judges of their own work, so it's not all that surprising that they don't necessarily pick the most marketable books as their favorites. And besides, there is and will always be a subjective element to what an editors buys.
-
The curse of YA, or Why is Harry Potter an orphan?
I saw a link on Neil Gaiman's Facebook page to this NYT Books section essay about how prevalent bad or missing parents are in YA fiction. It's a…
-
More on "sticky books"
Since my post of the other day, I have decided that either kids' books are more likely to be inherently sticky or that things we read when young are…
-
And a little child shall lead them
The subject line refers not to religion, but to publishing. The Washington Post did away with their print Book World standalone section, which used…
- Post a new comment
- 2 comments
- Post a new comment
- 2 comments
