Books(in140) & Other Things

SCHULTZ & PEANUTS/Michaelis: Interesting, dark bio of Peanuts creator. Loved the cartoons. More to Schultz than explored, but worthy effort. (#) $

AUDITION/Walters: Writing too chirpy, but surprisingly engaging and honest. Who knew she had such soul? (@libbyfh) (#) $

A MERCY/Morrison: Underscores exactly what freedom is not, and the consequences of not recognizing when we are our own light. (@llapen) (#) $

KITCHEN CONFIDENTIAL/Bourdain. Not your typical insider’s look @ restaurant biz. Simultaneously interesting, coarse & addicting (@ramiam) (#) $

JOHNATHAN STRANGE & MR NORRELL/Clarke: Brits, books, magic, and footnotes. Utopia? Perhaps. (@baronetess) (#) $

NEED/Jones: Twilight fans & more will enjoy sweet & scary YA book about spooky pixies and a spunky girl and her werewolf love. (@TammyLNYC) (#) $

I read a lot. I read for work (and work [and even work]), and I’ve always meant to start writing book reviews on this blog. As you can tell, that hasn’t happened. And it probably never will.

I’ve been reading a lot about Twitter and different ways it can be used. Several television characters (for example, the character on Gilmore Girls and Mad Men) have fictional twitter accounts. Fellow b5 blogger Nikki Katz is doing something pretty cool on Twitter right now–she’s chronicling the (fictional) life of a high school girl on Twitter at My Life in 140.

There’s a lot of great stuff going on over at Twitter, but it’s also pretty hard to figure out what’s working, what isn’t, who you should follow, what you should post, etc. It’s a lot of fun figuring this kind of thing out.

And in that spirit, I’ve decided that I can handle reviewing books in 140 characters. Today I launched yet another Twitter account in which to do this: Books in 140. Book reviews. In 140 characters. That’s practically no characters at all! I can do this!

Feel free to share yours by emailing me, DMing me, @replying me or however else you want!

I’m also thinking about twittering a public-domain book, one sentence per day. Or writing my own book via Twitter (ha!). I’d love to learn about more book-related projects on Twitter. What ideas do you have?

Papercut, the fabulous NY Times book blog, came up with the “seven deadly sins” of book reviews today–popular words in books reviews, used to sound “intelligent” and “literary.”

The list includes the gems poignant; compelling; intriguing; eschew; craft (used as a verb); muse (used as a verb); and lyrical.

In the comments section, nuanced, subtle, masterful, magisterial, engaging, and luminous, among others, came up.

Would a review saying something like (stolen from Papercut, because it’s way better than the review I concocted!) “Mario Puzo’s intriguing novel eschews the lyrical as the author instead crafts a poignant tale of family life and muses on the compelling doings of the Mob” entice you to pick up the book and read it? Probably not.

If the above words may never be used in reviewing a Sophie Kinsella novel, why should they be used in a review about the latest Ondjaate novel? Wouldn’t doing so further alienate certain readers? I’d argue that not only is this language unnecessary, it can be inaccessible.

I wonder if we need to review how books are reviewed. Who reads book reviews? And why? And, given the changing media and social spaces today, where are book reviews going? How would such elaborate and flowery language translate on Facebook and other social media sites, where you get a sentence to attract readers to your review? Or, more interestingly, Twitter? How would you write an effective book review in 140 characters?

That being said, when such words are used correctly, they’d make for a powerful and persuasive review. But reviewing literature doesn’t mean trying to write literature. Don’t write like you’re smart, just be smart. Then the review will be fantastic.

And if you’re really smart, you’ll show me how to write a review in 140 characters. Or less.

Image by Zephyrinus. Licensed via Creative Commons.