 |
 |
Nate, I do always read lists of 'books received' [don't get out much these days!] and have often seen and ordered things I otherwise wouldn't have heard of. For example, UK-based readers often wouldn't get to know about US books of interest without such lists and I guess the same would be true in reverse. So I think that such lists are useful in terms of making books visible. I think that where most lists fall down is that they don't say anything at all about the books - i.e. it would be useful to see the words 'poetry' or 'criticism' in brackets after the titles. Also useful to list publisher's contact details in the case of more hard to get items. Cheers David -----Original Message----- From: Nate and Jane Dorward <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: 05 December 2000 08:46 Subject: lists >A question for readers of periodicals. I've been trying to deal with the >rather large pile of books that have arrived at _Gig_ HQ in the past year. >In large part the backlog is due to the Peter Riley issue, which took a lot >of time to produce & unlike other issues contained no reviews. Anyway, many >periodicals past & present have run "Books Received" lists. That is >tempting, but as far as I can see does little more than assuage the editor's >guilt; are these lists really of great interest & use to readers? anyone >really _use_ these sections of the journal? -- I tend to feel too that one >of the primary jobs of a journal is to sort through the books received, not >just list them; otherwise it's a bit of a cop-out isn't it. (I suppose one >might circumvent this by marking which books were most worthwhile with a >star.) > >all best --N > >Nate & Jane Dorward >[log in to unmask] >THE GIG magazine: http://www.geocities.com/ndorward/ >109 Hounslow Ave., Willowdale, ON, M2N 2B1, Canada >ph: (416) 221 6865