Ten Years Later: To Blog Or Not To Blog

Ten years ago today, I published a little article "To Blog or Not To Blog." This is significant only to me, but, it was the first time any post of mine really got read by a non-friend or non-relation. And it was my first post to get some comments. The spring of 2007 in many ways was the 'start' of my blog--not the fall of 2006 when my audience was an audience of me, myself, and I. It was also that spring that I participated in my first reading challenges!

Why blog?

• Wherever there are two men, there will be two opinions. ~ Anthony Trollope, The Three Clerks
• Every man has the right to voice his conviction into the air.  Dostoyevesky, The Adolescent, p. 31
• Ah! So you, too, suffer sometimes because a thought won't go into words! It's a noble suffering, my friend, and granted only to the chosen; a fool is always pleased with what he says, and besides, he always says more than he needs to; they like extras. Dostoyevsky, The Adolescent, 122
• Everyone is entitled to his likes and dislikes and to his prejudices. Come to think of it, I don't care for pistachio ice cream. I don't know why I don't like it, but I don't. (E.B. White, Trumpet of the Swan, 114) 
• We can't have freedom unless we have freedom. And that means freedom to speak our minds (Jean Lee Latham, 91).

Why do I (continue to) blog?

• Because I can't stop reading.
• Because I don't want to stop reading.
• Because I don't know what I think until I try to put it into words.
• Because If I'm going to go to the trouble of putting it into words, it might as well be public.
• Because I like being part of the reading community. Especially the reading challenge community. 
• Because it's satisfying to look back and see what I've read and how I felt about any particular book at the time.
• Because I'm thankful. Thankful that I have made the friends I have--in part because of the blog. Thankful that I have received the books I have. Thankful that I am able to keep reading, to keep hosting.  

Why the blog has changed through the years?

My blog has definitely changed--in terms of content--since I began. I used to focus exclusively on NEW books written for children and teens. I now have a much, much broader--almost whimsical--approach to blogging. I read what I want, when I want. If I want to read nonfiction, I read nonfiction. If I want to read adult mysteries published in the 1920s-1950s, I do. If I want to go on a Trollope binge, I will. It's not all about the new. It's not all about the IT book, the trends.

Highlights from the original post that I still stand behind:

The great thing about reading is everyone is different. Everybody reads a book differently. One person could love it. One person could like it. One person could hate it. Which person is right? None of them. All of them. Only the reader can decide what is "good" in their opinion. You can't force anyone to like a book. You can't enforce your tastes and opinions on anyone else. Everyone can have their own opinion on a book. That's the only way to view it. If I disagree with your taste in books, fine. If you disagree with my taste in books, fine. There is no right or wrong here. All this is obvious. More than obvious. But here is the bottom line: how does a reviewer balance their personal response from a book with an objective view of the book? Can any book be read objectively? How can the reader divorce themselves from the reading process? Should they even try?
Reviews are opinions. They reflect the opinion of one person--the reviewer. They cannot reflect every opinion. 

Every book is potentially someone's "favorite" book waiting to be discovered. 

There is no *right* way to review a book. 

© 2017 Becky Laney of Becky's Book Reviews