Sunday, 6 March 2011

Old or New?

With absolute credit to Jackie over at Literary Escapism - who also asked this question on her blog - I want to know whether you like old or new reviews? Do you prefer seeing the latest shiny reviewed here on Floor to Ceiling Books? Or do you like it when I stretch back to *gasp* books from earlier than this year or last?

I would be *incredibly* interested in hearing from y'all!
Posted by Magemanda at 01:16
Labels:

18 comments:

  1. T.N. Tobias6 March 2011 at 01:27

    I like to see a combination of both. New readers can would do well to look back and see all of the interesting things that have come before more recent work. And I always love to see a new review of an old favorite.

    But then of course new books are exciting in sexy in their own ways. Finding a balance between old and new is something I try to do with my own blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Weirdmage6 March 2011 at 01:30

    I do reviews for books that where put out "ages" ago myself. So I think there should be room for older books.

    There has been great books written for a long time, and there is no need to ignore those just because there are new books out.

    Even the SFF genre begins (arguably) with Frankenstein in 1818. And if you count the Epic of Gilgamesh as fantasy, you're somewhere around 2000 B.C. as the genre's beginning.

    I think you should read whatever you feel like, and review it. (And I want to see you do the rest of The Belgariad books, and the Malloreon, and the Belgarath and Polgara books too :-P)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Janicu6 March 2011 at 01:31

    I like a mix of both. I like to see new books because when I see a bunch of reviews for the same book I can look at them all at one time and I get a good overall picture of whether I want to read it. And then I like to see reviews later on that remind me to read a book I was thinking about but didn't buy right away. I also like to see books that didn't necessarily have hype or are older books, just because.. well who doesn't like to discover a great new-to-them book?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Aaron Pound6 March 2011 at 01:51

    I review mostly older books (and in some cases, pretty obscure books), mostly because that's just what I like to read. It seems that the newer books get lots of attention from book blogs, while the older ones just don't. I figure that I want to do more than mirror what a bunch of other bloggers are doing, so that fact that a lot of the books I review are twenty, fifty, or even more years old is fine with me.

    Aaron (Dreaming About Other Worlds).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Valashain6 March 2011 at 09:05

    I prefer a mix as well. Mixing older and more recent books mirrors my reading patern. In recent years I've made a point of reading a bunch of SF classics and I am in the proces of working my way though the entire catalogue of two particular authors.

    Of course I want to keep informed about what is apearing now but I also love stuff like Jo Walton is doing over at Tor.com.

    New books are more sexy I suppose but I've seen at least a dozen reviews of The Wise Man's Fear pop up this week without actively looking and while I am excited about this book mystelf, the genre doesn't stop there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Noel R.6 March 2011 at 13:29

    I definitely prefer a mix. I get tired of seeing reviews of the same new book on every blog I visit. Besides, there are some great older books out there, and I want to know about them!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jodie Robson6 March 2011 at 13:38

    I like a mix too. If there's a new book everyone's talking about and I see you've reviewed it, then I'm interested to know what you think, and sometimes that leads on to other books as well (I read Rivers of London on your recommendation recently, and loved it). But I read lots of older books - I guess my own reviews are about half-and-half new and old - and I'm always really pleased if I discover an author or book I've missed out on. One of the great things about book blogging is the number of good, relatively unknown authors you can find out about. An example: back when Google was young I searched on a French author I'd read many years ago, and got a total of 5 hits, one of which was me answering a question on a forum. Today there are over 800,000 references to him, quite a few of them reviews on blogs. Isn't that wonderful?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Civilian Reader6 March 2011 at 15:22

    Mixture. But, at the same time, don't restrict yourself - read and review what you want to read, not what you feel you 'have' to read.

    On my site I mix things up, because I'm quite new to fantasy, so there are loads I've missed out on the first time they came out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous6 March 2011 at 15:36

    Well, I like to provide and read a mix. Sometimes you can't afford to read the latest book, sometimes you want to read a classic. Reviewing both is a nice balance.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ant6 March 2011 at 22:59

    I think there is always room for the older reviews, may readers including myself often buyer older books and it's just as important to get an idea of what they are like from the point of view of a fellow reader.

    The only issue I have is finding the time to read the older novels.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ryan7 March 2011 at 01:50

    I'm gonna sound like a broken record here, but I also like a nice mix of old and new. I think many of the other sf/f bloggers only do new new new stuff, and though that is nice, not everyone receives ARCs or can afford shiny hardbacks. Plus, there is TONS of great older SF/F out there that is under-reviewed by bloggers. Personally, the SF/F bloggers are my go-to reviewers, as I know their tastes really well, and how their tastes compare to my own, so I rely on their reviews. However, when reading something from before the advent of review blogs, I have a hard time sorting out the good from the not so good. So reviews of older material would be greatly appreciated. So, YES! New and Old please!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Callidiscope7 March 2011 at 02:13

    I would like to see more "older" reviews. I didn't start reading book blogs until about a year ago, and I have gone through periods since then of not checking blogs for a month or two. It would be helpful to have reviews of "older" books which can be just as good as new ones, and which I otherwise might miss due to lack of exposure.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous7 March 2011 at 15:27

    I like a mixture of reviews, although I do prefer more reviews of older books mainly because there are so many titles I have yet to read!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mieneke van der Salm7 March 2011 at 15:58

    I'm late and agreeing with everyone else. I like a mix of both old and new and I try to do both :-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. WonderBunny7 March 2011 at 22:40

    Both the comments here and on LE have been really interesting to read and at least I know I'm doing something right by mixing old and new books for reviews.

    I have a bunch of old books to read and if the only thing I ever reviewed were new books I'd never decrease my tbr stack - which since I'm working on a "spend less on books" goal, I've been reading a number of old books when they aren't for reviews.

    ReplyDelete
  16. joe578 March 2011 at 14:35

    I feel like I missed out on so many great fantasy books. How were you supposed to find out which books were good before the internet and books blogs if you didn't have a friend recommend them? So I always appreciate reviews of some older books.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Allisyn8 March 2011 at 21:05

    I like a mix. It's nice to see new books but I also like seeing older books where authors have since written more books. I love being able to pick up a book from a new-to-me author, enjoy it and then try to read more (or all) of what they've already written.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jared9 March 2011 at 08:57

    Review what you'd be reading naturally - that'll bring out the best & most honest reviews.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)