Nick's Random Gibberish (15) : I Don't Consider Myself To Be a Book Reviewer

Nick's Random Gibberish is a weekly post here at Nick's Book Blog where I, Nick, will talk about random topics from personal posts to discussion posts.

Hi booknerds! 

Nereyda and I were having this conversation the other day about what having a book blog really means when we started talking about "reviewing". It got me into my thinking mode and I was able to come to several conclusions, but I was also attacked with so many questions. 

First of all, I've come to the conclusion that I am not a reviewer/critic. Merriam Webster defines the review as "a critical evaluation". When I write my "reviews", I'm actually just sharing how I felt of the book and how the book impacted me. I'm not talking about the writing style, the grammatical errors and the typos. Those things don't really bother me and I don't consider them when I'm reading a book unless they are overwhelming. I also don't look for these when I read other bloggers' "reviews".  I want to know what the book made the reader feel - all the emotions or the lack of emotions. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that, I don't consider myself to be a reviewer, but only an individual sharing her feelings on a book. I just identify with that Merriam Webster definition. 

Which brings me to my main question. If we, in the book blogging community, are not reviewers, then what exactly are we? Is there a name for the posts that we write, those thoughts on books? Should we even be calling our reviews "reviews"? 

I'm curious to hear you guys' thoughts on this? Do you think of yourself as a reviewer? Why or why not?
Please feel free to share your opinions below!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

In My Mailbox (8)

In My Mailbox (3)

In My Mailbox (10)