<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I never wrote for Kirkus, but these guys did</title>
	<atom:link href="http://carolynkellogg.com/2009/12/i-never-wrote-for-kirkus-but-these-guys-did/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://carolynkellogg.com/2009/12/i-never-wrote-for-kirkus-but-these-guys-did/</link>
	<description>and Pinky's Paperhaus</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 05:15:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: joseph barbato</title>
		<link>http://carolynkellogg.com/2009/12/i-never-wrote-for-kirkus-but-these-guys-did/comment-page-1/#comment-11649</link>
		<dc:creator>joseph barbato</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carolynkellogg.com/?p=1094#comment-11649</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve reviewed for Kirkus for the past two years.  I found it to be a thoroughly professional operation.  I wrote what I wanted, and as interestingly as I could make it.  That last part was important: they insisted reviews be interesting to read....Also, there&#039;s a big difference between honest and negativity.  Kirkus was honest.  Its reviewers had no need to pull punches. PW depends on advertising from the book publishing industry.  You will rarely see a book eviscerated there.  Kirkus depended on subscriptions ($450 a year) for income.  It&#039;s readers were decision-makers who really wanted to know whether a book was any good.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve reviewed for Kirkus for the past two years.  I found it to be a thoroughly professional operation.  I wrote what I wanted, and as interestingly as I could make it.  That last part was important: they insisted reviews be interesting to read&#8230;.Also, there&#8217;s a big difference between honest and negativity.  Kirkus was honest.  Its reviewers had no need to pull punches. PW depends on advertising from the book publishing industry.  You will rarely see a book eviscerated there.  Kirkus depended on subscriptions ($450 a year) for income.  It&#8217;s readers were decision-makers who really wanted to know whether a book was any good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Athitakis</title>
		<link>http://carolynkellogg.com/2009/12/i-never-wrote-for-kirkus-but-these-guys-did/comment-page-1/#comment-11648</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Athitakis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:57:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carolynkellogg.com/?p=1094#comment-11648</guid>
		<description>Just as a point of clarification: I was receiving $50 per review from Kirkus. Not exactly rolling in dough, but at least it was folding money. Nobody gets into book reviewing for the money anyhow.

I don&#039;t doubt that Kirkus was regularly dismissed as a joke &quot;within the industry.&quot; But that may speak to how little Kirkus cared about the opinion of &quot;the industry,&quot; and thank heavens for that---Kirkus&#039; audience was booksellers and librarians and book-review editors who were looking for opinions that were divorced from the needs and interests of &quot;the industry.&quot; By calling Kirkus a joke, &quot;the industry&quot; may have been finding a way to insulate itself from the fact that magazine didn&#039;t much care what &quot;the industry&quot; thought.

At least that&#039;s how I saw it from my perspective. I never received guidance on how to come down on a book, never got told how PW came down on a book, never had a review rewritten or edited to be more negative, never had a star chipped off a starred review I filed. Regarding that last point: I gave starred reviews to about one in every 10-12 books I received. I think if we&#039;re all being honest with ourselves, we can agree that only about 10 percent of the books out there truly qualify as excellent. No?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just as a point of clarification: I was receiving $50 per review from Kirkus. Not exactly rolling in dough, but at least it was folding money. Nobody gets into book reviewing for the money anyhow.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t doubt that Kirkus was regularly dismissed as a joke &#8220;within the industry.&#8221; But that may speak to how little Kirkus cared about the opinion of &#8220;the industry,&#8221; and thank heavens for that&#8212;Kirkus&#8217; audience was booksellers and librarians and book-review editors who were looking for opinions that were divorced from the needs and interests of &#8220;the industry.&#8221; By calling Kirkus a joke, &#8220;the industry&#8221; may have been finding a way to insulate itself from the fact that magazine didn&#8217;t much care what &#8220;the industry&#8221; thought.</p>
<p>At least that&#8217;s how I saw it from my perspective. I never received guidance on how to come down on a book, never got told how PW came down on a book, never had a review rewritten or edited to be more negative, never had a star chipped off a starred review I filed. Regarding that last point: I gave starred reviews to about one in every 10-12 books I received. I think if we&#8217;re all being honest with ourselves, we can agree that only about 10 percent of the books out there truly qualify as excellent. No?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Curtis</title>
		<link>http://carolynkellogg.com/2009/12/i-never-wrote-for-kirkus-but-these-guys-did/comment-page-1/#comment-11634</link>
		<dc:creator>James Curtis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:24:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carolynkellogg.com/?p=1094#comment-11634</guid>
		<description>I, for one, won&#039;t miss Kirkus at all, nor, do I suspect, will most publishers or authors. Just before my first book was published in 1982, I was warned about Kirkus by the director of advertising at HBJ: &quot;Something you should know about Kirkus--however they think Publishers Weekly will land on a book, they&#039;ll say the opposite.&quot; And through the years, that&#039;s proven to be exactly the case. Their priority was always on being first, never best. One tended to imagine them all sitting around an office that hadn&#039;t had its windows cleaned or its walls painted since 1910 wearing green eyeshades, the mummified corpse of Virginia Kirkus leaning in a corner.      

The conventional wisdom had it right--the reviews were written by &quot;large passels of smug know-nothings who used their anonymity as a blunt instrument.&quot; Time and again, I&#039;ve heard Kirkus described within the industry as a &quot;joke.&quot; The gold standard for pre-publication reviews has always been--and will continue to be--Publishers Weekly. I&#039;m frankly surpised Kirkus and their $5 freelancers lasted as long as they did.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I, for one, won&#8217;t miss Kirkus at all, nor, do I suspect, will most publishers or authors. Just before my first book was published in 1982, I was warned about Kirkus by the director of advertising at HBJ: &#8220;Something you should know about Kirkus&#8211;however they think Publishers Weekly will land on a book, they&#8217;ll say the opposite.&#8221; And through the years, that&#8217;s proven to be exactly the case. Their priority was always on being first, never best. One tended to imagine them all sitting around an office that hadn&#8217;t had its windows cleaned or its walls painted since 1910 wearing green eyeshades, the mummified corpse of Virginia Kirkus leaning in a corner.      </p>
<p>The conventional wisdom had it right&#8211;the reviews were written by &#8220;large passels of smug know-nothings who used their anonymity as a blunt instrument.&#8221; Time and again, I&#8217;ve heard Kirkus described within the industry as a &#8220;joke.&#8221; The gold standard for pre-publication reviews has always been&#8211;and will continue to be&#8211;Publishers Weekly. I&#8217;m frankly surpised Kirkus and their $5 freelancers lasted as long as they did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://carolynkellogg.com/2009/12/i-never-wrote-for-kirkus-but-these-guys-did/comment-page-1/#comment-11631</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:01:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carolynkellogg.com/?p=1094#comment-11631</guid>
		<description>I learned to treasure Kirkus&#039;s pans of my books:

&quot;What Grayson lacks most seems to be patience and follow-through; after offering an outrageous premise or a few jokes, he doesn&#039;t know what to do -- so he merely repeats them...as a storytelling craftsman, Grayson has a long, long way to go...his autobiographical hand isn&#039;t so shy to show itself, but it does nothing with the raw material.&quot;

&quot;Grayson&#039;s two story collections...together suggest the literary equivalent of a kid&#039;s messy room: cozy for the kid, junk strewn everywhere, but a little horrifying to anyone standing at the doorway...pitiful indeed are many of these stories--cheap, silly, little more than names, puns, and jokes...juvenile literary clowning.&quot;

&quot;...a bewildering, unsatisfying work of nonfiction.&quot;

What I loved most about Kirkus is that these reviewers were disinterested.  Bloggers never are, and so even their raves don&#039;t count as much for me as the anonymous hard-working reviewers at Kirkus.  I&#039;ll miss them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I learned to treasure Kirkus&#8217;s pans of my books:</p>
<p>&#8220;What Grayson lacks most seems to be patience and follow-through; after offering an outrageous premise or a few jokes, he doesn&#8217;t know what to do &#8212; so he merely repeats them&#8230;as a storytelling craftsman, Grayson has a long, long way to go&#8230;his autobiographical hand isn&#8217;t so shy to show itself, but it does nothing with the raw material.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Grayson&#8217;s two story collections&#8230;together suggest the literary equivalent of a kid&#8217;s messy room: cozy for the kid, junk strewn everywhere, but a little horrifying to anyone standing at the doorway&#8230;pitiful indeed are many of these stories&#8211;cheap, silly, little more than names, puns, and jokes&#8230;juvenile literary clowning.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;a bewildering, unsatisfying work of nonfiction.&#8221;</p>
<p>What I loved most about Kirkus is that these reviewers were disinterested.  Bloggers never are, and so even their raves don&#8217;t count as much for me as the anonymous hard-working reviewers at Kirkus.  I&#8217;ll miss them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

