Blurbers

I've just been looking at a few blurbers today (after entering a few).

I have noticed a couple of things

a) Quite a number have the actual blurb (in parentheses) as well as the blurber. I have left these as is.
b) Quite a number are not formatted correctly - they have the blurb then a -- then the blurber. This doesn't enable tracking down of the incestuous circle of blurbing that was the aim of these fields. Where I find these I correct the format and put the blurb in parentheses if it is short.
c) Quite a number are not named individuals. They are for excerpts from newspaper and other professional reviews - search CK for Times in Blurbers (or Kirkus, or Weekly, or Locus)

Should all non-specific (i.e. no attributed to a real person) blurbers be deleted? The help text does say that the blurb "is a super-short review" and not an excerpt of a longer review. It also says that it is "done before the book is published or reviewed professionally".

Oh and just one more thing there is no such paper as The Times Of London, or The London Times. It is just The Times. If one is going to attribute a newspaper at least get the name right.

--> 2

at least get the name right

Re The Times of London, I put some of those in. I don't know newspapers of London. I only copy what or who the blurbers are that are posted in books I read. I can make this change in the future, but perhaps you need to alert some book publishers as well!

While we're talking abut blurbers, is it okay to put in parentheses who the blurber is?

I like having the newspaper (as the books do) even if the author of the blurb is unknown.

So, a problem here is that a newspaper is never actually a blurber, blurbs being, strickly, pre-publication reviews from other writers. Writers often do this for each other, and the politics of it are somewhat contested—which is why we're trying to capture it. Clearly this is not well expressed or not understood.

We are planning to add a section for short quotes, a la Metacritic—which just dropped their books section!—and Rotten Tomatoes.

#5

As far as I see it the blurber is always a person. Anything else can go inside the parentheses so that it isn't linked. The power of the blurbers section is to create the web of interconnections between blurbers and blurbees. Using newspaper/journal names and quotes outside parentheses makes that impossible.

I have been quite careful about blurbers, including only quotes attributed to individual writers, without other publication information -- if it was published somewhere, then I think of it as a review, and quotes from the review are not "blurbs".

... If the actual blurb is brief I will often include it. This is especially true if it's something like, "To Anne, my wife", when "Anne" is a known identity, but not wholly named in the blurb itself.

I'll now go back and delete the names of newspapers that I've previously added. If I added a newspaper, it was because the blurber was not identified.

Why do books publish the names of newspapers (with a short quote) without attributing the quotes to an individual?

I've been taking blurbs from book covers and fly leaves. Was this wrong? If so, from where should I get them and where should I look for them?

What will you be doing with Rotten Tomatoes (as that's a movie site), Tim?

ETA: I deleted some, andyl. If you find more that I've done, feel free to delete the names of newspapers.

Why do books publish the names of newspapers (with a short quote) without attributing the quotes to an individual?

Because not all newspaper articles mention their actual author. Also the newspaper may very well be way more famous than the author.

la Metacritic—which just dropped their books section!

It's not like that's a loss - I don't think they ever really were able to develop that section very well. For as long as I can remember, it was sparse, painfully behind and never as good as the rest of the site. It's really for the best.

> 8 I'm confused by this, If the actual blurb is brief I will often include it. This is especially true if it's something like, "To Anne, my wife", when "Anne" is a known identity, but not wholly named in the blurb itself. Most of the blurbers I see don't dedicate, it's always someone talking about another person's genius or certain impending stardom the rest of the world is about to know...or did I misunderstand something?

I will say that I don't do the acutal blurb ever, as I prefer to leave it simply at the blurber relationship - I've also removed publications from CK as "USA Today" really provides no value add since it's more likely to be some low-level staff writer paid to write quick paragraphs and not the knocking on Mario Batali's door asking for a favor...

In a past incarnation I ran a publishing company. I took quotes from other sources and wrote the blurbs. Unless a persons name is attached to a blurb I expect this how they are done by other publishers as well.

I'm one of those guilty ones who thought the point of the blurb field was to capture the blurb, and didn't understand that it was the individual and not a newspaper. So yep - I'm one of those people :-)

Perhaps the text explaining the blurb CK field needs to be more specific about what and how the info should be entered?

"Who blurbed the book? A blurb is defined as a super-short review, done before the book is published or reviewed professionally. As Rachael Donadio wrote, "Book blurbs are a tangled mass of friendships, rivalries, favors traded and debts repaid, not always in good faith." This field aims to capture that tangle!"

Re-reading it in context of this talk thread - yes I get it now.
I honestly didn't before.

By the by is it wrong that I imagine that a blurber module at some point would denote some of your authors as having reached 'dirty whore' status? I'm guessing that it would start out around 'helping a friend out,' work it's way up to, 'I guess I just can't say no!' to, 'isn't it obvious my publicist makes me?' to something like, 'I love attention!' and so on...

I'm just saying...

=)

11> I'm confused...

as well you should be. In my perennial short-sleepedness, I conflated Dedications & Blurbers.

How about:

Who blurbed the book? Do NOT put the content of the blurb, but only who said it.

A blurb is defined as a super-short review, done before the book is published or reviewed professionally. As Rachael Donadio wrote, "Book blurbs are a tangled mass of friendships, rivalries, favors traded and debts repaid, not always in good faith." This field aims to capture that tangle!"

>15 lquilter: haha - that's what state I was in last night & I couldn't figure out what I was missing - although the "dirty whore" part of blurbing still sounds funny to me.

:)

>16 timspalding: Perfect!

>16 timspalding: - yes,
that makes a lot more sense to someone like me especially, when clicking on the field for the first time..

--> 16

Good, except it doesn't indicate *not* to put a newspaper name instead of an individual's name. (I know. A newspaper is a what and not a who, but...)

> 19

How about "Who blurbed the book? Do NOT put the content of the blurb, but only the name of the person (not the publication) who said it.

"A blurb is defined as a super-short review appearing on the book jacket or cover, which was obtained before the book was published or reviewed professionally. As Rachael Donadio wrote, "Book blurbs are a tangled mass of friendships, rivalries, favors traded and debts repaid, not always in good faith." This field aims to capture that tangle!""

I've assumed they go in Last Name, First Name, but that is not expressly stated in the hint either.

No the majority have been entered as "firstname lastname" without commas (or quotes for that matter) just like People/Characters and Publisher's Editor.

This might work even better:

How about "Who blurbed the book? ONLY the person (firstname lastname). Do NOT put the publication's title or content of the blurb.

Maybe we can put the explanation in the help page.

I think I'm going to go through and switch them all to last, first.

Since there should not be a publication title, since blurbs should not be "published", per se, then I think it's actually a bit confusing to say "Do NOT put the publication's title..." since it suggests that there is in fact a publication. Instead, I would say, "Do not include the content of the blurb." and in the definitions of blurbs I would add an additional phrase that specifies "not separately published or published as part of a review".

23> Switch all what? I think it would be confusing to have some CK fields be first last and others be last, first. What about character names? It should be consistent with the rest of CK but I could see problems putting some character names into last. first format. Would a character known only with their first name be ", Joe"? Would it be "Spock, Mr."? What would be the harm in leaving it all in first last format?

I was guilty of (a) and (b) in message #1. After reading this thread, though, it's finally hit me that the CK entry is "blurbers," and not "blurbs." I enjoy reading blurbs, but apparently that's not the right field for them.

It does no harm to have the blurb itself within parentheses, the blurbers will still link together. I've fixed quite a few (moved the blurber outside the quotes and the blurb inside) but I wouldn't dream of deleting the text that someone had entered.

Would like to get some clarification - are blurbers from the book jacket? And if so, how do I know that the blurb was "done before the book is published or reviewed professionally"? Thanks.

Yes, blurbers are from the jacket or sometimes the inside front pages.

The reviewed professionally isn't too difficult. The book publisher tends to put the source of the review eg "Fred Blogs, British Review Of Books".
Generally I just put in the ones which are a named individual without any organisation after the name.

#28

Yes, the blurbs are on the book jacket or cover. They are nice things said about the author or the book by people who may be recognized and/or respected by potential buyers/readers of the book. The blurbers are asked for their blurb by the publisher before the book is published or reviewed; there is no guarantee the blurber has even read the manuscript.

Reviews from publications would be after publication, so, although quotes from reviews may appear on later editions or printings, they are not, technically, blurbs.

(edited for typo)

>29 andyl: and 30: Thank you both. That helps.

Be aware that conceptDawg has said that the preferred format is "Lastname, Firstname".

Thanks - I saw that post and have been following that format. One thing I have been going back and correcting is removing the publication's title, which I had started doing. Think I got them all...

I'm looking at the back cover of a book which is covered in quotes, most if which seem clear that they are taken from a longer review (because they are elided (is that the right word?)) and they have the quote authors name followed by the name of a publication.

Are these blurbs?

How about this one?

"A pioneering study." -- Bishop Desmond Tutu, New York Review of Books.

or this one,

"One of the most significant books of this decade."--Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr.

(and how does one put that last name in last name, first name format?)

28,29,30, et.al.: Regarding the difference between blurbs and reviews:
We now have a place to put those reviews, in the Published Reviews section on the work pages.

The blurb from Tutu is part of a review published in the NYROB, apparently; so it would go in the published reviews section (once the full cite were found), and not in the "blurbers" section.

The Higginbotham quote looks more like a blurber to me, since there is no review or publication cite.

That's what I thought although I still think it's confusing. I wonder how many people are just taking all the back cover quotes without making the distinction? It's a shame to lose the Bishop Tutu relationship with the book though.

Remember that the blurber is the person who wrote the blurb, not the blurb itself. (You can put the blurb in parentheses if you want to include it.)

Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. would be "Higginbotham, A. Leon, Jr." as described in the Canonical Name section of the Common Knowledge help page.

I came across one of these today, where someone had entered the blurb quote rather than just the name. I forget the book I was looking at: maybe The Accidental?

I have been doing this wrong too. I finally looked at the help page after someone deleted my publication name entries. The help page is very clear now. I should have looked at it first.

Is the practice you mentioned of soliciting blurbs the reason I see some names coming up again and again on blurbs for new books? Like Anne Lamotte. I think she is going for a Pulitzer in Blurb.

what is a Blurbers?

'A blurb is defined as a super-short review, done before the book is published or reviewed professionally. As Rachael Donadio wrote, "Book blurbs are a tangled mass of friendships, rivalries, favors traded and debts repaid, not always in good faith."'

You must have seen those "Wow, amazing" texts on many covers. A blurber (plural blurbers) is the person who wrote it.

You can get a lot more info on the various Common Knowledge fields in the Common Knowledge Help Page

I've been doing a lot of editing in the blurber sections and have a question about how to enter a name when there are two initials instead of a first name. Can we get a consensus on whether to put a space between the initials or not? Example: "A. J. Jacobs" vs. "A.J. Jacobs"

I am of the thought that there should be a space, but it seems like the majority of the double initial entries in the blurber category don't have it.

I would type in the surname, wait a few seconds, then when the popup list appears, pick the most popular form. It may not be consistent, but it will make the most connections.

Who makes corrections in the blurber fields if an entry is incorrect? I have incorrectly entered someone that should not be listed on a recent book. If you can point me to instructions, I'd be glad to do it. Just point my nose in the right direction. Thanks!

>47 greytone: You should just be able to click on the pencil to edit the field. Deleting is just removing what is there.

Phew! Thanks, MarthaJeanne! It worked perfectly!

Interesting article in the Guardian about negative reviews of books being misrepresented as positive blurbs.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/01/society-of-authors-calls-use-of-ba...

>50 Cynfelyn: Beyond Order

While we're on the subject . . . how about Neruda's blurb for Cortázar: https://social.ayjay.org/2023/08/30/this-piece-on.html. (There's also a link through to a new essay in the Atlantic about blurbs that may be of interest.)

Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by opening minds

Having listed the blurbers, the blurbs themselves have been added to 'Published reviews'. It's not something I would have considered doing. What do others think?

Back cover is hardly "mainstream media book reviews". I say remove them.

I agree.

>54 MarthaJeanne: What MarthaJeanne said.

(Mind you, blurbs can be excerpts of published reviews. But a blurb itself is not a published review.)

>56 karenb:

I too agree. A blurb is not a review.

>53 Cynfelyn: And the second member review on that page is just the book description copied.

The blurbs have been removed, and the review is hidden.