This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1lorannen
Welcome to another year of Early Reviewers!
The January batch is live and ready for requests. We've got 2,656 copies of 100 titles this month. See the blog post to browse covers.
Request copies here!
While you're at it, if you've moved or switched email addresses recently, please remember to check/update that information on your ER profile.
Which books are you hoping to snag this month?
The January batch is live and ready for requests. We've got 2,656 copies of 100 titles this month. See the blog post to browse covers.
Request copies here!
While you're at it, if you've moved or switched email addresses recently, please remember to check/update that information on your ER profile.
Which books are you hoping to snag this month?
2yoyogod
There's nothing that stands out to me, thought The Vegetarian and Dark Bayou sound interesting enough to request.
I just wish we could get some print versions of fantasy and horror novels again.
I just wish we could get some print versions of fantasy and horror novels again.
4Bookmarque
There are several on this list that would be request-worthy, but oh ! A new Patrick Flanery! His last book was so good it's on my top 5 for last year.
5elenchus
I deliberately was restrained in 2015 when it came to requesting ER titles, and part of that was not looking as closely. (I figured anything I really wanted would jump out at me, and I'd probably make more frequent requests if I looked carefully at each title.) It worked very well and I'll probably continue that approach in 2016.
For whatever reason, though, I seemed to recognise in the January batch a lot of repeats titles (books offered in previous batches). I know that's always been true of a couple titles, but it seemed pronounced this month. Is that true? Has it been happening awhile now or is it a new development?
I'm not surprised or even disappointed, really. It would make sense for publishers to spread out their giveaways over a few months. But I'm curious.
For whatever reason, though, I seemed to recognise in the January batch a lot of repeats titles (books offered in previous batches). I know that's always been true of a couple titles, but it seemed pronounced this month. Is that true? Has it been happening awhile now or is it a new development?
I'm not surprised or even disappointed, really. It would make sense for publishers to spread out their giveaways over a few months. But I'm curious.
6.Monkey.
>5 elenchus: I noticed that this time as well as last, and possibly Nov also? But for sure last month also. I don't see it as a problem, it makes sense and it's more chances for more people to win them if they didn't the first time, but it did seem odd since I haven't noticed more than the occasional one or two repeated previously, and more spaced out over time I think.
7lorannen
>5 elenchus: McFarland and Crown in particular offered repeats this month (mostly titles they only offered in December), but they're still for books that haven't been released yet, which is part of why I've gone ahead and left them on the list. And both of those publishers have a good chunk of titles in this batch.
ETA: I do monitor repeat ER entries, and have cut out titles that have appeared too many times, with too little interest.
ETA: I do monitor repeat ER entries, and have cut out titles that have appeared too many times, with too little interest.
8morningwalker
I really, really, really want Vinegar Girl, the Anne Tyler one....but I would also like the The Never-Open Desert Diner. I guess I'll have to wait and see what the ER algorithm and the odds come up with for me.
9elenchus
>6 .Monkey.:
>7 lorannen:
Good insight there, and I agree it isn't a problem to have books spread out. Doubly so, now that I know lorannen's monitoring that process! The repeats are actually a boon for readers and publishers alike, I think, as long as the practise isn't abused. Monitoring definitely improves the odds of avoiding such abuse, really appreciate that step on your part, lorannen.
>7 lorannen:
Good insight there, and I agree it isn't a problem to have books spread out. Doubly so, now that I know lorannen's monitoring that process! The repeats are actually a boon for readers and publishers alike, I think, as long as the practise isn't abused. Monitoring definitely improves the odds of avoiding such abuse, really appreciate that step on your part, lorannen.
10BTRIPP
Another great month for non-fiction! I requested 8, and could probably have pushed that to 12 (as there were things I would have requested in a fictiony month).
11dianeham
I requested 5. One was the Flannery. Glad to hear he's so good. I'm feeling too poorly to read as much lately.
12lorannen
>8 morningwalker: Here's your chance to snag Vinegar Girl after all! It was a big hit last month, and Crown has graciously offered 25 more copies to LTers.
I'm excited about this one myself—waiting for a friend to finish their ARC copy!
I'm excited about this one myself—waiting for a friend to finish their ARC copy!