I have been thinking a lot of late as to whether I can still call myself a book reviewer. I talk about books a lot, whether in daily life or on BookTube, but I rarely have the time nowadays to sit down with a book and write a comprehensive review of it as I once used to.
I wrote frequently for the blog, and for a couple of other bookish websites (including Goodreads) up until last year, but since starting my Master’s, I haven’t really had the time to. This means that I am receiving very few books from publishers; the last book which plopped through my letterbox was received a couple of months before Christmas last year, and 2016 has been a book-drought in this respect.
Whilst I still love crafting book reviews – when I have the time to write them! – I have noticed that my blogging habits are veering in different directions of late. I have spent an entire month focusing upon a Neglected Women Writers series, and find myself writing smaller, less far-reaching reviews of books which I have very much enjoyed and want to bring to the attention of others, rather than the longer efforts which I used to make.
I would like this post of meandering thoughts to lead to a discussion of sorts. Can I still consider myself a book reviewer, or am I a book blogger? Is there a distinction between the two for you? Do you think reviews of books need to be comprehensive and far-reaching, such as you would read in The Times Literary Supplement, for instance, or is it okay to write your thoughts about a certain text in a less extensive way? Do you prefer book blogs which solely focus upon reviews, or do you like a mixed literary foundation, as you can find here?