Sometimes, blogging is like a massive circle jerk

Or at least I sometimes feel that way after reading posts that some small-time SF blog reviewers write about blogging that attracts other small-time bloggers to comment (and especially when another small-time lit/SF blogger, namely myself, is cited separately in two separate posts on different blogs today).  It's a very small world, I suppose (and doubtless, some might take offense at my title and depiction of this particular "scene," but hey, it isn't exactly a topic that's going to appeal to thousands of readers of these various blogs, many of whom (and mine) have a large overlapping audience), but I suppose I should just post the links and then some commentary:

First up is Grasping for the Wind's post on 5 General Tips for New Book Bloggers.  I have nothing personal against the blog owner, John, but some of his tips are a bit misguided.  Of particular concern is the very first one, where he suggests new book bloggers pay for their own domain.  Note the highlighted word.  New.  For those who may decide to hop on the blogging bandwagon thinking that they'll be on the fast track to receiving dozens of review copies a month, but whose willingness to be proactive, inventive, etc. is questionable at best.  Sure, it isn't all that much to do the Go Daddy route, I'm sure, especially if your probable audience will be less than 50 regulars/day for at least the first few months, but the benefits of doing such are negligible at best unless one is consistently drawing high fours or low five figures a day.  Then perhaps the small percentage lost to not having all posts appearing in searches will be something that would have to be combated.  Then again, it seems that I do quite well with certain reviews/topics despite using Blogger.  At best, domain purchases ought to be a secondary concern, one done after the presumed newbie blogger has decided that s/he likes to blog about books, movies, sex, etc. and that there is an audience that would justify the costs of shelling out money in an attempt to draw potential new readers.

John's second point is much better, although I'd note that reviews don't have to be the bread and butter of any site.  Voice is much more important; same for flexibility, especially since so many people end up wearying of repeating themselves after a while.  Variety is the spice of life...and of blogging.

Point 3 is pretty much a truism.  Would add that while reading and lifting elements of other blogs is okay to an extent, having a self-awareness of what would work best for one's own blogging is much better.  I certainly didn't see/read too many blogs devoted to transnational literature when I shifted the focus of this blog a couple of years ago.  Creating (or at least expanding) a "new" market has its own charm that exists outside of stats.  I'm always bemused by how my Feedburner stats are several hundred more than what shows up in Sitemeter each day.  I'm guessing either I'm just more discussed about than read or that stats are pretty misleading.  I'm leaning toward the latter, as I've been rather boring lately.

The fourth point, about publicizing, irritates me to no end.  Although I do occasionally link to this blog on the forums that I frequent (which I must admit, I frequent less consistently now, with my other responsibilities), I certainly didn't need the Facebook bit to publicize what I'm doing (I think I have fewer than 30 "friends" there and my main purpose for that is keeping track of others, not for them to keep track of me, since I rarely post more than syndicated Notes there) and I refuse to have a Twitter account.  Perhaps for some people, the main draw of book blogging is the "networking" with others who are doing similar things, but that element does not appeal to me, nor does engaging in such activities insure that one will become a better blogger.  Chances are that those who devote a lot of time to Facebook and Twitter amongst each other will end up thinking that their little discussions, their little arguments are more important than perhaps they are.  Sometimes, (mind you, sometimes) maintaining a distance from the social networking can benefit one's own blogging, since it allows the intrepid blogger to let his/her mind wander down paths that aren't so trodden by others' opinions.  So yes, there's a downside to the publicity methods suggested there.  Not saying that those couldn't be of worth, but rather that there's an inherent risk there as well.

The final point is on the surface somewhat sound.  But I happen to take a much more mercenary approach to this.  I have only once contacted an author directly about receiving a book (and I should note that was after a discussion on his blog that involved me querying about who to contact for receiving a review copy of a reprint anthology).  I have had authors that I've befriended give my contact info to publishers, but that was not the end point of getting to know these authors.  Rather, I made contacts with several publicists over the past few years and I sold them on this blog based on audience, focus, as well as offering to provide samples of past reviews.  I have only read one self-published book and that was as a favor to the author who I came to know on another's blog.  I turn down several offers each month.  It's a business.  My time is money, both in what I do with my day job and with my current part-time one, and I don't feel any obligation to review a book, especially since most what is sent to me is unsolicited.  I guess what I'm trying to state here is that of all the tips given, there is virtually nothing about how to view all of this as a business.  Sure, buddy-buddy with fellow bloggers, authors, publicists, etc., but ultimately it's a business where money is being transacted.  Always best to keep that in mind.

Enough of that one post.  Now for the second blog post that drew my attention.  Gav of NextRead poses the question of "Are you looking for book reviewers?"  Although there is nothing inherently wrong about his post or the responses, I was struck with a few similarities with the first post discussed at length above.  There seems to be a presumption that such a post ought to be directed toward those few fools who decide to start a (SF/F oriented) book blog.  As such, the discussion is oriented to those few readers who have their own blogs (incidentally, before any try to call me out on this, I am fully aware that this post is oriented toward much the same and that most, if any, comments will come from those who have their own blogs).  In the comments, several of the same blogs cited in John's blog are mentioned again (including this one, not that I feel special about it).  It's almost as if in writing about the craft of blogging, that any such examples and formats will revolve around a very particular niche and those reading such posts will tend to come from a very small and similar pool of readers, most of whom blog on occasion.

So back to the title of this thread.  A big danger that I've noticed (and have often failed to avoid) is that of assuming one's narrow field of focus is somewhat more than just a microcosm (if that; very divergent blogs about books, several of which are in the blogrolls here) of other discussions elsewhere.  In a small pond, I guess all those fish, regardless of size, feel as those their fish-like thoughts and ways of viewing matters is all that matters...until the hook is dropped and one is snatched out of his/her comfort zone.  Such coziness can breed pseudo-familiarity.  There is that danger of blogging circle jerks, where each blogger ends up writing on a similar topic (or a similar review topic, I suppose) and each afterward compares his/her "performance" to the others'.  There certainly are some attractions to that (cf.  this very blog post), but overindulgence is a bad thing.  Having a small circle of "fellow bloggers" who read and write about similar books, often using similar approaches, and who tend to congregate on Facebook and Twitter, cross-propagating what each is reading/discussing, all this can lead to what I guess might be the blogging equivalent of inbreeding.  Not that I'm going to develop this (semi)point any further, mind you, but I'll leave it hanging...perhaps to be discussed here and yonder.