From: Miriam Lang Budin <miriammeister_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:44:29 -0500

Some sources don't allow ascription of their reviews. Back in the days when I reviewed for Kirkus, that was the case. Now, they have a list of reviewers at the bottom of the front page, of course, but you can't tell who wrote what. I honestly think that anonymity can lead to a less genteel writing style. We can see that at work in any comments list on the internet. When I wrote in my previous post that I wasn't sure why I tended to be more acerbic (spelled it correctly this time!) writing reviews for Kirkus, I had forgotten the element of anonymity which shields its reviewers.

I enjoy barbed humor and read Kirkus with great enjoyment, but then, I'm not on the sharpened end of the stick. Still, I find the reviews in Kirkus extremely helpful in making purchasing decisions. They are well-written, well-targeted and clear. Brutal honesty can serve a purpose, after all.

That said, in reading reviews, I do like to know who wrote them. There are some folks I have learned to trust more than others, over the years. I also appreciate knowing where they work--information that SLJ provides--since that sometimes lends extra credibility to their opinions.

The names and positions of reviewers are not vital information, but knowing them gives us readers added perspective about what they have to say.

Miriam

-- Miriam Lang Budin Head of Children's Services Chappaqua Library, NY
Received on Mon 16 Nov 2009 08:44:29 AM CST