I am starting a review blog for gothic novels. I've got one small press novel reviewed, and I'm about to do a second, and then I'm going to launch it. Probably in the next two weeks. Here's my dilemma: I want to focus on small press books and self-published books, but there aren't that many small press or self-published gothic novels that I know about. Also, I don't want to support some of the small presses with reviews because they are unscrupulous, and some of their books and the books of self-published authors aren't suitable for review because of poor quality. Do you think it's better to focus solely on small press and self-published books, or to focus on gothic novels in general from big names and small names? What is a better strategy for me as a new reviewer? I appreciate your input on this, and if you write gothic stories and have a novel coming out, please PM me and let me know. I definitely want to give priority to gothic novels published by authors in this forum. I look forward to your comments. Edward G.
I am wondering what the purpose of your your blog is. To review gothic novels or small press / self-published ones. That's completely up to you. It's your blog. Which do you want? As a new reviewer I believe it would be easier to stick w/ gothics alone. I'd think the 'big names' would get you more exposure if that's what you're looking for. But, what's the harm in doing both? Would your blog be too broad? Or can the blog have two sections?
I have no experience, but here are my thoughts. I think that it wouldn't be too hard to find mediocre self-pub / small-pub books, and every now and then, you'll find the gems. Just be honest if something isn't very impressive but might be worth reading to pass the time. I think you'll make the most impact finding the self/small-pub books that are unnoticed but good. I don't think that there's much of a need/market for reviewing the bigger-name books... Maybe if something is published by a big house but goes unnoticed, you could review it, but I'm not sure people would care much to read an unknown blogger's opinion on the bigger books when they could find other more established opinions elsewhere.
I think you're right. And I must admit, my heart is in reviewing the under-published, not Stephen King or Dean Koontz. Yes, in fact, that is the way I will go. My rise to fame and success as a reviewer will be tied to the fame and success of the authors I review that no one else does. I like the sound of that and the glory it implies. Thanks for the advice. Ed
If a novel is bad or a publisher unscrupulous then that should not be a reason to not review, but be honest.
