Meta-Pile #1 on Reviews and Reviewing

16 Oct

You would think  that a person trained in library science should have a better sense of organization when it comes to sequencing the books to be reviewed,  and yet, judging from the lack of order in my list of  Amazon reviews, even I have to scratch my head and wonder what is going on. It was only after staring at all the assorted stacks of books in my writing area that I came to the following conclusion: That the reviews that will appear here in Piles and Philes are are deliberately presented without a  pre-determined order, although at times I may post a series of works on similar subjects or related themes. Instead, it reflects an organic development based on my interests and whichever particular book happens to be in front of me, and any other related books that I can locate in a given time period (thus fulfilling the occasional and eclectic nature of my reviewing).

My intention has long been  to review as completely and thoroughly as possible my existing and future personal collection of books and other media, items borrowed from public (currently the Cobb County Public Library) or academic libraries, and books loaned to me by other individuals, and this intention has survived many attempts at a systematic read through (probably because I’m good at distracting myself with books from other sections in the library at Just the right moment 🙂 .

I make no apology for the eclectic nature of the collection as it makes it’s way onto the blog: I read what I like or what catches my eye (whether or not I agree with it’s contents) and review what I read (or watch).

For example: God’s Chosen Fast, my  first review (see supra), was initially read and reviewed for an issue of my (Episcopal) parish newsletter during Lent of 2011. This gave me an  existing review that was easily  adapted  for an Amazon Book Review (not to mention a Goodreads review)  when I decided to start a comprehensive program of reviewing; and, but a short step to incorporate it into the Piles and Philes.  Moreover, I have chosen this same process for the first 18 reviews to appear, because it offers both less, and more work. In fact, this double or triple editing style of multiple postings of the same review allows me to fine-tune the review for the particular audience, and increases both my understanding and enjoyment of the work in question.

Until next time then,  Read on my friends, and stay thirsty!


edited for consistency on 17 October 2012


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: