The Dreaded Blurb

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by Ned

I remember the days of good, better, best and where unique meant there was only one.
Now something apparently can be even more unique than something else.
Thank god for Anthony Trollope.

You believe that a word can only ever mean what it originally meant? That's nice.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rjwse@aol.com

For me, the blurb is to book as trailer is to movie. I watch a trailer to decide if I want to go ahead and watch the movie. For my own blurb composition I have been most happy with those that are nothing more than an excerpt from the book, a short, significant passage. It has to be enticing. It is not a plot summary, just something that glimmers enough to catch your attention. Pop

I have seen some books that have a short passage from the book before you get to where you start reading.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Ned

Sadly advertising and nonsense rule.
Book reviews are all puff pieces by friends or paid advocates of the author (or rubbishing pieces by enemies of the author or critics trying to cause a stir), blurbs are shorter puff pieces on the same lines, often giving too much away.
And nothing is any longer 'good'. It has to be sensational, wonderful, amazing such that anything which happens to be a little bit better has nowhere to go as regards description.
I remember the days of good, better, best and where unique meant there was only one.
Now something apparently can be even more unique than something else.
Thank god for Anthony Trollope.

I do sometimes use Goodreads to find reviews. You can tell when a review is a good review regardless of how well the person liked the book. Not all reviews are puff pieces. I've read some really good reviews. I also follow a few people who do write good reviews in case any of them are reviewing other books I am looking at.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

How does the first page of the first chapter tell you if a book is good or not?

It gives me a feel for the writers writing style and story telling (and, I have still been snookered a bunch of times ).
Blurbs are cr*p. I complained about a rave from an Author that had been dead over 2 years. The answer, was the blurb was about the Author, not the book it was on

[slm]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

You believe that a word can only ever mean what it originally meant? That's nice.

My personal favorite for shifting meaning is "merry": Merry Olde England and Robin Hood's Merry men weren't laughing--they were well-fed.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by slm

My personal favorite for shifting meaning is "merry": Merry Olde England and Robin Hood's Merry men weren't laughing--they were well-fed.

In terms of the scale of the shift, I prefer nice because it shifted from an insult to a (now) nondescript compliment. Anyone who subscribes to the etymological fallacy is being very nice.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

I only read blurbs by Stephen King. (I'm still waiting for his newest book: "Blubbery Blurbs: The Horror".

Any blurbs not written by Stephen King can be categorized as promotional smegma.

That's b/c you are thinking of "blurb" in the classic, original sense--a bit of promotional, flattering text written by person A, about the book by person B.

Everyone else uses "blurb" to mean "book description."

(Offered FWIW: the term "blurb" is defined as "a promotional statement (as found on the dust jacket of books)"

Hitch

[Uncle Robin]

The ebook edition of China Miéville's The City and the City that I'm worknig through at the moment has a blurb on the front that would have put me right off if I'd noticed

""If Philip K. Dick and Raymond Chandler's love child were raised by Franz Kafka, the writing that emerged might resemble. The City & The City" -Los Angeles Times"

Couldn't get into Chandler, Kafka leaves me cold and Dick I've only read a couple of shorts from. Pleased I didn't notice this anti-blurb.

[Quoth]

I got an Alan Garner with a Preface by Philip Pullman. I felt insulted.

I made a rule years ago to avoid 3rd party prefaces added years after the book was originally published.

This is really stupid an meaningless:

If Philip K. Dick and Raymond Chandler's love child were raised by Franz Kafka, the writing that emerged might resemble…

It's also insulting to fans of Dick, Chandler & Kafka.
Not read much Dick(Variable quality?), but almost all Chandler (relaxing) & Kafka(not light!)

[JSWolf]

@Uncle Robin, your blub (as a signature) should read...

AFLAK!