One discussion I’ve seen around recently is one whether book bloggers should review books they read a while back – rather than more recent reads.
Personally, I’ve read a lot over the years.
I also read faster than I can review usually, and I read a lot of books before I started reviewing them.
So the question is, you can still review books long after you’ve read them, months or even years later? Should you?
I think it comes down to the person, based on your memory and your personal review writing style, how detailed you are if you think you can review a book upwards of a year later.
But I don’t see anything wrong with it, though maybe it should a a disclaimer like “I read this over a year ago, some details are a bit foggy”.
I talking about it, because I want to start backlogged reviews, books I read in the last year or so that I never got around to reviewing, books I read before I started my blog, etc.
What do you think?
Is that something we should be able to do, especially when you’re in a reading slump and have no new books to review?
Or do you think it’s kind of deceiving to review a book that’s had its flaws dulled by time?