Book reviews are for most people, thee bread-and-butter of book blogging. Book bloggers share their thoughts on the books they read – but typically the most popular reviews are for new and upcoming releases that readers haven’t been about to pick up yet.
On the other side, there are “Backlist” reviews, which are reviews of books published a while ago, that a blogger either never got around to reviewing, or only recently picked up and read even though the book has been out for a while.
There are different definitions of a “backlist” title, but the most common to me seems to be a book that is 2+ years past its publication date (Per: BEAT THE BACKLIST).
Some bloggers LOVE to tackle the backlist, and give some love to books that have fallen out of hype, or slipped under the radar when they are first published.
Some bloggers…just don’t worry about the backlist, or at least, they don’t review backlist titles, because those reviews don’t tend to be as exciting or valued.
Its something I’ve been thinking about a lot, because most of the books I read are backlist titles – I rarely pick up books around publication time. And I am pretty bad at posting reviews even remotely around the time I read the book, let alone around the time it was published.
So I’m wondering what my readers think:
Should I try to tackle the backlist reviews for books I read a while ago but never reviewed?
Should I bother writing reviews for backlist titles I pick up now?
Or should I stick to reviews for new releases?
What reviews would you want to see from my read list (My Goodreads Shelf)?