Skip to main content

The Sunday Salon


It’s yet another quiet weekend here. In the past week, I’ve read:

The Ivy Tree, by Mary Stewart
The Princeling, by Cynthia Harrod Eagles
The Last Days of the Romanovs, by Helen Rappaport

I enjoyed all three of these books, so It’s been a good week, reading-wise. I've also been trying to write a review of Sarah Bower's The Book of Love, but I've gotten stuck with it (it dragged in the middle). I’m just about to start The Priory, by Dorothy Whipple, a Persephone classic that took about two weeks to get to me from Amazon.com.

I’ve been wondering about something recently: ARCs. I know a lot of you get them and review them; so do I. My question for you is about your reviews: do you post them as soon as you read the book and write the review? Or do you wait until the day of publication to post? I’ve been seeing a lot of reviews of to-be-published books, ages before the book comes out, so that’s what prompted the question. Thoughts?

Comments

That's a good question about ARCs. Mt. TBR is usually piled so high that I organize it by release date, so when I get an ARC of a book that doesn't come out for several months, I just plan not to read it for a while. I try to read and review ARCs no more than 2 weeks before the release date, usually just a day or two beforehand when the buzz is already building.

I'm currently reading an ARC of a book that doesn't come out until June (just couldn't wait), so I'll probably discuss it a bit this week but save the full review for closer to the release. That's just me, though.

I'll be interested to follow comments here and see what others have to say.
Meghan said…
I always post the review near the book's release date. I do have them organized by release and normally read more or less in order, but there are always those few special ones that sneak their way into my hands early. For those, I write the review shortly after reading the book, but schedule it ahead for whenever it comes out. I might discuss it in the Sunday salon or something similar, but the proper review will wait. I guess I want people who are interested in the book to be able to get it right away if they so choose. I feel like I've heard from more publicists that reviews closer to release are better as well.

- Meghan @ Medieval Bookworm
thewrittenword said…
I try to post reviews close to the publication date, although sometimes that doesn't quite happen. I'm much pickier about what books I receive, so I'm able to review in a more timely manner. - Stephanie
Hagelrat said…
I haven't had many ARC's. Most of the review copies I have had are already released. I tend to think though that they will send out the ARC's when they want the first wave of buzz about the book and since people can't all drop everything to read them there will probably be a steady trickle of reviews. I do think it's pretty effective when I see a book on the shelves and there was a huge buzz a few months ago, it triggers my "must have that" response.

Popular posts from this blog

Review: Forever Amber, by Kathleen Winsor

Pages: 972 Originally published: 1944 My edition: 2000 (Chicago Review Press) How I acquired my copy: Amazon.com, 2004

Forever Amber takes place in the 1660s, immediately follwing Charles II's ("the Merry Monarch") return of the Stuarts to the English throne. The book features Amber St. Claire, a young woman who starts out as a sixteen-year-old country girl, naieve to the workings of the world. She immediately meets Bruce Carlton, a dashing young Cavalier, with whom she has a passionate love affair in choppy intervals throughout the book. They have two children together, but Bruce won't marry her for the reason he tells his friend Lord Almsbury: that Amber just isn't the kind of woman one marries.

Upon following Bruce to London, he goes to Virginia, leaving her to fend for herself. What follows is a series of affairs and four marriages, with Bruce coming back from America now and then. Amber's marriages are imprudent: her first husband is a gambler, her second is…

Review: Jane Austen's Letters, ed. by Deirdre Le Faye

Pages: 667 Original date of publication: 2011 My copy: 2011 (Oxford University Press) Why I decided to read: How I acquired my copy: Amazon.com, April 2013
This is a compilation of many of Jane Austen’s letters, most of them sent to her sister Cassandra between 1796 and 1817, the year of her death. Although many of Austen’s letters were destroyed by her sister in order to preserve the family reputation, the collection contains over 160 letters in which Austen gives her sister details about her life in Chawton—as well as giving us a tantalizing glimpse of what was going through her mind as she was writing her novels (especially the novel that was to become Pride and Prejudice, First Impressions). There are other letters here, too, giving advice to her niece and professional correspondence to publishers—as well as a couple of letters that were written by Cassandra Austen after Jane’s death.
To the sisters, the letters acted in the way that phone calls do today; Austen’s news is all about pe…

Review: Midnight in Peking, by Paul French

Pages: 259 Original date of publication: 2013 My copy: 2013 (Penguin) Why I decided to read: How I acquired my copy: Phoenix bookstore, May 2013
In January 1937, the body of a young British girl, Pamela Werner, was found near Peking’s Fox Tower. Although two detectives, one British and the other Chinese, spent months on the case, the case was never solved completely, and the case was forgotten in the wake of the invasion of the Japanese. Frustrated, Pamela’s father, a former diplomat, tried to solve the crime. His investigation took him into the underbelly of Peking society and uncovered a secret that was worse than anything he could have imagined.
At first, I thought that this would be a pretty straightforward retelling of a true crime, but what Paul French (who spent seven years researching the story) reveals in this book is much more than that. Foreign society in Peking in the 1930s was stratified, with the British colonials at the top and the White Russian refugees at the bottom, but…