Quick Question

[megwrites]

For those who read the reviews of books that I post, I have a quick question and I didn't want to go through making a poll (it won't show up on the crosspost to LJ anyway).

In my reviews, do you think it would be better for me to copy and paste the book's official blurb or description or to continue coming up with my own summaries. Because I feel like my summaries of the basic plotline/premise of a book are kind of for the fail and I'm not sure I'm doing a good job of describing the book in a way that's useful to a review.

But then again, some of the official blurbs or descriptions of books also do a piss poor job of describing the ACTUAL story contained within the book, so I'm sort of torn. I feel like it might be easier or less spoilery or somehow better to just cut and paste, but I'm not sure. So I'm asking. Let me know what you think in comments if you have an opinion either way. And if not, let me know that too.

Comments

[yifu]

This should be judged on a case-by-case basis? If you think the official blurb does a good job in describing the contents of a book, I don't see why you shouldn't use it.

[jesse_the_k]

+1. When the official blurb fails, improve on it. I imagine it's very rare that the author generates the official blurb anyway, do the failiness may be ascribed to someone in marketing listening to an elevator pitch and extrapolating without intimate knowledge of the source.

[azuire]

I usually write my own blurbs, but I don't see anything amiss with using the existing one if it is effective.

[geeksdoitbetter]

"I feel like it might be easier or less spoilery or somehow better to just cut and paste,"

i'm often shocked and saddened by the level of spoileryness found on the back of books these days

seriously, any thing cool/unexpected happening after page 100 ought not be mentioned