As a book blogger, I often have the privilege of reading and reviewing books near or even sometimes before their publication date. It is sometimes unspoken, but always understood that reviewing a book near to its release date is optimum. At least that is what the publishing industry would have us believe. And who am I to quibble?
But I wonder… Do the authors really care WHEN you review their book? Do they care if you are reviewing it 1-5 years AFTER it was released? Or, are they just pleased that you have read their work and reviewed it online?
Also, do readers really care if the book they are interested in reading a review on came out this month, this year, this decade, or even this century?
Perhaps it is just my way of making myself feel better about being almost 200 titles behind with my review commitments. LOL
If I read a book that was published back in 2002 and I love it, then write a review stating why – does that no longer count? I maintain that it does. I maintain that people who read reviews will be tempted (or not) by a fiction book review regardless of when that book was published. Their only concern is that it is still available to either buy or borrow from their local library.
I fully realize that this is quite different for non-fiction book reviews. Non-fiction is meant to be more timely, thus current reviews near to the publication date is optimum for all concerned.
What is you opinion on this issue? Authors, publishers, and readers might have widely different views on the subject. I’d be interested in hearing yours.