Discussion: How long should review posts be?

Reading this post on Melissa's Bookshelf, I got to thinking: Bloggers are underappreciated and overworked.

So much is expected from bloggers. I once asked a blogger for a review of Transcendent, but she couldn't commit to it because her reading time was booked three or four months in advance . . . and so were the other reviewers who contributed to the site.

And I've seen Sunday "In My Mailbox" posts where bloggers are picking up 20 books a week from giveaways and ARC and the library and their own shopping. Assuming that they bring in that much of a haul every week, how do they get through all those books?

Plus there's the writing of the reviews and all sorts of daily work it takes to maintain a blog. Not every post is a review, but you have to keep up with all the book information traveling through

After a while, I think I'd come to hate reading if it was such a chore.

Honestly, my favorite posts to read are cover reveals and Waiting on Wednesdays, and my favorite reviews are the short ones that give me a taste of the book without making me spend a lot of time reading.

Simple and easy to read is the trick for a good post, IMO.

Maybe I'm lazy (which I refuse to admit to).

Or maybe (as the case may really be) I'm busy.

Either way, I think short and sweet, simple and easy makes for a great blog.

What do you think?


  1. I like meemes like WOW because you can find new books to add to your TBR list! But i agree. Long posts are annoying

    1. Haha! I love WOW memes for that reason too. But I confess that my goodreads to-read list is about a 165 books long . . . and getting longer. Plus I keep reading books that aren't even on the list (ones I found on WOW memes). No idea when I'll get through them all.


I love your comments.