Friday Notebook 2.17.12 (Updated)


  1. Ed Baker
    Ed Baker February 19, 2012 at 1:48 pm .

    frequently<br />blurbees<br />are better <br />than<br /><br />the<br />blurb-errs<br /><br />or<br />just who is the<br />blurbed?, do I know him?,<br /><br />did he get a free copy of the book<br />for doing the blurb ?<br /><br />&quot;blurb&quot; is a phunny word …<br /><br />some blurbs are silly &amp;<br />frequently blubbers and their blurbs are<br /> <br />radishes.

  2. Lyle Daggett
    Lyle Daggett February 19, 2012 at 2:07 am .

    Years back (sometime in the 1980&#39;s, I think it was), I came across a cover blurb by Carolyn Forche (whose own poetry I&#39;ve often liked) — I don&#39;t recall now the book the blurb was for, or the book&#39;s author. Forche had apparently picked the manuscript out of some large number for publication in a book series by a (relatively) large publisher, at least as poetry publishers go.<br />

  3. Joseph Hutchison
    Joseph Hutchison February 18, 2012 at 5:10 pm .

    Some Statistics major should do a study of blurb reading. The point of a blurb is the name attached to it, not the blurb itself. (Same principle as celebrity spokespeople in TV ads.) Is that necessarily a bad thing? If Tom Clark blurbs a book by a poet I&#39;ve never heard of, I&#39;m likely to dip into it differently than if the blurb is by Ron Silliman—whose blurbs, like his &quot;analyses&quot

  4. TC
    TC February 18, 2012 at 3:01 pm .

    Joe,<br /><br />Agh, blurbs — there oughta be a law!

  5. Issa's Untidy Hut
    Issa's Untidy Hut February 18, 2012 at 11:47 am .

    Joe:<br /><br />I&#39;ll have to start reading blurbs again – I just burnt out on how generic they had becoem – because this idea, indeed sounds like fun.<br /><br />The excerpt from &quot;An Introduction to Mestizo Poetics&quot; is fascinating.<br /><br />best,<br />Don

Leave a Reply

5 + nine =

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.