Over the last three months, I have learned a lot about a particular niche in the blogosphere, the existence of which was previously unknown to me. At its best, this niche is a collection of bibliophiles who expend considerable time and effort championing the cause of youth literacy--gratis.

At its worst... well. This particular niche is the grand Web-Two-Point-Oh intersection of authors, aspiring authors, librarians, teachers, hobbyists, and (rarely) actual teens, all specializing at some level in some form of inspiring, communicating, discussing, or peddling teenage drama.

So maybe that gives you some idea of what it is, at its worst.

I want to talk about those book reviewers today. Specifically, young adult books reviewers who blog. In part because they are so fascinating! And in part because they encapsulate so many interesting challenges.

Chapter One: Theoretically Irresponsible Generalizations of the Sweeping Variety

Young adult book review bloggers (YABBs) are not pioneers. They face two significant and frequently-debated problems.

First, they are bloggers. As this section is taking the reductionist approach, let's bowdlerize the inimitable Jack Nicholson: if you want to understand blogging, think of journalism, then take away experience and accountability.

This bold and moderately self-effacing declaration may strike some of you as uncharacteristic of my egalitarian bent on speech and the glories of the two-way media pipe. Let me assure you now that I think blogging is splendid. Indeed, valuable. Downright virtuous, assuming sufficient familiarity with the word's Aristotelian etymology. This is not a polemic against blogs.

But "we the people" tend to give journalists some benefit of the doubt (at least the ones on our favorite, truly unbiased news network). For bloggers, for better or for worse, respect--and readership--is hard-won. That's just the state of things. And it is the state of things because, when it comes to blogs, the signal-to-noise ratio is unbelievable. Most blogs are basically sub-par personal narratives, digital scrapbooks, and ill-considered forays into commercializing a hobby.

Second, YABBs are reviewers. In the best of times, offering up a subjective review to public scrutiny is harrowing. Before I found reason to examine the realm of the YABBs, I spent considerable time pondering the problematics of video game reviews. How do you quantify an artistic experience? How do you account for taste? Should people who hate RPGs still be allowed to review Final Fantasy games? Should the review be addressed to an "intended audience?" New customers? Old customers? "The majority?" Which one?

Most reviewers respond in two ways. First, they proclaim (sometimes eloquently, other times shrilly) that they are entitled to their opinion, and suggest that people who don't agree with their taste can always get a different opinion elsewhere. Second, they note that that they are providing a valuable service, helping customers avoid "bad products" by providing "unbiased reviews" (as distinguished from advertisements).

These, I think, are coherent responses, if somewhat conceptually opposed (i.e., one defense appeals to the qualitative nature of aesthetic evaluation, while the other lays claim to objectivity and neutrality).

Chapter Two: Conflicts of Interest

But then you look over at the sidebar and see an advertisement for the game under review. Or you catch an editorial endorsing a Republican for president despite the paper's otherwise unblemished record of unapologetic leftism. Or you read about publishers telling reviewers they can have more free books "if we like how you handle" the first one. Or you see a book getting trashed by a certain group of reviewers who have done business with or had coffee with or had babies with a competing author.

Actually, true story time (what would this essay be without some anecdotal gossip!?). Just this week I heard about an author who befriended a bunch of YABBs, then set about poisoning the well against a (not yet released) "competitor." There is some evidence that she's done it in the past, but apparently she got caught this time. You may recall my comments about authors "inexplicably" snubbing Aprilynne after her success? Not an isolated incident! Apparently this happens to authors with disturbing regularity!

And a number of YABBs are, apparently, complicit. There are, of course, reasons for this. The Story Siren--one of the more professional and professionally-self-reflective YABBs I've encountered--recently wrote about aspiring YABBs attacking her because she gets so many free books. Apparently, some YABBs cozy up with authors because they think it will earn them street cred, or something? That made for some interesting discussion. I guess it makes sense, if you like to read but find library waiting lists too onerous to bear, and someone tells you you can get free books if you just become a popular blogger...

No wonder Consumer Reports refuses to evaluate "free test samples." Of course, they usually test utilitarian objects manufactured by faceless corporations, so the subjectivity problem is substantially mitigated.

Anyway, that aforementioned dulcet mermaid made waves a few months back with a similar discussion about author/blogger relationships. As I recall, it got pretty heated. Some YABBs make a lot of noise about never allowing personal relationships to bias their reviews, but this of course is utter rubbish. The word "recusal" comes to mind. No matter how much self-control you think you have, your personal relationships will bias your thought processes. It's only natural (and, frankly, desirable--I would rather have so many friends that I could never write another review, than write so many widely-read reviews that I could never have another friend, but I have been called an idealist).

Chapter Three: Amateur Hour

To say that these discussions generate more heat than light would understate the obvious. It is characteristic of internet discussions generally.

And here we have several challenging topics all intersecting! Journalistic ethics, review ethics, subjectivity versus objectivity, conflicts of interest...! Professionals who study these topics for years struggle with them; the fact that some YABBs actually contemplate these things is a credit to the pursuit.

What really kicks off the head-scratching, however, is the fact that, after all this hullabaloo, YABBs have very little market impact. The internet, I've heard it said, is an echo chamber. Every YABB site draws from the same audience, and it isn't a very big one. They comment on one another's sites. They refer readers to one another's sites. In spite of its diversity in terms of maturity, ethnicity, geography, religion... it is practically a monoculture.

So why do they do it? My guess would be: for substantially the same reasons I do this. Some pride and vanity, some need for an outlet, some desire to be heard, some desire to garner a response. Some rudimentary instinct to go forth and communicate and create. And of course for the tiny difference they can make, from time to time, in their world.

What am I getting at? I'm not sure. Some years ago, I had an inkling that I could do reviews better. I even posted some. I have had some formal training in op-ed and review writing, after all; why not? But I have read more book reviews in the last three months than in the rest of my life put together, and I'm coming to realize that the very existence of reviews, like the existence of grades in higher education, is fundamentally suspect. Not without justification, not without basis... but not without a sense of unease, of dischord with the universe at large.

So I'm looking over at that "reviews" link and wondering: what's it doing there? And will I ever be able to, in good conscience, add more content to it?