Jen at Crazy for Books restarted her weekly Book Blogger Hop to help book bloggers connect with one another, but then couldn't continue, so she handed the hosting responsibilities off to Ramblings of a Coffee Addicted Writer. The only requirements to participate in the Hop are to write and link a post answering the weekly question and then visit other blogs that are also participating to see if you like their blog and would like to follow them.
This week Billy asks: When you read a book that isn't for review, do you still feel the need to write a review of it?
I review pretty much every book I read. I don't review all of the stuff I have read for work: I'm pretty sure that almost no one wants to read a review of technical manuals concerning the Federal budgeting process or even the Government Accountability Office's five volume set of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law and related annual updates.1
For the most part, any book that I read on my own - be it science fiction, fantasy, historical fiction, history, science, or really just about anything else - will be reviewed eventually. I've even been known to review role-playing game manuals and adventure modules. I suppose that the driving force behind my push to review everything is because the underlying reason for my reviews is to give myself a record of what I read, and leaving books unreviewed defeats that purpose.
1 For the record, I have a copy from when Principles of Federal Appropriations Law was still published in print that includes both Volumes IV and V. The version that has been published electronically more recently has had the material from the first four volumes condensed into three, and seems to mostly dispense with the material from the fifth volume.
Previous Book Blogger Hop: Susannah Mushatt Jones Lived to 116 Years Old
Subsequent Book Blogger Hop: The Roman Emperor Hadrian Executed Four Ex-Consuls in 118 A.D.
Book Blogger Hop Home