Old books! Or should I say vintage books? Is that sexier? I haven’t even written the introduction and I’m already getting distracted, an autobiography by me. Let’s try this again. In the book blogging community we often focus on new releases. It makes sense – many bloggers (myself included) review ARCs, publishers push new releases, there’s a lot of hype around recent books and, most importantly, NEW STUFF IS SHINY. But what about older books? I’m not talking classics, which at least get some attention, but books from ten or twenty years ago (quick reminder, twenty years ago means 1997, what the hell). Do they really deserve less of our attention? Why do we forget about older books so easily?
Obviously it’s good to support new authors, and of course caring about newer books usually comes with the territory when you’re a book lover. HOWEVER, I used to not care about new releases that much. Don’t get me wrong, if a sequel to a book I loved was coming out, I wouldn’t rest until I had that sweet, sweet puppy in my hands, but I wasn’t generally always on the lookout for new releases. Since I started blogging, I’ve been reading a lot more recent releases, partly because I see other bloggers talk about them and my brain goes MUST.HAVE.BOOK. and partly because I’m reading ARCs. And that’s not a bad thing! I love being up to date (though I’m usually not, let’s be real) and it’s great to see what’s being published. Maybe that’s not you, and you’re reading just as many older books as new ones, but it’s certainly true for me.
However, recently I noticed that I’m not really talking about older books I love a lot. Do I think that less people will be interested and no one will care if I blog about them? Maybe! That might not necessarily be the case though – sometimes I notice that reviews of books that were talked a lot about 2-4 years ago (because apparently that’s how far behind I generally I am) get much more comments than reviews of ARCs because by the time I publish the review more people have read the book and are interested in my review. And the same goes for me – I’m much more likely to click on a review if it’s about a book I’ve already read.
If an older book was widely popular, it’s still going to be talked about today, but if it was fairly unknown, it’s more likely to vanish into obscurity. I know – a lot of newer books suffer the same fate; there’s just too little time to read everything. But I feel like a lot of the time it’s a bit of a status symbol to always have the newest releases and to be up to date on the books that literally just hit the market (I’m not excluding myself here) – but why do we care so much? A lot of people probably don’t even have access to them yet, depending on finances, librarians and international rights. I’m not arguing not to read new releases, but I’ll try to also read some older books I always wanted to read and never got around to – and when I do, I’ll talk about them here.
Do you mostly read new releases or do you generally not care about when a book was released? If you’re a blogger, do you agree that being part of the book blogging community often means reading new releases? Is this topic just completely irrelevant to you and you’re wondering why you spent time reading this post? Let me know in the comments, unless it’s the last one, in which case just tell me a random unrelated compliment to make up for not caring about my post.