| I didn’t keep a tally, but I’d say we got a good 60-40 split among the newsletter readers in the anti-blurb vs. pro-blurb camps, in favor of team anti. Here’s some of what you all had to say about Simon & Schuster doing away with book blurbs.
Rael M. wrote: “I’m not really sure why blurbs are ‘incredibly damaging’ to producing ‘high quality books.’ Why? Yes, there is nepotism involved [EDS NOTE: Allegedly! But also, publisher connections, publicity concerns, etc.] but, really, I think most readers are well aware of this. I have bought books based on blurbs if the blurbs happen to come from an author I admire. I recently read Maaza Mengiste’s The Shadow King on the basis of Salman Rushdie’s glowing blurb on the back cover. I’m very glad I did. Had I not done so I would have missed out on a tremendous novel about a period of history and turmoil in Ethiopia about which I previously knew close to zero. It was worth it for me.”
Jen W. wrote: “I am very happy to see blurbs die. I hope it is a quick death. I can’t believe that there are often three quotes on the back, plus a snip on the front. I’ve found books with only blurbs and no summary! I picked up a romantasy novel that had Sarah J. Maas’ stamp of approval on it and found it severely lacking. Do the authors actually have time to read the books they endorse, and can I even trust their opinion if they did?”
Jess M. wrote: “I absolutely choose books based on blurbs, even though I know they should be taken with a grain of salt. For me it’s like going to an independent bookstore where I’m familiar with the staff, and heading straight to the wall of employee recommendations. I’ve discovered favorite books and relatively unknown favorite authors that way.”
P.S., if a friend sent you this newsletter and you want to sign up, the place to do it is npr.org/newsletter/books. :) | 
