Is That Legal?

Unless the author himself is famous, who the blurber is would be more important. There is so much trash out there, you want minimal assurance that you are not wasting your time and money or being misinformed by reading the book. If the author is famous, say a Norman Mailer, you just want to know if somebody thinks he has something new to offer or whether the book stacks up to his previous works.

Since I know that in general the blurbers haven't read the book they're blurbing, I pay no attention to them.

I do look, but I assume that the blurbs are positive, so I pretty much skip the text and go right to the names. And names of publications don't count: I don't care if the review appeared in the New York Times, if the reviewer was an idiot or a loyalist, I need to know that.

I'm much more likely to take a book a little seriously at first if it's got a blurb by someone whose opinion I respect (fame alone doesn't do it).

Personally, I pay no attention to blurbs. I'm more likely to pick a book based on a Times or NPR review than I am on the blurbs.

Mark me down in the Dresner column. Who matters more than what.

I look for experts in the field. A blurb from a well-known critic or generalist or from outside the field won't do anything for me (and may dissuade me, since I'm wondering: 'I guess they couldn't find an expert').

All blurbs basically say the same thing, so I think who blurbs is the important question. I would guess that most readers look for familiar names more than expertise. Do you happen to be close friends with Oprah?

ELM: Oprah and I are actually very close, but I feel it would cheapen my very valuable project to permit her to endorse it.