More on this privacy thing

by Donna Andrews

Like, do I really want the whole world to know what I’m reading?

Earlier this week Kris posted about how privacy isn’t what it used to be.  I was going to chime in with a few comments of my own until life (or a bad head cold) got in the way.  But I was thinking about it—I was, Kris!  Really! 

And I find it hard to put too much blame on Google or Facebook for the loss of privacy we’re all experiencing. In so many cases, we’re doing it to ourselves.  Every time I visit Facebook, I see a dozen posts that make me wonder “why would anyone bother?” and almost always at least one that makes me wonder who on earth would even think of posting such a thing.

I also distrust Facebook apps.  I tend to ignore—or block—app requests, on the grounds that I don’t much trust Facebook—it has repeatedly proven that it has no real respect for privacy--and I don’t have the time or inclination to check out every app that comes along to make sure it’s legit, and not run by someone even less trustworthy than Facebook—someone who might be phishing for names and data.  

But—and here we’re ambling toward the real subject of this blog--yesterday I got a request from a friend to join her Goodreads network, and I accepted.  She’s someone who has shaped my reading since we were in college together--the person who really turned me into a mystery reader--and I find I like the idea of hearing what she’s reading and what she thinks about it.

I’m just not so sure I want to share what I’m reading.  With her, maybe, but through Goodreads?  That makes it so . . . well, public. The very opposite of private.

There’s the fact that I probably don’t read as much as people think I do.  Or perhaps as much as I think they think I ought to read.  I certainly don’t read as much as I did when my friend and I were in college, or even as much as I did before I began writing seriously.  The writing time eats into the reading time.

And I probably don’t read what people think I read, or should read.  I read a lot of non-fiction, especially when I’m actively working on a writing project.  It interferes less with the creative process.  And I don’t mean that I am afraid of being influenced.  If what I read rubbed off on my writing that easily, I’d put myself on a steady diet of the best possible writing models and let them influence away.  It’s more that when I’m writing, I need to be walking around in the world of my fiction, thinking about the book in the back of my mind even when I’m doing something else—and really getting lost reading a book I love interferes with that. 

When I’m writing, I read a lot of non-fiction.  Since the beginning of the year I’ve been actively working on scoping out the next book in my Meg series, and I’m on a deadline, and that means the last thing I need is to get caught up in someone else’s fictional world for a week.  So I’ve been on a strict non-fiction diet.  Mary S. Lovell’s The Sisters: The Saga of the Mitford Family was fascinating.  I’m currently creeping slowly through the ebook of Michael Korda’s Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia as well as a satisfyingly thick paperback of Sarah Bradford’s George VI. And I’m about to study Oliver Sacks’s and Malcolm Gladwell’s bibliographies to see if I’ve missed any of their books.  (And now the reason for the illustrations I've chosen becomes clear!) Eventually I’ll run out of Lawrence and George, though not anytime soon. 

They’re all what I call good “while” books.  I can read them while I’m writing. A good while book has to be compelling enough that I want to pick it up and read it for a short while, usually at the end of the day when I’m decompressing from my own work—but not so compelling that I stay up all night. I think that's one reason a good while book is so often nonfiction--I already know the ending.  Also, if they draw me in enough that I’m walking around in their world, at least that world is a subset of real life, and not some other author’s fictional vision.

And if I’m really lucky, a while book will turn out to be tangentially useful for my writing, although sometimes the usefulness doesn’t appear for months or years.

When my writing schedule permits—when the book’s going well enough that I am less worried about being sidetracked, or when I’m sidetracked anyway by a trip, or when I’ve finished one book and haven’t yet started the next—I gorge myself on fiction. But one peril of living in the writing community is that at any given moment the number of fascinating books I’d like to read almost always exceeds my available reading time, by a geometric factor.  In fact, if I stopped writing, stopped buying new books, and simply set out to read all the unread books around the house . . . I’m not even going to try to calculate how long it would be before I needed new reading material.

Last year I got even less voluntary reading done because I was reading for one of the Edgar awards—the juvenile award, which fortunately isn’t as weighty an assignment as some of the adult categories.  Only sixty-some books, though thanks to Harry Potter, kids’ books are longer than they used to be.  Lots of good reading there, but since all Edgar judges sign a confidentiality agreement, I couldn’t natter to friends about what I was reading.  Except to say—particularly to my writing friends—that it was because of the Edgars that I hadn’t read their latest book. 

And I look forward to occasionally nattering.  I just don’t yet know how I feel about doing so on Goodreads.

I’m now a Goodreads member in good standing—or at least as good a standing as you can have when, as the home screen rather sternly informs me, “You’ve rated 0 books so far.”  It also says “Goodreads is learning your tastes. Rate 20 more books to get personalized recommendations!” 

Do I have to? 

Apart from already having more books around the house than I could possibly read in several years, I hear about new must reads every time I attend a convention or have a conversation with a bookish friend.  I’m not lacking ideas of what to read.  Just time.

Although I do want to find out what my old friend is enjoying.

I’m all too afraid that if I start entering a few of the books I'm currently reading, Goodreads will pigeonhole me the way Amazon does.  A few years ago, I bought a book on Amazon because I really didn’t want to walk in a store and buy it. No, we’re not talking erotica—a biography of Princess Diana.  It was a Christmas present for someone who had expressed an interest in reading it, but--literary snob that I am!--I was embarrassed at buying a celebrity tell-all at my local bookstore.

I should have braved the bookstore's scorn. Having little purchase data on me—I try to do as much of my book buying as possible at independent bookstores—Amazon's data engines thought they had me pegged.  For years, every time I logged into Amazon, their home page would remember that Diana book and show me everything they thought a die-hard royal groupie would want. Royally Screwed: British Monarchy Revealed.  Fergie Confidential. British Royal Weddings of the 20th Century. The Tarnished Crown. Royal Babylon.  Enough! 

Of course, if Goodreads uses my ratings to come up with its recommendations, they might be a bit more on target.  But the thought of entering and rating even a small portion of the hundreds of books I’ve read over the years just makes me want to curl up and take a nap.

Even though I have only been on Goodreads for 24 hours, already two people are following my reviews.  Or would be following my reviews if I’d made any.  And they may be doomed to disappointment, because I’m not keen on rating or reviewing. Perhaps I have too keen an appreciation for what it takes to write a book to want to give any writer a less than glowing review.  During my brief association with an ezine, I once had to write a negative review of a book I loathed.  The book richly deserved everything I said about it, but I still felt bad afterwards.  Perhaps I’m also more aware than most readers of how my appreciation for a book is shaped not only by the book itself but also by the circumstances in which I read it, and by what I bring (or fail to bring) to it from my own experience.  Or maybe reviewing’s just too much like turning something fun into work. 

Clearly I am not cut out to be a reviewer. 

Or even a casual rater of works. Most people seem to enjoy the game of coming up with what I call desert island lists.  Favorite lists.  The top ten noir movies everyone should see, the one hundred books every American should read, the five best short stories of all time.   I sometimes find other people’s lists rather interesting.  But I have little compulsion to compile my own. 

Since I haven’t yet added any books to my Goodread profile, I have no idea if it’s possible to add them without rating them.  Somehow I suspect that will turn out to be difficult.

And then there’s the fact that many of the books I read are written by people I know.  Friends.  Colleagues. Can I really be honest in rating them?  Do I really adore so-and-so’s book, or do I just adore so-and-so?  Does one of my writing friends really need to know that, while I thought her first book was a five, her second was only a three?  And yet, if I omit these books, is Goodreads really getting an accurate idea of my tastes?

Maybe Goodreads should be for readers who aren’t also writers.

So here I stand, a newly fledged Goodreads member, and already I’m wondering what the heck to do with this thing?  Any advice, seasoned Goodreads members?

Comments

[Susan Newhall]

If I ever going Goodreads myself, Donna, I'm going to copy and paste your post to use for myself. Then I'm going to pick up a book and go take a nap.

[lil Gluckstern]

I read books and put my reviews on Amazon. Every once in a while, I commit some time to Goodreads, but I really don't enjoy it. It feels cumbersome to use, and I'd rather read :) That being said I follow enough blogs and posts to find books, and one stands out, I review it-even on Goodreads.

[Mary]

Time is the problem. A friend sent a Goodread invitation a couple of weeks ago, so I'm new there, too. Don't know if I'll review things there, but sure do enjoy hearing what others are reading!

[Debbie]

I'm using Goodreads to keep track of what I've read this year so I have a bit of experience in adding books. You have to add it to a "shelf", i.e. read, to-be read, currently reading, etc., but it's not necessary to include a star rating or review.

[Kate Adams]

I think we go astray when we view ourselves as the customers of web sites like Facebook or Googlereads. We - and all of the content we produce - are actually the product. The real customers are the data miners who can sift through the vast amounts of data to draw useful or profitable conclusions from it. Yes, we benefit from using these services, but I'm not convinced we benefit enough to justify the costs.

I can't imagine life without Google, but I cultivate a healthy skepticism nonetheless. If it feels too public, it probably is and you should trust your instincts on this.

[Mary Kay]

I love Goodreads, it taps into my inner librarian, I think. It is fun to keep track of what I'm reading and when I read it, and all the books I've ever read. I really like having a place to list the books that capture my fancy for future reading, instead of keeping little notes here and there and everywhere. It isn't necessary to rate the books on your list,and if you want to stay hidden, I think not rating would be the way to do it.

I really don't care who knows what I read, which follows my personal philosophy of how I don't care what people think of what I do or the choices I make. I am what I am. So, for any site like Facebook or Goodreads, I do it for myself. I haven't been inundated with spam or weird requests from people, so I have no complaints. FB has allowed me to be in contact with friends I had lost touch with as well as family members all over the country. Goodreads lets me spend time thinking about books and reading, which for me is just a delight.

Bottom line is I know these are public places, so I'm smart enough not to put anything out there that could get me into trouble. This means no party pictures, keeping my posted thoughts positive and not ranting excessively, and not telling people where I am every time I change locations. I control what is out there, and those who are interested in what info I have available are welcome to it, as long as they do not intrude on my time.

And, I am happy to let everyone use social media to express themselves as they see fit. It doesn't annoy me that people forget social media is public, that's their business. And if someone posts too many things that I don't care about or find annoying, I just block the suckers. Most of the the time, though, I am happy accept what's happening as a reminder that not everyone is like me, and people have the right to be who they want to be. Everybody is a character and everybody has a story. I like characters and stories, even if my narrative is in a different genre.

[krisneri]

Considering how sensitive I am to other cyber intrusions into my privacy, Goodreads doesn't bother me at all. I suppose it's because it just seems like an extension of my role as a bookseller. I'm always rating and comparing books for customers. I do think I've probably flummoxed their computer recommendations with my eclectic reading list, tho.