In much the same way as I spent a couple of days going through the old articles and sorting them into categories, I’ve now embarked upon the more daunting task of doing the same for all the on-line book reviews. I say “daunting” because there are a lot more of them – if each issue of the magazine contained an average of 4 articles, it contained some 10 or 12 book reviews so if nothing else the numbers are correspondingly greater.
A rough categorisation of the books was done some years ago, resulting in 8 categories. Some of these, such as “Fiction” and “Art”, were very straight forward and their contents can be transferred into new ones very easily. Some of the rest however are much more complex and need to be further split down. Consider the issue of the Celts and matters Celtic, for example. There’s a world of difference between a book by John Matthews naffly illustrated by Courtney Davis, and one by Dr Miranda Green; one is popular and the other academic, leading to “Celtic – Popular” and “Celtic – Academic” categories. One of the other differences between the two is that the academic books were the ones I deliberately solicited for review, and which as time went on the academic publishers started to send spontaneously, while the popular ones were the books certain publishers targetting a pagan or new age audience tended to send unbidden and often unwanted. Much the same goes for the history books.
Given the huge range of books in terms of both subject matter and seriousness (ie, in many cases, quality) reviewed over the years, it’s difficult to know just how many categories to use. Lumping together all the books currently lumped together under “Archaeology/History” doesn’t make it easy for the reader to find the sort of book they’re looking for, but equally too many categories are only going to lead to confusion.
I suspect it’s going to take me the best part of a week and several bottles of wine to do this properly.