A question for those of you who blog often about books that you’ve read (I count myself in your camp): is your blogging coterminous with the books that you read? That is, do you blog about every book you read? If so, do you never find that after having read an interesting, well written book, you paradoxically have nothing to say about it? If you had found yourself in such a strange situation, what did you do? Did you write nothing, or did you rack your brain in the hopes of hitting on something?
I suppose that professional reviewers rely on their training to deal with such situations. They have their admirable stock — literary techniques, thematic placement in the literature, analysis of the book’s failure or success at whatever metric it’s to be judged by, etc. — on which to structure a review. Amateur reviewers may lack such background and the discipline imposed by a heckling editor. They — we — luckily needn’t bear the burden of having to write; we needn’t force the matter; we needn’t say anything. But then how can we think a book interesting, yet find that we have nothing to say for the spark of that interest?