Stephen King's new column in Entertainment Weekly takes up the subject of blurbing. One of his better columns, I think. He tries honestly if ruefully to deal with how established writers can help promote worthy books and films without turning into a whore. Not always easy in this age of Blurb-0-Matic.
As he notes, movie blurbists are the worst. Esquire once ran an article about a handful of blurbists the studios can always rely on. King comes up with two more names, Earl Dittman (which sounds made up) and Pete Hammond. These guys have apparently never seen a movie they didn't like. And they like everything in !!!!!!!! exclamation points.
Time, health, crankiness have slowed my own willingness to read manuscripts in order to blurb them. And sometimes I feel guilty about this because when I started out so many writers were so damned nice to me and so willing to give me quotes, sometimes when I didn't even ask for them.
One thing I always say to writers who ask for blurbs is that I don't know how helpful my name will be. In the grand scheme of things I'm nobody and so while it's probably all right to have " " on a cover I don't know how useful it is when consumers ahve never heard of the young writer or me.
For the novel I'm hopefully wrapping up soon I was planning on asking Mr. King for a blurb but I'm sure he's too busy. Does anybody have an e mail addrss for Earl !!!!!! Dittman?