“Avoid blurbing too many books … ”
Yes, please.
I do pay attention to blurbs. In part that?s because there are a handful of authors/scholars whom I respect to the point where I’m willing to take their word for it that a book is worth reading. But mostly it?s because I don’t have time to read everything I’d like to and so blurbs (along with book reviews and the always hard to pin down ‘buzz’) help me narrow the field.
However… the blurbing too many books issue is a big deal for me. There are a handful of authors who I like their work, but their name is on the back of about a third of the books at any Christian bookstore.
Since A. They seem to like every book ever published, and B. I highly doubt they have the time to read all the books they blurb for so it was probably summarized for them by an assistant, I tend to completely ignore those endorsements.

Blurbs are generally very important to me although I discount some?I think J.I. Packer must have a blurb ghostwriter. I first look to see who published the book. There are a few publishing houses that dependably produce pedestrian drivel. Secondly there are some popular authors that have been worth reading but after 4 or 5 books it seems like they simply recycled the earlier books?forget it! (Scot McKnight is not one of them!). Finally there are a few select blurbers by whose very appearance as a blurber on a book make my decision?they endorse the book and I will read it.

Great post, Scot! I totally agree with asking blurbers not to summarize the whole book. I hate being told the summary … and sometimes find that someone else’s “summary” is not MY summary. So, as you say, blurb what was striking about the book and let the readers be inspired to read–or not!
By the way, I thought of a chapter in a book last year by a certain blogger formerly known as “professor” and smiled … you are now also a blurber, blogger and professor! ;^)

Blurbing is a great marketing tool…Look at me. I used part of a gift card I got for Christmas to Borders to buy the book “Stories with Intent” because Scott nominated it for one of his books of the year! Maybe that wasn’t the only reason…

I enjoy seeing how “blurbing communities” form around certain authors. If I see Scot, John Franke, Andy Crouch, and/or Pete Enns have blurbed a book, I have a sense of the perspective, as opposed to blurbs by Al Mohler and D.A. Carson. What I like the best though is when there are cross-over blurbs — a conservative and a progressive blurbing the same book. Then you know you’ve got something.

Great great stuff Scot. I do quite a few blurbs and I always am tackling how best to do them, so this is really helpful.

Blurbs are a good guide to a book and the content inside.
I look for them all the time and use them as one of the
ways I decide if I’m going to buy a book.

So doperbeck, what exactly is your point about Mohler and Carson? You don’t like their blurbs because they’re conservative or because they don’t read the books or offer inacurate blurbs? I’m not trying to start a fight, I’m just puzzled by your response.

Scot,
You offer some helpful wisdom in regard to blurbing ? when and how. One point at which I hesitate to say ?Amen? is regarding the suggestion that one should not blurb a book with which one disagrees. I grant that it can be risky, as I discovered when I wrote a blurb for an Open Theist book. But I think there is a place for it. If a book is well written and deserves to be seriously considered, perhaps particularly by people who are predisposed to disagree with it, then I think that people who disagree with the conclusions of the study are right to recommend it for its strengths.
On a couple of occasions, I suspect that I have been asked for a blurb precisely because authors or publishers knew that I didn?t agree with the conclusions of a study. Similarly, I have suggested blurbers for my own writing whom I knew would not agree with my conclusions but whose assessment of the worth of my work I valued. Some of them felt the need to say that they did not agree with all I had said, or even with my basic orientation, but were still prepared to commend the work to readers of varying theological persuasions.

Yes, blurbs are important. Scot McKnight is a “blurber” I have taken note of, and it seems Brian McClaren has made blurbing a second profession! Go to your local store and see his name on so may books. I think the helpful thing about blurbs is that they orient a book for me: whether the book is conservative, liberal, or moderate, for instance, based on those who provide blurbs. And some blurbs are quite profound and well-written. Maybe someone should do an article or book based on the creativity of blurbs.

“Tom Wright has out-Reformed America’s newest religious zealots–the neo-Reformed–by taking them back to Scripture and to its meaning in its historical context. Wright reveals that the neo-Reformed are more committed to tradition than to the sacred text. This irony is palpable on every page of this judicious, hard-hitting, respectful study.”
Above is Dr. McKnight’s blurb for NT Wright’s forthcoming book, a response to John Piper, DA Carson, etc.
I agree that “blurbing is a delicate art.” Perhaps insinuating that Piper and Carson are “religious zealots” relies too heavily on the artistic aspect of a good blurb and not nearly heavy enough on the delicate side?

I wrote the above comment and did not intend to leave the name blank empty.

Scot, here is your latest blurb for N.T. Wright’s new book defending his position on justification (re: New Perspective on Paul), particularly to criticisms from John Piper, et al:
“Tom Wright has out-Reformed America’s newest religious zealots–the neo-Reformed–by taking them back to Scripture and to its meaning in its historical context. Wright reveals that the neo-Reformed are more committed to tradition than to the sacred text. This irony is palpable on every page of this judicious, hard-hitting, respectful study.”
Would you say that this follows your criteria you lay out above?
I like Wright. But I also like Piper (et al). I also like McKnight. I don’t see these groups as mutually exclusive, but I think they can complement one another.
Do you have any thoughts for your readers on your blurb in light of your above posted comments?
A sincere reader,
Aaron