writers.com feature:

Book Reviews: Riles & Rules

By Paula Guran

I confess. I am a book reviewer: one of those people who has the audacity and arrogance to publicly expound on a book's merits (or lack thereof). I (usually) even get paid for it.

My fellow reviewers and I must be pretty important. After all, just about any advice concerning publicizing a book will contain some reference to the book review as the most effective, cost efficient way to increase sales. As Jason Epstein, former Random House Editorial Director and founder of New York Review of Books has said, "I don't think anything can replace a serious book review for promoting a book."

(Well, maybe. Only a few review sources actually have any measurable impact on book sales, but that's another essay.)

Besides greasing the wheels of book commerce, "[B]ook reviews are important not simply for their promotional value..." according to Mr. Epstein. "They contribute to that ongoing, open-ended Socratic dialogue that is our culture." Wow!

So, I'm sure you need to know more about this vital force in our society: book reviews.

First, let's get our definitions straight. We aren't discussing the art of criticism. Criticism is a deeper, more scholarly evaluation of a book. The critic acts as an interpreter of the work an often-complex analysis of the work. This examination usually takes place within the context of a larger cultural perception.

(Considering book reviewers are already holding the cultural fort with our contributions, I guess this means that critics may be saving the entire universe or possibly communing directly with a Higher Power.)

Reviewing is basically a form of consumer advocacy. Reviews are usually written under deadline and often extremely limited as to length. Where a critique is an analysis, a review is an immediate reaction. It generally introduces a book to the public and then offers the reviewer's opinion as to whether potential readers might be interested in it (or not).

Someone once summed it up as: the reviewer assumes the reader has never read the book; the critic assumes the reader has read the book and is knowledgeable about it.

Despite the fact that book reviews are so important, in the last couple of years, newspapers have cut back on the space devoted to book reviews. Features and "book columns" have taken the place of some reviews as well. Some book columns retain a solid base in reviewing, but most consist of a form of "commentary" that has nothing to do with reviewing and everything to do with promotional puffery. There's nothing wrong with publicity -- most books get far too little attention -- it's just not the same thing as giving the public an unbiased opinion of a book. It's a form of entertainment that generates "buzz" and publicizes an industry. Reviewing, other than adding to our Socratic dialogue, serves ideas and art through objective consideration.

Not only are reviews losing column inches, there are more and more books to review. Only about 10% of the (estimated) 70,000 books published in the US in a year are reviewed to start with. Of that 10%, mainstream publishers are getting the majority of reviews. Independent and university presses have traditionally gotten the short end of the reviewing stick.

How many more books are there these days of dwindling reviews? The book editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, in 1978, that he received about 150 books a week from publishers; 200 or more at the peak of the "season." He had eight review slots in the Sunday edition -- only one in 20 could be reviewed. The editor of the Midwest Book Review writes that he now receives about 300 books a week and that the major review sources (like Publishers Weekly and Library Journal) receive more than 1250 books a week.

Now e-publishing, self-publishing, and print-on-demand presses add even more to the overall number of books published and most of those authors are looking for reviews, too.

The Internet has offered some valid new review sources via book-oriented Web sites, e-zines, and newsletters. Slick magazines Book and Pages have emerged, but they are more buzz- than review-oriented.

Another answer has arisen in the form of "review-for-fee services." In 2001 Foreword Magazine set up Forewordreviews.com and offered publishers and authors the opportunity to buy a "professional" review of a book for a base price of $295. Bookreview.com now offers a $125 "Express Review" service that guarantees a review within 15 business days of receiving your book. They also allow you to request a particular reviewer (although that reviewer can turn your request down).

Can you buy objectivity? The editor of Foreword defends the practice: "Despite following all the rules and earnestly pursuing reviewers, it is highly likely that most small press works, however meritorious, will not see a review in [Publishers Weekly], Library Journal, Kirkus, The New York Times, the New York Review of Books, or any of their peers.... 'Unpaid' reviews are no more a guarantee of objectivity or fair-minded selectivity than paid reviews. The guarantee is the professionalism and honor of the reviewer and reviewing service." Bookreviews.com swears "we will not compromise our integrity by posting false reviews."

Ethics aside for the moment, let's ask a practical question: After more than 18 months in business, is Forewordreviews.com making a dent in the non-reviewed 90% or even the titles published by the over 50,000 small and independent publishers? (The Bookreviews.com offer is more recent and there is no way to tell if a review among the 10,000 they claim are in their database has been paid for or not. ) According to their Web site (as of thiws writing in 2002), Forewordreviews.com has reviewed only 123 books since May of 2001. Now much of a dent.

Did getting a paid review pay off for any of these books? Hard to say, but I'd only heard of one of them and that one only because I'd received a review copy myself. Did they enrich our Socratic dialogue? I seriously doubt it.

Practicality aside, let's go back to ethics. Paid reviews may lack integrity, but can the mainstream reviewers claim much more? Publicists, editors, authors, and reviewers will, if honest, admit that ever-magical "connections" play a part in who and what gets reviewed. The cost of a lunch has "bought" many a reviewer's (or review editor's) *attention.* Can a favorable review be bought? I suppose it can, but I have no evidence (and no one's ever tried to bribe me).

Other factors affect impartiality as well. Are you reading from an advance reading copy or a finished book? How thick/thin is the book vs. your deadline? Does the book somehow fit into the overall body of the author's previous work and how aware are you of that body? Does the reviewer have the background and experience to understand a particular book? Should background and experience matter if one is being a "consumer advocate"? I read and review a first novel in a somewhat different light than a novel by an established author. Typography, cover, and book design are influences. I've been convinced to review books out of sheer guilt.

The point is, even if you try to remain as pure as the snowy white of an unprinted page, some bias is going to be part of your opinion. That's part of being human. Most good reviewers do their best to be fair. I know one who has avoided meeting authors at all simply because she was afraid that knowing them might influence her reviews of their work. I know another who quit reviewing a genre he had specialized in because he felt he was "burned out" and getting too jaded. Good reviewers do *try*

And, really, we don't think we are saving humankind. Most of us don't even contribute much to the Socratic dialogue that is our culture. We also realize, to quote essayist and author Joseph (not Jason) Epstein, "The whole business of reviewing is complicated, perverse, and bears little relation to common sense, need, commerce or literature."

Sending books out for review is really the publisher's job. In theory, they will have a list of suitable review sources that will properly receive your book. They will swiftly and cheerfully fulfill all pertinent requests for review copies. In theory, my body should look like Salma Hayek. In other words -- there's a vast difference between theory and reality. So, in case you need to know (and you probably do), here are the basic...

Rules of the Review Game:

Thou shalt send books to relevant reviewers. Different review sources review different types of books. Some will not look at mass market paperbacks or self-published books or reprints or review only one genre or review books covering certain subject matter, ad infinitum.

Thou shalt follow the submission process set out by the reviewer. This can include submitting a certain amount of time before publication date; number of copies; proper address; acceptance of ARCS, unbound galleys, finished books, etc.; suitability of genre or subject matter and other variables.

Thou shalt send adequate information with the book including an absolutely failsafe contact phone number and eddress.

Thou shalt realize that sending a book to be reviewed does not guarantee a review. The review source is under no obligation to explain why no review was forthcoming. Other than failure to adhere to Rules One and Two, there are a slew of valid reasons your book may not be reviewed: simply too many submissions and not enough reviewers; the book just isn't up to par; lack of space; it may be the 27th book on how to groom your poodle (or whatever the subject) received that week; a disgruntled mailroom clerk stole it and is auctioning it off on E-bay; the reviewer had a nervous breakdown -- you get the picture.

After submitting a book for review, the publisher may politely contact the source to make sure: a) the book arrived; b) the book's status in the process; and 3) to offer any further information or assistance for the reviewer. (It's much better for someone OTHER than the author to do this. Authors are too emotionally involved with their literary offspring.)

If the book is not reviewed, the review source is not obliged to inform the publisher. If the book is reviewed the review source SHOULD provide a copy of the review. (There are exceptions to this rule.) I have to admit I sometime fail in this capacity for a number of reasons (including the lack of compliance with rule Number Three). It doesn't hurt to *politely* check.

Thou shalt not get in the reviewer's face. Polite inquiries via email as noted in Rules Five and Six are one thing, being a nuisance is another.

If a review is not forthcoming, thou shalt not write the review source off as a complete charlatan and book thief. Yes, there are those folks out there, but if you did your homework for Rule One, you probably aren't dealing with them. This is not just an extension of Rule Seven either. Realize that many reviewers are frequently the same people who mention books in award procedures or make sure those that do are aware of a meritorious work, tell editors about new talent, "talk-up" a good book, etc.

The publisher may use the review or excerpts thereof in their marketing of the book without further permission.

There's also one other Rule. E.M. Forster summed it up: "Some reviews give pain. This is regrettable, but no author has any right to whine. He is not obliged to be an author. he invited publicity, and he must take the publicity as it comes along."

* * *

In all fairness to writers, we thought we should provide some of their opinions about critics and reviewers:

Reviewing has one advantage over suicide; in suicide you take it out of yourself; in reviewing you take it out of other people. - George Bernard Shaw

Critics are a dissembling, dishonest, contemptible race of men. Asking a working writer what he thinks of critics is like asking a lampost what it feels about dogs. - John Osborne

Reviewers, with some rare exceptions, are a most stupid and malignant race. As a bankrupt thief turns thief-taker in despair, so an unsuccessful author turns critic. - Percy Bysshe Shelley

A book reviewer is usually a barker before the door of a publisher's circus. - Austin O'Malley

There are some men born only to suck out the poison of books. - Ben Johnson

Reviewers are usually people who would have been poets, historians, biographer, if they could. They have tried their talents at one thing or another and have failed; therefore they turn critic. - Samuel Taylor Coleridge

In an age of unscrupulous and shameless book-making, it is a duty to give notice of the rubbish that cumbers the ground. There is no credit, no real power required for this task. It is the work of an intellectual scavenger, and far from being specially honorable. - R. H. Hutton

Critic, n. A person who boasts himself hard to please because nobody tries to please him. - Ambrose Bierce

Copyright (c) 2004 Writers on the Net. This feature was originally published in "Writers.com," the monthly electronic newsletter of Writers on the Net. This publication may not be reproduced in print or posted elsewhere on the Web or used in any other fashion, in whole or in part, without written permission from Writers on the Net/Writers.com. Subscribe here or by emailing writers@writers.com.

home:about:classes:enroll:services:instructors:newsletter:tips:store