Reviewers vs Honesty

[TrackerNeil]

A good question, and one that is becoming more important as we are now seeing authors who are good enough to get a publisher's deal now self-publishing by choice, rather than by necessity. This dilutes the waters from the situation a few years back when we could confidently say that 99.999% of all self-published titles were unreadable shit (as opposed to maybe 80% of professionally-published titles). Now there's some decent stuff out there, but tracking it down is still a lot more work than going through professionally-published books. A better filter system for self-published titles (i.e. not Amazon reviews) is required before taking a risk on them, I think.

I would love a better system, but right now we have the system we have, which essentially assumes that self-published authors are not worth the time. I don't know how to break that barrier and, believe me, I have tried. I've offered synopses, free chapters, writing samples, but there is the belief, stated upthread...

Talent + hard work + persistence = book deal

Therefore, no book deal equals a deficit in one of those three.

So when you come up with a better system, please let me know how to get into it, because right now the current system quite frankly screws authors like me.

(Sorry to bitch here, but just I've come off two months of the current system, which is more than enough, thanks.)

[Larry.]

Anyone who gets free books, ARCs, big-name author interviews and the like. Free stuff, basically. It doesn't automatically mean their reviews are biased in favour of the publishers, obviously, but it does make them slightly suspect. Glowing reviews in particular are hard to take seriously.

I don't exactly blog (I write reviews for Goodreads and then dump them to a blog for ease of recall), but the first time I was offered a free book to review, I made a decision never to do that. I think it's the only way to be truly independent. I don't disparage those who do accept the free stuff, but I reserve the right to regard them with a degree of suspicion, that's all.

I see others have been overly polite on this issue; I'm going to be very blunt. Ever worked in an office where a vendor would leave samples in hopes that your business would sample them and perhaps recommend them to patients/customers? I am a freelance reviewer/critic (I have contributed to both print and online magazines, being paid in cash for writing reviews, in addition to my three blogs). I have a viewership that is over 10K unique visitors a month on the blogs and likely hundreds, if not thousands, more when my reviews are published elsewhere. I am not a "big name" reviewer, but I am visible enough that vendors (publishing companies) want me to consider their products in hopes that I'll have something to say.

This is what typically happens: I set aside those books (sometimes I get 20-30 a month, others I get less; I did make it quite clear back in October 2010 that I will not solicit any review copies and that vendors submit them to me at the high risk of me disposing of them unread), rarely doing more than reading the cover copy/press kits. Most do not interest me, as I rarely review speculative fictions anymore. Eventually, the copies either go to Goodwill or to a used bookstore as trade for books that I do want to read. If the vendors want to stop sending copies, great, as I won't have to move things around to find space for hundreds of unwanted books. If they don't, well, I'll get rid of them eventually. I rarely respond to email queries, mostly because it would be a waste of time for both parties to act as though I'm interested in receiving a solicited copy when in truth I very rarely am.

It is amusing how clueless some forum readers (on multiple sites, not just this one) are about the process. I run a side business here; vendors can try to make me aware of things, but I hold the final say as to what I review and how I review it. Just as I refuse to kow-tow to what I consider to be a simplistic 1-10, 1-5 star "score," I review what I choose to do, with only the occasional exception of a publication commissioning me to review a book (negative or positive does not matter to them) that I sometimes provide for out of my own pockets (my latest paid review, of Helen Oyeyemi's Mr. Fox, appears in Bull Spec #7; I had previously bought the e-book when a few weeks later Samuel Montgomery-Blinn asked if I would write a 350-400 word review for the issue). The insinuation that reviewers are "influenced" by receiving review copies would be risible if it weren't for large enough number of people convinced that this is real that such charges even have to be mentioned in the first place.

To sum things up: This point you express is misguided. You have little clue what freelancers/professionals do (and I do consider myself on the entry-level side of the latter as well as the former) and while you are perfectly entitled to believe what you do, I in turn think you're expressing a view that is ignorant of the realities involved.

[Datepalm]

Mod:

OK people, I'm sure we can maintain some of that vaunted cool headed neutrality here as well, seeing as we demand it from our reviewers. This is a high-stakes issue, with literally tens of dollars, multiple free copies of Stanek books and towering ethical reputations on the line. Lets stay respectful.

[Samalander]

1) I have fond memories of the Bilsborough incident. . . ;)

2) But never again will I force myself to go through such a crappy novel of that size.

1) Wow, that actually got a rating lower than 6! Does that mean Stanek level bad?

http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2007/06/wanderers-tale.html

2) And I guess that explains why there are no more reviews below 6...

[PaulineMRoss]

To sum things up: This point you express is misguided. You have little clue what freelancers/professionals do (and I do consider myself on the entry-level side of the latter as well as the former) and while you are perfectly entitled to believe what you do, I in turn think you're expressing a view that is ignorant of the realities involved.

I do find it amusing when reviewers get uppity about this. It's simple economics, Larry: publishers don't send out free copies out of charity, they do it in the hope that some at least will lead to favourable reviews, and they will continue to do so as long as it's economically viable. They will stop sending to reviewers who regularly slag off books. It's nice to think that they just want to hear what you have to say, good or bad, but publishers are in the business of shifting product, ultimately, and positive reviews are better than negative, however insightful they may be.

Reviewers, for their part, generally co-operate with the system. They tend not to review books that they didn't finish, or didn't like. Maybe they have a 10-point rating system that starts at 7. Or they have no rating system at all, so books can't be quantitatively compared. All of this skews their reviews and makes them less valuable (to me, anyway, because I like to know what reviewers didn't like about a book more than what they did). It makes it appear as if they like everything, even if closer analysis would reveal more subtle graining.

You may not do it, but many reviewers do review free books favourably, and that taints those who review honestly: I am always suspicious of a glowing review when I know that the reviewer got the book for free (or an author interview or whatever), just as I would be suspicious of a doctor prescribing a medication if I can see a calendar from the the pharmaceutical company on the wall. You have to ask: is this an honest opinion, or has the reviewer been influenced, consciously or otherwise? And the point is that, even if they haven't, the suspicion is always there.

Professional and semi-professional reviewers are part of the publishing industry. They act as a conduit between those who sell the books and those who buy them, and it's in the interests of both sides to co-operate. But just as ebooks have made it possible for authors to bypass the system, so sites like Goodreads have made it possible for readers to do that too - to connect directly with authors, to write their own reviews, to read reviews written by other readers. It's a far from perfect system, and it has its own set of biases, but it does give another perspective.

[mormont]

I have never seen so many people undertake to buy my books as in the wake of that fire and brimstone assault by Leo Grin a year or two back. That was quality. I need another of those.

Tell you what, send me a free ARC of Red Country and I promise to describe it as the most immoral book ever written.

See, the system works! ;)

[Werthead]

I would love a better system, but right now we have the system we have, which essentially assumes that self-published authors are not worth the time. I don't know how to break that barrier and, believe me, I have tried. I've offered synopses, free chapters, writing samples, but there is the belief, stated upthread...

Talent + hard work + persistence = book deal

Therefore, no book deal equals a deficit in one of those three.

So when you come up with a better system, please let me know how to get into it, because right now the current system quite frankly screws authors like me.

(Sorry to bitch here, but just I've come off two months of the current system, which is more than enough, thanks.)

All agreed, although it should be noted that two months of going through the current system is next to nothing. Some people have gone through the process for years before getting published (most notably Rowling). It's annoying, sure, but a lot of it is down to perseverence.

They will stop sending to reviewers who regularly slag off books.

Not in the book sphere, but there is a computer game reviewer named Yahtzee who works for the Zero Punctuation website who is almost impossible to please. He hates almost absolutely everything. Yet he gets sent tons of free games because a spectacular slagging-off from him still sells copies of the game. I suspect even Pat's negative review of the Bilsborough still sold a few copies of the book (IIRC, we had people here saying, "It can't be that bad...holy crap!" Something similar happened with The Unremembered more recently).

Publicity - good or bad - is still publicity.

[russjass]

I am always suspicious of a glowing review when I know that the reviewer got the book for free (or an author interview or whatever), just as I would be suspicious of a doctor prescribing a medication if I can see a calendar from the the pharmaceutical company on the wall. You have to ask: is this an honest opinion, or has the reviewer been influenced, consciously or otherwise? And the point is that, even if they haven't, the suspicion is always there.

Well, I am always suspicious when reading a review. I have to admit that I do not normally think "Is this reviewer sucking up to the author/publisher in the hope of more free stuff?",but I always think "Does this reviewers taste match mine?""Why does this reviewer (dis)like this book, and would I form the same opinions for the same reasons?"

It is very easy to distinguish gush from a true reveiw. If you look at the reasons given for why a book is good, and you would think the book is good for the same reasons, then it doesnt really matter if the review has been bought or not.

If there was a review that said Book X is the best book ever written because there are tons of plot holes and wooden characters!! The story is so predictable!, then it wouldnt really matter to me if that review had been paid for with free stuff or not, I wouldnt buy the book. In the same way, if a reviewer describes a book which has all the elements I really enjoy, then I would buy that book whether the review had been paid for or not

[PaulineMRoss]

Publicity - good or bad - is still publicity.

Yes, point taken, although the examples given in this thread suggest that the bad publicity has to be spectacularly bad to have that effect. A total evisceration might have people checking it out to see if it really can be that bad, but a meh review is unlikely to have the same effect.

[pat5150]

Not true.

My meh review of Richard Morgan's The Steal Remains engendered one of the biggest online shitstorms in the history of Pat's Fantasy Hotlist...

Patrick

[pat5150]

1) Wow, that actually got a rating lower than 6! Does that mean Stanek level bad? http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2007/06/wanderers-tale.html 2) And I guess that explains why there are no more reviews below 6...

Dude, it was BAD! Nice worldbuilding, but every other facet of this work sucked. :(

Took me something like a month to finish, if I remember correctly...

Patrick

[Kalbear]

Never mind, misread.

[Zach H]

I have no suspicians about reviewers getting free books, mainly because the review itself should be enough to tell you about the motives of the reviewer. I don't think it's that hard to separate a more in depth piece of criticism from the free publicity variety. Also, I can see why the whole idea of a free book can lose its appeal. When I first heard about bloggers getting free books, I probably did feel a little wave of jealously. After getting to the point where even my own very modest book collection needs to be reduced for space issues and changing taste (goodbye Wheel of Time and Gabriel Garcia Marquez!), I can easily see why a stack of free books could actually be viewed in a negative manner.

[Joe Abercrombie]

Tell you what, send me a free ARC of Red Country and I promise to describe it as the most immoral book ever written. See, the system works! ;)

Come on, if you actually read it that would totally undermine the convincingness of your furious denouncement. Much better to denounce it now, before reading it, then pesky contradictory details contained within the actual text need be no impediment to your righteous onslaught.

[russjass]

I have no suspicians about reviewers getting free books, mainly because the review itself should be enough to tell you about the motives of the reviewer. I don't think it's that hard to separate a more in depth piece of criticism from the free publicity variety. Also, I can see why the whole idea of a free book can lose its appeal. When I first heard about bloggers getting free books, I probably did feel a little wave of jealously. After getting to the point where even my own very modest book collection needs to be reduced for space issues and changing taste (goodbye Wheel of Time and Gabriel Garcia Marquez!), I can easily see why a stack of free books could actually be viewed in a negative manner.

I was always jealous of the Advanced in ARC. Still am :P

[TrackerNeil]

All agreed, although it should be noted that two months of going through the current system is next to nothing. Some people have gone through the process for years before getting published (most notably Rowling). It's annoying, sure, but a lot of it is down to perseverence.

Well, I've been at it ALOT longer than two months, but I'm tired of talking about that.

BTW, I wonder what would happen if a reader adopted the policy of not reading reviews by anyone who wasn't working for a media outlet? After all, one might argue, if a reviewer is truly talented, he will eventually land a job with a newspaper of magazine, right? And if not, he probably wasn't very good anyway.

[JamieM]

Not true. My meh review of Richard Morgan's The Steal Remains engendered one of the biggest online shitstorms in the history of Pat's Fantasy Hotlist... Patrick

I'm a fan of your website, but Morgan took you to the woodshed on that one ;)

[PaulineMRoss]

My meh review of Richard Morgan's The Steal Remains engendered one of the biggest online shitstorms in the history of Pat's Fantasy Hotlist...

Well, it's not so much 'meh' as 'not quite as good as the hype', which is probably true for almost everything, but I take your point. The shitstorm must have happened elsewhere, because the comments to the review are quite restrained. Do you plan to review 'The Cold Commands'?

[kcf]

I would love a better system, but right now we have the system we have, which essentially assumes that self-published authors are not worth the time. I don't know how to break that barrier and, believe me, I have tried. I've offered synopses, free chapters, writing samples, but there is the belief, stated upthread... Talent + hard work + persistence = book deal Therefore, no book deal equals a deficit in one of those three. So when you come up with a better system, please let me know how to get into it, because right now the current system quite frankly screws authors like me. (Sorry to bitch here, but just I've come off two months of the current system, which is more than enough, thanks.)

what it would take for me to even consider a self-published book for review:

You need to demonstrate that you went through everything that a traditionally published author does with their book. You need to show that you had it professionally edited by a qualified and reputable editor. You need to show that you had your book copy edited by a professional copy editor. You need to show that your book was professionally drafted/formatted. Etc.Etc. A recent forum at the SFWA meeting said that this should cost around $6000-$8000 for a self-published writer to equal what they would get through a traditional publishing house.

And here's the real trick - I need to know this before I delete the email without ever reading it. The need is for a transparent system that I can trust. Right now there is no such thing in self-publishing. And I don't have the time to sort through things.

[kcf]

I do find it amusing when reviewers get uppity about this. It's simple economics, Larry: publishers don't send out free copies out of charity, they do it in the hope that some at least will lead to favourable reviews, and they will continue to do so as long as it's economically viable. They will stop sending to reviewers who regularly slag off books. It's nice to think that they just want to hear what you have to say, good or bad, but publishers are in the business of shifting product, ultimately, and positive reviews are better than negative, however insightful they may be. Reviewers, for their part, generally co-operate with the system. They tend not to review books that they didn't finish, or didn't like. Maybe they have a 10-point rating system that starts at 7. Or they have no rating system at all, so books can't be quantitatively compared. All of this skews their reviews and makes them less valuable (to me, anyway, because I like to know what reviewers didn't like about a book more than what they did). It makes it appear as if they like everything, even if closer analysis would reveal more subtle graining. You may not do it, but many reviewers do review free books favourably, and that taints those who review honestly: I am always suspicious of a glowing review when I know that the reviewer got the book for free (or an author interview or whatever), just as I would be suspicious of a doctor prescribing a medication if I can see a calendar from the the pharmaceutical company on the wall. You have to ask: is this an honest opinion, or has the reviewer been influenced, consciously or otherwise? And the point is that, even if they haven't, the suspicion is always there. Professional and semi-professional reviewers are part of the publishing industry. They act as a conduit between those who sell the books and those who buy them, and it's in the interests of both sides to co-operate. But just as ebooks have made it possible for authors to bypass the system, so sites like Goodreads have made it possible for readers to do that too - to connect directly with authors, to write their own reviews, to read reviews written by other readers. It's a far from perfect system, and it has its own set of biases, but it does give another perspective.

For what it's worth, I actually did a statistical analysis on the scores of my reviews of books provided by publishers vs. books I bought on my own. The stats show that I was slightly harder on books provided by publishers.