Reviewers vs Honesty

[pat5150]

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.

Wrong. Most newspapers and magazines have cut or removed their literary coverage altogether in the last 5 years. Which explains why online venues have become so popular and gained credibility over the past few years...

Patrick

[PaulineMRoss]

Wrong. Most newspapers and magazines have cut or removed their literary coverage altogether in the last 5 years. Which explains why online venues have become so popular and gained credibility over the past few years... Patrick

Undoubtedly true, but it misses TrackerNeil's point quite spectacularly.

[Sci-2]

Well, it costs me nothing to read a reviewer online. If I had to pay I wouldn't bother.

For self-published books, I think the best case scenario is that the book is equal in quality to a book that was published by a publisher. But the publisher gives you confidence that a certain threshold has been passed.

It's not a fair thing by any means but with limited funds and time people would rather take the less risky route and go with a publisher approved book.

It is sort of sad that self published stuff that seems to gain traction is, at first glance at least, pretty derivative. As in a cheap version of a publisher published book.

[mormont]

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.

Well... isn't this largely what happens anyway?

I mean, I look at blogs by people I happen to know, or that are recommended by people I know, but I'm sure there are thousands of review blogs out there I don't look at because I have no way of discriminating between them and no inclination to do so, either. If I put aside those personal links and just set out to look for a review 'cold', I'm almost certainly going to look for a major media outlet (or at least, what passes for such in the genre). I'm almost certainly going to give more weight to that opinion, too. Book jackets sometimes quote a particularly apposite bit from a well-known independent blog, at least in genre fiction, but mostly they go with the big media reviewers (or a name author, of course). If I look up a film on Rotten Tomatoes, which reviews am I going to click on? The ones from sources I recognise, i.e. major media outlets.

In any walk of modern life, making choices is a problem. We often have dozens, hundreds, even thousands of options. We need to employ filters. This is always true, whether we're talking about reading or the job market. And it always sucks to be on the wrong side of those filters, and the filters are often unfair, and we often wind up chucking out perfectly deserving candidates, whether for the new CEO or for the next thing we'll read. Doesn't change the fact that we still need the filters.

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.

Good point. Also, my furious denunciation can now be fuelled by secret rage and jealousy at not getting an ARC. ;)

[Larry.]

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.

Are you sure you meant to use "uppity" in the sense derived from that paragraph? Seems like the wrong descriptor for this situation ;)

As for the economics of it, I would think most would realize that I am quite aware of it, considering my repeated references to "vendors" who are trying to leave samples for others to evaluate and comment upon/recommend as they desire. That makes the situation more of a bilateral one than the publisher ->reviewer model you have in mind.

If only my negative reviews would lead to fewer books! Or rather, my repeated and pointed stance that in 90%+ of the cases, review copies will not be reviewed, as that prevents any publicity from taking place. But no, just like the periodicals (albeit on a smaller, more targeted scale), there are books that will never be looked at, much less considered for review. That's what you are not accepting here, it seems. Those commenting here have readerships in the thousands-hundreds of thousands each month (mine is in the low tens of thousands). The demands of the side job/hobby (for those who are not paid by other periodicals) have very little to nothing to do with what publicists decide to do. This is the norm and not the exception, despite what you seem to believe. Goodreads, to me at least, seems to be an abomination that serves more as a social media outlet than a provider of substantive reviews/criticism. But to each their own, I suppose.

[TrackerNeil]

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.

If I were Christian, I'd say, "Go with God."

[TrackerNeil]

Wrong. Most newspapers and magazines have cut or removed their literary coverage altogether in the last 5 years. Which explains why online venues have become so popular and gained credibility over the past few years... Patrick

So you're saying that an alternative method that might have seemed a waste of time years before became respectable due to changing technology and updated attitudes? How wonderful! I look forward to the day that nice open-mindedness spreads to other corners of the industry.

[Sci-2]

So you're saying that an alternative method that might have seemed a waste of time years before became respectable due to changing technolgy and updated attitudes? How wonderful! I look forward to the day that nice open-mindedness spreads to other corners of the industry.

But your premise is sort of flawed. Reviews benefit me because it allows me to filter through possible choices. Their being free and online is what makes them so worthwhile.

Buying self published books because they might be good increases the probability I'll spend money on something I won't like. Is it a fair metric? No, but most people find that it works well enough for something they budget as entertainment.

[TrackerNeil]

Well, it costs me nothing It is sort of sad that self published stuff that seems to gain traction is, at first glance at least, pretty derivative. As in a cheap version of a publisher published book.

Have you ever read Denis McKiernan's Iron Tower trilogy? That series, published was by Roc (which I believe is an imprint of Penguin) and is one of the most derivative stories I can recall. I can't believe Tolkien's estate, known for being litigious, hasn't sued the pants off McKiernan.

Look, I'm going to back off a bit here, and acknowledge that my comments come in part from a certain level of bitterness. It's difficult to hear that reviewers who work from themselves are legitimate but authors who do the same are questionable. I'm not trying to shame or pillory anyone specific here, and if that's been the result of my comments I apologize. I am venting a bit, I suppose.

To be positive (for a change) I will say that the fact that so many doors are closed to SP authors has spurred me to be more creative in pursuing what few promotional outlets are available. That's how I got one of the Go-Go's to read my book! (So exciting!)

[Sci-2]

Have you ever read Denis McKiernan's Iron Tower trilogy? That series, published was by Roc (which I believe is an imprint of Penguin) and is one of the most derivative stories I can recall. I can't believe Tolkien's estate, known for being litigious, hasn't sued the pants off McKiernan.

Oh, I think people are also in awe that Unremembered is allowed to cleave so closely to Jordan's work.

My point was that it does seem unfair that self-published works that garner profits are not the ones that more creative.

[TrackerNeil]

Oh, I think people are also in awe that Unremembered is allowed to cleave so closely to Jordan's work.

Ugh...if an author is going to retell a story, he might at least pick a good one.

[Seli]

...

Look, I'm going to back off a bit here, and acknowledge that my comments come in part from a certain level of bitterness. It's difficult to hear that reviewers who work from themselves are legitimate but authors who do the same are questionable. I'm not trying to shame or pillory anyone specific here, and if that's been the result of my comments I apologize. I am venting a bit, I suppose.

To be positive (for a change) I will say that the fact that so many doors are closed to SP authors has spurred me to be more creative in pursuing what few promotional outlets are available. That's how I got one of the Go-Go's to read my book! (So exciting!)

Reviewers have a similar problem of gaining legitimacy as writers. But it is a bit easier for them to get it.

A reviewer can easily showcase some of their opinions, biases and style interacting in fora like these, and their usually short pieces are easier to compare and digest. For a writer to get the same exposure to their style and capabilities is a bit more of a problem. Especially for those writing longer works.

[kcf]

Reviewers have a similar problem of gaining legitimacy as writers. But it is a bit easier for them to get it.

A reviewer can easily showcase some of their opinions, biases and style interacting in fora like these, and their usually short pieces are easier to compare and digest. For a writer to get the same exposure to their style and capabilities is a bit more of a problem. Especially for those writing longer works.

It's really not a valid comparison at all. Someone with a blog who reviews books is quite different from a self-published author. The basic reasons and motivations are different, the scale is different, and simply put, reviewers are not looking to be paid.

[jdiddyesquire]

I should probably just move along, but...

To Pat, I can't help but take the "new guy" term a little personally. To suggest that because of someone's status as to 'new to the game' would in any way make it more likely that we would sell our integrity, is offensive. I've been at this about 14 months now. I've written somewhere around 100 reviews, about half of which have come from review copies (the vast majority being eARCs). I have not, nor will I ever, let that influence my opinion about a novel. There may be exceptions out there, I have no idea.

To Pauline and others arguing that there are no reviewers they can trust, here are some suggestions from people who haven't posted in this thread (some of which are, gasp, new to the blogging biz):

Bookworm Blues

Little Red Reviewer

The Speculative Scotsman

Far Beyond Reality

Pornokitsch

Fantasy Book Cafe

Sense of Wonder (Spanish and English)

Civilian Reader

A Dribble of Ink

Do all of them have their fan moments? Sure. We all do. However, I have never had a moment with those blogs where I felt there was anything resembling a quid pro quo going on (and that's a quick list, there are a LOT more). I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't write a blog to get free books (it's a nice perk, 100 book a year habit is expensive). I write a blog because it enriches my reading experience.

I hope my readers find it helpful. If not, then I'm failing and I'll try to do better.

[Sci-2]

As Datepalm noted, from the consumer perspective it really isn't a big deal. Sometimes I'm on the cusp and so end up reading lots of reviews for a book. Sometimes I go to the bookstore and buy a book because I want something to read on a flight or train ride. The only time I really read lots of reviews is in situations like the one I'm in now, where I have piles of books that are unread, including ebooks.

My addiction to buying books forces my hand, but I only want to by the really good stuff to ease my conscience so I'll read many reviews.

This whole notion of selling out seems silly to me, unless someone is an unbelievable, obvious shill is it that much of a problem?

Literary criticism is another thing entirely, though I'd question how many reviewers really do anything of that sort (Larry could better speak to this).

[kcf]

Literary criticism is another thing entirely, though I'd question how many reviewers really do anything of that sort (Larry could better speak to this).

this is definately another thing entirely (probably should be it's own thread if the there is any discussion on it). But, essentionally no reviewers delve into true criticism - even what Larry does is more of a higher-order, academic style of review.

[Mark Lawrence]

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.

In my experience the world doesn't work this way. My sample size is only one though, so ignore at will.

I write book reviews for a national newspaper and I lay no claim to being good at it. I got the gig because someone who knew the right people dropped my name at the correct time and place. The bloggers I visit are far more knowledgeable about the genre than I am and I'd rather read their reviews than mine. The repeat business I get indicates I'm not a total fail at it, but the key thing is getting past the doorstep.

I also suspect that although the newspaper is purchased by a million or so people, probably the numbers that read the reviews are not hugely different from those of a popular blog reviewer and certainly a far less motivated and influential demographic.

I should also note that the reviewers I'm familiar with all seem to be very intelligent people who could probably have earned enough at their day job to buy ten books in the time taken to do a review - and as such it seems unlikely they would be swayed by the free-ness of a book. And that's even before you factor in integrity and the fact that readers want honesty and will desert if they feel they're not getting it.

I don't feel 'safe' with any of the bloggers I've got to know. None of them seems likely to give me a free pass if I write a duff book, no matter how many chummy tweets may have been exchanged. A free books seems neither here nor there in the face of that.

I wonder if people's impression of dishonesty in reviews isn't simply fuelled by that gut-born disbelief that other people like stuff we hate? I understand that some books I think are drivel are loved by others, but I always have to suppress that knee-jerk 'come on!?' and remind myself there are people who like marmite, jazz and cricket too :)

[Joe Abercrombie]

I like marmite and cricket. On jazz I'm indifferent.

[Sci-2]

this is definately another thing entirely (probably should be it's own thread if the there is any discussion on it). But, essentionally no reviewers delve into true criticism - even what Larry does is more of a higher-order, academic style of review.

Oh, I meant that Larry had delineated the distinction before. I'd say there's Gogol's Overcoat stuff that straddles the criticism/review line.

[Grack21]

Man screw this, I want to see Reviewers vs Predator.