Ethics in Book Reviewing Survey: The Results
Dear NBCC Members and "Critical Mass" Readers:
68.5 percent of book reviewers think anyone mentioned in a book's acknowledgements should be barred from reviewing it.
64.9 percent think anyone who has written an unpaid blurb for a book should also be banned from writing a fuller review.
76.5 percent think it's never ethical to review a book without reading the whole thing.
And 52 percent think it's not okay for a book-review editor, in assigning books for review, to favor books by writers who also review regularly for that editor's book section.
Yes, it's time again for "The Ethics of Book Reviewing," an old NBCC favorite. From the numbers above, book reviewers sound like quite an ethical bunch, no? Yet not everything seems clear to them.
40.1 percent think a reviewer shouldn't read other reviews of a book before writing his or her own, but 17.9 per cent think that's perfectly okay, and 33.5 per cent feel it's complicated enough to require commentary rather than a firm answer.
73.4 percent answer "Not Sure" when asked, "Are the ethics of book reviewing in the United States and England significantly different?"
And 60.5 percent think it's okay for a newspaper book section or magazine to ignore self-published books that authors submit to them, e.g., iUniverse type books.
Now come on, is that fair? Not even a peek?
Twenty years ago, I conducted a survey for the NBCC on "The Ethics of Book Reviewing." It contained 26 questions, drew 126 responses and more than 3600 comments. We published it in the January, 1988 edition of the NBCC Journal.
As many of you know, I conducted a follow-up survey this year, with the advice and help of my NBCC Board colleagues. Administered through the up-to-date cyberservices of surveymonkey.com, it contained 33 questions, drew 364 respondents, and 1,938 comments. Thirteen of the questions were the same as on the 1987 survey, to permit comparison and evaluation of whether "The more things change..." applies.
Thanks to the marvels of modern technology, the NBCC is now making both the entire 2007 survey (including comments) and the 1988 survey, available to all NBCC members, the media, and any outsiders who may be interested. The 2007 survey results can be accessed here.* The 1987 survey, available in a PDF file, can be downloaded here (opens file).
We hope NBCC members, literary journalists and troublemakers of all sorts will mine the results in creative, thought-provoking ways. As conductor of the earlier survey, I offered an evaluation of those results that can be read in the PDF file. I'd like to briefly offer some thoughts here as well.
First, I alert everyone, as in 1987, that I'm not a statistician or social scientist -- just a run-of-the-mill humanist who occasionally likes some numbers with his daily data. Survey purists, be forewarned: In the drafting of the final 2007 survey form, after discussion among Board members, it was decided to add "Other" as a fourth possible answer, even though the 1987 survey permitted only "Yes," "No," and "Not Sure." (Both surveys invited comments in addition to a chosen answer, and many of the comments are hilarious, wise, or both -- don't miss them.)
As a result, comparisons between 1987 responses and 2007 responses, in the case of repeat questions to which many of the 2007 respondents answered "Other," are rather tricky, while comparisons between responses to repeat questions where the "Other" response in 2007 was negligible, seem more straightforward. In effect, the 2007 survey allowed respondents who felt the issue raised by a question too nuanced to permit a blunt answer to bypass such an answer and simply comment.
Second, while responses to most of the questions repeated from 1987 to 2007 indicate ethical judgments have remained consistent -- e.g., 84.2 percent in 2007 think a book-review editor should not assign a book to a friend of the author, and 82.5 percent felt that way 20 years ago -- some ethical judgments appear to have shifted.
In 1987, 75.4 percent thought it unethical for a reviewer to back out of reviewing a book already accepted for review, on the ground that the reviewer didn't like the book and didn't want to say negative things in print.
In 2007, only 34.4 thought that -- the exact same percentage as those who thought it ethical. One explanation may be that the 2007 survey drew a far larger number of reviewers who are freelance writers rather than on-staff journalists -- it may be that the staff journalist's sense of commitment to an assignment and required reportage no longer holds sway. In a similar departure from the 1987 results, 38.1 percent of the 2007 respondents, when asked, "Should a writer be allowed to review the book of someone who shares the same literary agent?", answered "Yes." Nearly the same percentage -- 37.8 -- answered "No."
Yet in 1987, 70.7 percent answered "Yes."
Are reviewers noticing more backscratching reviews by folks who share the agent of the author under review, and perhaps getting tired of the practice?
Third, I believe a conclusion in my comment on the 1987 survey remains valid -- book reviewers are largely divided between those who believe in something you might call the "objective" book review, and those who don't -- attitudes toward specific practices in the field follow almost syllogistically from one premise or the other.
Fourth, and finally, new Net-based aspects of our literary life appear not to have settled in enough to create clear-cut ethical judgments. One example is the split that resulted from Question 17: "Should a literary blogger review the book of another literary blogger to whose blog she or he links?"
33.4 said "Yes."
23.4 said "No."
22.5 percent were "Not Sure."
20.7 percent retreated to "Other."
Time for a panel?
The 2007 survey, like its predecessor, addresses many other issues: the appropriateness of selling one's review copies, favoritism by reviewers toward particular publishing houses, how honest a reviewer must be in what she or he writes, the propriety of review organs linking up with book sellers, and much else. We hope it will stir lots of debate, and no fistfights.
Sincerely,
Carlin Romano
Literary Critic
The Philadelphia Inquirer
* To browse through individual responses to each question, click the "view" icon on the lower left of each question summary.
68.5 percent of book reviewers think anyone mentioned in a book's acknowledgements should be barred from reviewing it.
64.9 percent think anyone who has written an unpaid blurb for a book should also be banned from writing a fuller review.
76.5 percent think it's never ethical to review a book without reading the whole thing.
And 52 percent think it's not okay for a book-review editor, in assigning books for review, to favor books by writers who also review regularly for that editor's book section.
Yes, it's time again for "The Ethics of Book Reviewing," an old NBCC favorite. From the numbers above, book reviewers sound like quite an ethical bunch, no? Yet not everything seems clear to them.
40.1 percent think a reviewer shouldn't read other reviews of a book before writing his or her own, but 17.9 per cent think that's perfectly okay, and 33.5 per cent feel it's complicated enough to require commentary rather than a firm answer.
73.4 percent answer "Not Sure" when asked, "Are the ethics of book reviewing in the United States and England significantly different?"
And 60.5 percent think it's okay for a newspaper book section or magazine to ignore self-published books that authors submit to them, e.g., iUniverse type books.
Now come on, is that fair? Not even a peek?
Twenty years ago, I conducted a survey for the NBCC on "The Ethics of Book Reviewing." It contained 26 questions, drew 126 responses and more than 3600 comments. We published it in the January, 1988 edition of the NBCC Journal.
As many of you know, I conducted a follow-up survey this year, with the advice and help of my NBCC Board colleagues. Administered through the up-to-date cyberservices of surveymonkey.com, it contained 33 questions, drew 364 respondents, and 1,938 comments. Thirteen of the questions were the same as on the 1987 survey, to permit comparison and evaluation of whether "The more things change..." applies.
Thanks to the marvels of modern technology, the NBCC is now making both the entire 2007 survey (including comments) and the 1988 survey, available to all NBCC members, the media, and any outsiders who may be interested. The 2007 survey results can be accessed here.* The 1987 survey, available in a PDF file, can be downloaded here (opens file).
We hope NBCC members, literary journalists and troublemakers of all sorts will mine the results in creative, thought-provoking ways. As conductor of the earlier survey, I offered an evaluation of those results that can be read in the PDF file. I'd like to briefly offer some thoughts here as well.
First, I alert everyone, as in 1987, that I'm not a statistician or social scientist -- just a run-of-the-mill humanist who occasionally likes some numbers with his daily data. Survey purists, be forewarned: In the drafting of the final 2007 survey form, after discussion among Board members, it was decided to add "Other" as a fourth possible answer, even though the 1987 survey permitted only "Yes," "No," and "Not Sure." (Both surveys invited comments in addition to a chosen answer, and many of the comments are hilarious, wise, or both -- don't miss them.)
As a result, comparisons between 1987 responses and 2007 responses, in the case of repeat questions to which many of the 2007 respondents answered "Other," are rather tricky, while comparisons between responses to repeat questions where the "Other" response in 2007 was negligible, seem more straightforward. In effect, the 2007 survey allowed respondents who felt the issue raised by a question too nuanced to permit a blunt answer to bypass such an answer and simply comment.
Second, while responses to most of the questions repeated from 1987 to 2007 indicate ethical judgments have remained consistent -- e.g., 84.2 percent in 2007 think a book-review editor should not assign a book to a friend of the author, and 82.5 percent felt that way 20 years ago -- some ethical judgments appear to have shifted.
In 1987, 75.4 percent thought it unethical for a reviewer to back out of reviewing a book already accepted for review, on the ground that the reviewer didn't like the book and didn't want to say negative things in print.
In 2007, only 34.4 thought that -- the exact same percentage as those who thought it ethical. One explanation may be that the 2007 survey drew a far larger number of reviewers who are freelance writers rather than on-staff journalists -- it may be that the staff journalist's sense of commitment to an assignment and required reportage no longer holds sway. In a similar departure from the 1987 results, 38.1 percent of the 2007 respondents, when asked, "Should a writer be allowed to review the book of someone who shares the same literary agent?", answered "Yes." Nearly the same percentage -- 37.8 -- answered "No."
Yet in 1987, 70.7 percent answered "Yes."
Are reviewers noticing more backscratching reviews by folks who share the agent of the author under review, and perhaps getting tired of the practice?
Third, I believe a conclusion in my comment on the 1987 survey remains valid -- book reviewers are largely divided between those who believe in something you might call the "objective" book review, and those who don't -- attitudes toward specific practices in the field follow almost syllogistically from one premise or the other.
Fourth, and finally, new Net-based aspects of our literary life appear not to have settled in enough to create clear-cut ethical judgments. One example is the split that resulted from Question 17: "Should a literary blogger review the book of another literary blogger to whose blog she or he links?"
33.4 said "Yes."
23.4 said "No."
22.5 percent were "Not Sure."
20.7 percent retreated to "Other."
Time for a panel?
The 2007 survey, like its predecessor, addresses many other issues: the appropriateness of selling one's review copies, favoritism by reviewers toward particular publishing houses, how honest a reviewer must be in what she or he writes, the propriety of review organs linking up with book sellers, and much else. We hope it will stir lots of debate, and no fistfights.
Sincerely,
Carlin Romano
Literary Critic
The Philadelphia Inquirer
* To browse through individual responses to each question, click the "view" icon on the lower left of each question summary.
Labels: Ethics in Book Reviewing, NBCC Member News
posted by lizzie skurnick 11:40:00 AM
19 Comments:
I'd like to comment on one item in the report:
"And 60.5 percent think it's okay for a newspaper book section or magazine to ignore self-published books that authors submit to them, e.g., iUniverse type books.
"Now come on, is that fair? Not even a peek?"
I do hope that the next time you pose this question you will tease out the difference between vanity publishing (such as "IUniverse type books") and self- publishing, in which an author takes on all the traditional functions of any other publisher, albeit at a smaller scale, and hires out editing and design, establishes an imprint, obtains an ISBN in his or her own name, conducts a marketing campaign if there's any money left, and so forth.
Calling vanity books "self-published" is a slur on real self-publishing and conflates the two categories in the minds of book critics, to everyone's loss.
I've ranted about this before. See "Why Do Critics Ignore Certain Books?" (http://bookcriticscircle.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-critics-ignore-certain-books.html#%3C/a)
Since you also dole out book awards, perhaps you might consider adding a similar, smaller set of questions regarding awards. For example, is it ok for a judge to nominate a former student for a major book award. Etc.
Something unreal to me....
Did the poster really write this
"Now come on, is that fair? Not even a peek?"
In response to this
"And 60.5 percent think it's okay for a newspaper book section or magazine to ignore self-published books that authors submit to them, e.g., iUniverse type books."?
--Is Carlin a member here? I mean, the irony and audacity of correctly questioning that, in my opinion, elitist and disgusting ignore-self-published-books practice when I've yet to see a single self-published book reviewed or discussed here. I know of at least one case of your being unwilling to take a peek at not-mainstream published books. Would you take a peek at mine? I doubt it.
I haven't read all the posts here, but I've read a lot, and have been bombarded with promotions and discussions of mostly the same-old writers. (Does John Updike really need more press? Come on.) The NBCC should pose that not-even-a-peek question to its own blog. You write about and laud the same writing, over and over and over again and ignore the outliers; you come off as elitist as a whole. And, Carlin, have you ever peeked at and then reviewed self-published books?
Dick said:
"Calling vanity books "self-published" is a slur on real self-publishing and conflates the two categories in the minds of book critics, to everyone's loss."
--Please. In my opinion at least, anyone writing something down and expecting anyone else to read and/or publish that writing--that's vain. Why should one person give a shit what's in another person's head? Expecting anyone to do that takes at least some authorial conceit (and delusion). Self-published, vanity-published, traditionally-published, web-published, toilet-paper published and passed out in a subway station--whatever it's willy-nilly category-called, it's all been PUBLISHED, and it's ALL vanity publishing to me. It's been relatively fixed into a form and presented and/or sold to the unknown public, members of whom have their own ideas and thoughts.
And that fixing should NOT be equated with the quality of the writing's CONTENTS. I think only idiots and snobs dismiss and judge writing contents by the seals of approval on covers or the methods of relaying those contents. The contents should be judged by observing the actual contents; for a book, content quality can't accurately be known till a reader opens the cover and starts reading. The constant I'm-better-than-you, this-category-is-better-than-that-category divisiveness I see in the arts world is really sickening.
Nevertheless, I think this survey's results are interesting; the NBCC should do more surveys like this and broaden the questions. To me, it wouldn't matter much if you did this one or others scientifically. I have a background in science and even the most well-done surveys/studies/etc. still have errors and doubt attached, just maybe less than poorly done ones, and the way researchers may whittle down their populations to fit some ideal test populations and supposedly to reduce errors--the results wind up being even more far-removed from general populations, which are messy and heterogeneous, not neat and homogeneous. All that whittling down forces the results too much.
Surveys/studies are at best only a small isolated view and subjective observation of a limited population--the results often can't be extrapolated to the larger population very accurately, so shouldn't be, in my opinion (plus, people may lie, distort the truth, etc., when self-reporting in controlled circumstances especially).
But occasionally surveys may yield equivalent results to general populations (yours seems to have for the most part). And at least they're good for generating discussions....
"I've yet to see a single self-published book reviewed or discussed here."
I've seen one:
http://bookcriticscircle.blogspot.com/2007/02/dave-eggers-what-is-what.html
It was even a finalist for the last NBCC fiction award.
...Are you kidding me? That's the example you hold up? That's some concession here to self-publishing, self-published works and self-published writers: drawing more attention to someone who's already been traditionally published and has already received tons of access to readers, tons of attention, publication and money.
On McSweeney's own site, Eggers said: "Last time around, Geoff Kloske, my editor at Simon & Schuster, made me promise to help do publicity for the book. He gave me an advance that allowed me to quit my job, and he did that based on a few pages of notes I'd sent him." He once again got work published by a major publisher, and he got enough advance money to quit his job; money-wise he's moved far beyond where most writers will probably be able to move. He supposedly self-published years ago, but in my opinion he's no longer an example of a self-published writer in need of attention, and neither is his writing. He and his writing (which I don't think much of by the way) is too well-known. What's next: putting Stephen King's self-published work up for an NBCC award as an example of the NBCC's open-mindedness toward independent works and writers?
My post wasn't only about the lack of truly new unconnected voices here, but also about the plethora of posts on written works and writers already getting plenty of press elsewhere. Would the NBCC have done the same for DE's work if he were an unpublished-by-the-establishment nobody with no name recognition? I really don't think so. I've seen no signs of that happening here. But maybe if the membership keeps changing, and new critics pop up here and elsewhere, maybe they'll be more open-minded--I don't know. I won't hanging waiting for that though.
I DO know that this place has gone on and on about the shitty state of book-reviewing sections, and in response I've repeatedly said on my blog that I think book reviewers have endangered their jobs themselves because so many of them review the same damn books as other reviewers. And they do this over and over and over again; they've made themselves largely redundant. Does the world really need and want dozens upon dozens of reviews of the same damn few books written by the same damn few writers? Apparently not, if all the reviewer firings and downsizings are anything to judge by.
Probably hundreds of thousands of new books are published every year; many go unreviewed. And it's like a new overhyped, overmarketed books comes out and too many in the mainstream reviewing world (and now the lit-blog world too unfortunately) immediately jump on that book's bandwagon, and publish review after review of that book in various review outlets, while many other books go unread, unreviewed and remain largely or even totally unknown. Call it gang-reviewing.
As I've also said on my blog, I want to know when reading--and now reviewing--became a herding habit, something people do because other people are doing it, rather than a personal effort, where a reader just sits down with a particular work alone, and reads it not because everyone else seems to be reading it, but because the work holds some interest to that reader. For the purposes of this discussion, insert "reviewer" where "reader" is in my last sentence.
Both the '87 and '07 studies beg the question of what measurable effect a review has on sales. As much as I don't want it to be the case, the ethics of professional book reviewing are less relevant if one can't demonstrate a strong correlation between reviews and sales. So getting a publisher to go on the record with their market research would be helpful. Or to survey readers of widely-reviewed books to see if they were influenced more by reviews or by word-of-mouth, etc.
On another point, the crux of the surveyed reviewers' feelings is that they don't want reviews to be extensions of publishers' marketing efforts. But that's always going to be the case until readers start demanding honest reviews of bad books. As it works now, with so many books to choose from, readers want to know what books to read, not which to avoid; it's a rare magazine, newspaper, or lit mag review that isn't an endorsement. Contrast that with movie reviews, where a newspaper can review every new release, every week, and thus have a chance to call out the truly awful ones.
There are a number of self-publised books review blogs out there such as PODler, iUniverse book reviews, Odyssey, and POD people. Unfortunately most readers don't know about them.
Regarding the question on reviewing self-published books, I can sympathize with ignoring items based on time alone given the vast numbers of self-published books and the general low quality. There may also be legal considerations (libel) on occaison, or a corporate mandate. Perhaps some of the "No" respondents mean these things. But others may reflect one of the commenters who said that all self-published books do not have professionalism and aren't in keeping with traditional literary values.
What may go unstated in the "No" answer is that in this case the Book Editor can no longer be looked upon as the ultimate arbitrator of what's worthy of review among all books published. Instead, it is first assumed that the few hundred literary agents and mainstream publishers who decide mainstream publication ALWAYS know best, and will publish everything worthy of going into print. Interviews with agents and publishers, particularly in the fiction realm, indicate this is not necessarily true - their personal interests and tastes often help dictate what goes into the pipeline. Given that most of these folks are coming from relatively the same place in terms of education, environment, and working conditions, they aren't as likely to embrace as broad a spectrum of published material as might otherwise occur. (The same thing would be true if all potential books were first screened by neurologists or architects or judges.)
So I view it as rather unfortunate that the NO answer towards reviewing self-published books was so high. The opportunity (however slight) for review by respected media outlets is the principal way to bring any book, self-published or otherwise, to the public's attention.
(And yes, I wrote a book that fits the NO category.)
My guess is the Ron Hogan comment was a joke. It had to be.
I note the "twenty years" refernce to the survey's author; that's coincidental to me. I wrote my first periodical book review about twenty years ago; since that time I've written quite a few of them, some even for the Philadelphia Inquirer. In January, 2008, if all goes as planned (and billed), I'll publish my six hundredth periodical book review. In addition to that, I've written just over 100 reviews for literary magazines and journals. I published my first one of those in 1976. I've also authored or edited thirteen books, fiction and nonfiction, and about two hundred other pieces of writing. I hold graduate degrees and am a professor at a fairly good university. For the most part, those are my credentials.
For all that, I am curious as to why I wasn't invited to contribute to the survey. I wonder how many of those surveyed have as many as six hundred periodical reviews to their credit, or five hundred, or one hundred, or even several dozen? I wonder how many write for more than one venue? How many for a national magazine venue? How many for large city Sunday papers or book supplements? Such requirements aren't necessary for opinions; however, they do go to the heart of the question of credibility of the responders.
Be all that as it may, I will say that I agree with the majority opinion on a majority of the questions. Where I disagree is on one or two that I think might need to be discussed at more length. For example, I do not think it's in any way unethical for a newspaper review editor or magazine review editor to assign a review of a book written by a regular reviewer for that publication. By and large, book reviewing doesn't pay very well; most of us who do it do it for the pleasure and satisfation it brings; but we also do it because we are also authors--or aspire to be authors--and it's a way of putting our names in front of the book-reading public. I can see no reason why our own publications should be excluded from fair and objective reviewing by the periodicals for which we write. I do not think they should be "puffed," but I do think they deserve a fair chance at the same ink as any other legitimately published book. Certainly, major venues such as the New York Times will review a book by a New York Times reporter or feature writer--or book reviewer. So will the Washington Post, the New Yorker, etc. Those august periodicals seem to have no problem with that, and I am confident that the reviews they run of their fellow writers' works are as objective and fair as any others.
In point of fact, the only negative review I received of one of my novels (or the only one I'm aware of) was published in the same newspaper that regularly ran my book reviews. I didn't like it much; but I accepted it as part of the nature of the business. And, after all, any publicity is good publicity; or, to put it more colloquially, I don't care what they say about me, just so they spell my name right.
Many of the questions on the survey pertain to matters that truly are within the purview of the review editors, not the free lance reviewers. The decision to review self-published or iuniverse or e-books is one that should fall within the policy of the periodical's editorial board, it seems to me. If an individual reviwer would prefer not to review such books (and I do not), that is his or her perogative. But the same perogative should apply to any book assigned for review, regardless of who published it or how. The same situatio would exist regarding whether or not to review paperback originals, reprints, or even poetry, something some newspaper review editors won't even consider.
Similarly, the complaint that certain books are "ignored" is as old as publishing in the United States. In the second volume of Hugh Henry Brackenridge's epic novel, Modern Chivalry, published between 1789 and 1815, he rants at the newspaper editors in Philadelphia (!) for ignoring what was, actually, the first volume of fiction actually published in the United States. "What, ho!" he writes, "Are you all asleep down there in the hold?"
Again, the decision of which books to review and which not to review is the purview of the assigning editor; he or she is bound by limitations of space and commitments of the periodical to regional biases as well as to seasonal demand. (Certain times of the year mandate certain types of books be reviewed.) It's also important for complaining authors to realize that book reviews are filler. They are not hard news; they are not paid advertising. These two elements always take priority when it comes to space alloted for other feature articles such as book reviews. No writer has the right to expect that his or her book will be reviewed. If that happens, it's a good thing; if it doesn't, that's the luck of the draw.
I was once in the office of the book review editor for the Philadelphia Inquirer--this would have been about 1994. His name was Mike Shaeffer, or Shaffer, I can't recall the spelling. He showed me the DAILY intake of books submitted for consideration for review. They filled two rolling mail bins. I would guess there were two hundred titles there. On an average Sunday, he could run six to eight reviews. I had a similar experience in the office of Larry Swindell, long time book editor for the Fort Worth Star Telegram, and in the office of Robert Compton, long time book review editor for the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Compton's habit was to make his selections quickly and then lock them up in a cabinet, for fear they might "walk off" before he could assign them. When that happened, they were not reviewed at all.
William Goldman, author, playwright, screenwriter, speaking of theater critics, once opined that the first thing to remember about critics is that they are all failures. If they could produce plays, direct them, act in them, or write them, they would. But they can't. So their attitudes are tainted by their own failure.(I'm closely paraphrasing here.) Gore Vidal said much the same thing about book reviewers during an episode of The Tonight Show some years ago. And it often does apply.
For this reason, a good reviewer must always be objective, detached, and fair. A well written review, in my opinion, is almost never entirely positive--no book is without some flaw worth noting--and never entirely negative--no book is without some virtue, or at least one would hope so. It may be that the worst thing one can say about a book is that it was too short and ended too early; it may be that the best thing one can say about a book is that it is well printed. But a good review will strive for balance of opinion, fairness of evaluation, and will make every effort to recommend--or not--the book to its targeted audience, however general that may be.
At the same time, avoiding conflicts of interest is difficult, and whenever it may rise--even when the appearance of it may rise, even though it might not truly exist--the reviwer should decline the assignment.
Well, this is overlong. I've published several articles on book reviewing, and I teach reviewing in my classes. I think I know what I'm doing, and I think I know what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that I'm absolutely right, only that this is my opinion. And, as a book reviwer, that's my job: to express an opinion, one that's well informed, objective, mature, and thoughtful. I can only hope that my editors agree, that my readers agree, and that, on balance, the authors I review also agree, even when I don't much like their books.
"Similarly, the complaint that certain books are "ignored" is as old as publishing in the United States."
--With respect to self-publishing, this isn't simply a "complaint"; according to this site's OWN SURVEY, with 60% of respondents saying they think it's okay for newspapers to ignore self-published works, and considering the respondents also are reviewers, it seems being largely ignored is a reality with self-published books. But then I don't need a survey to tell me this. I see this all the time.
This dismissive oh-it's-up-to-each-person-to-decide -and-it's-just-individual-cases-it-isn't-such-a-big-deal, and-it-isn't-prejudice reminds me of the making-an-excuse-for-sexism crap female writers often hear when their works are reward-and-award-wise ignored in favor of works by male writers and the females point out that bias (in my opinion, the pro-male bias in most areas of the literary world is even more disgusting than the self-publishing bias, except for areas having to do with childrearing, relationships, and romance, there's little to no pro-male bias there--female writers get more attention there of course! gotta keep the sexist stereotypes alive!). It's institutionalized sexism, institutionalized prejudice, no matter if some decisions in that system are left up to a bunch of individuals; the system's full of individual sexists within an overall climate of sexism, just like the publishing world is full of individual snobs within an overall climate of elitism.
I think snobbery isn't the only thing responsible for self-published works being shat on; publishers (which newspapers are) want to keep writers disempowered,* want them monetarily dependent on publishers because that keeps them on top of the power structure rather than writers, it keeps many writers satisfied with being thrown crumbs rather than whole cakes. When writers self-publish, they cede some of their overdependency on publishers; those writers can no longer be raped so easily.
(*Reviewers are WRITERS TOO. If they had any goddamn sense, they'd support self-published works. Reviewers are ALSO at the bottom of the power structure, as, once again, I think all the recent downsizings should have shown. Writers being able to gain a readership and make money outside the traditional publishing system is an overall positive thing for writers, not a negative thing--for writers IN GENERAL. Writers closely ideologically and/or monetarily allied with publishers--they feel otherwise. And they're usually the only ones I see vehemently against self-publishing; they're very comfortable with their seeming successes, with their royalties, with their salaries. They don't want that threatened by a change in the power structure. To me, they're short-term thinkers and self-centered egotists--and they've basically been bought off.)
Henry, yeah, that may have been a joke--I didn't think of that. Maybe Ron will say more. As for me, I think I've said enough here. Just a lot of air-wasting, as usual.
I think what most of us think of when we see "self-published" are the poorly produced, poorly designed, poorly edited (if they are edited at all) products sent out with a "Look! I have a book, review it because I live in your town" letter. I'm sure some of them are good. But the vast, vast majority of the ones I've seen can't even manage a cover without typos -- and that makes me shudder to think what the writing is like inside, which makes it very easy for me to toss it aside in favor of a book whose author cares enough about her readers to hire an editor.
I think the comment above, about briefly looking at self-published books, noticing typos etc. and then putting them aside, is an eminently fair approach. One can only hope that the bad output of the many does not eliminate all consideration of the respectable output of the few - those who did take the time and expense to work on the craft and hire outside readers, but who weren't able to penetrate the bastion of mainstream publishing for whatever reason.
At the risk of being forward, here are two examples of authors who can write coherently but went the self-published route, and their reasons why. The first was already a successful, published author. www.lablit.com/article/179
www.lablit.com/article/83
One thing I can say, it's heartwarming to see such heated debate about books and book reviewing. Even with the few acrimonious comments flying around, that's one good thing. It's good to see people care about reading.
Self published books. There's the rub. On the one hand, anyone with a little cash can self publish. You may argue that pro and con, and believe me, it's both.
On the other, many good writers who get frustrated trying to get mainstream publishers (large and small) to publish their work very often turn to self publishing as a way to get their work out there.
But there's not only the choice of big publishing houses and self publishing. There's a very important group in the middle, the independents. These are the presses (ex. Graywolf, Coffee House Press, Dzanc) who are taking chances on unknowns. These small presses very often catch some pretty big fish, some extraordinarily talented writers who haven't managed to get attention anywhere else. The quality of the writing they publish is as good as or better than the output of the major houses.
And, yes, at the bottom of the pile is self publishing, but not because no one worth reading is self published. No, that's not the case. But, unfortunately, the median standard IS brought down by the fact anyone can publish this way. There are no two ways about it. YES, there are good writers being self published, but they are by far the exception to the rule, at least judging from the experience I've had with them. I've received loads of self published books, some of which I've tossed aside with great force, regretting the tree that died for this voice to be heard. I have found a few gems, though, books I've reviewed on my site, or have passed along to others for review. But out of the total self published books I've received and read, what percentage do you think I'd say should have been published? Less than a third is my guess, without running the numbers. My peers are free to weigh in with their own numbers, but this has been my experience.
There are publishing companies with editors for a reason. They do an invaluable job sorting the wheat from the chaff. Do good writers fall between the cracks? You betcha! Do publishing companies put money behind well known writers more than unknowns? Sure! And why? Because publishing is a business. Businesses need to make money to survive. Is that a shame? OF COURSE. But it's how the world works.
The simple truth is, self publishing does not have the same cachet as publishing via a bonafide publishing house. It probably never will. Big houses have big overheads, smaller presses are operating on unstable ground but are more willing to take a look at unknowns. Why? Partly because big names demand big money little houses can't afford, partly because the smaller houses generally have more of an eye toward the unknown geniuses, banking on finding outstanding writers who'll strike it big.
Seems pretty simple to me, really.
Another thing, reviewers only have so much time, and so much space in which to get their reviews across. We get deluged with books and manuscripts. We can't read them all. If I pick up a book that doesn't draw me in within the first few pages, I toss it onto the reject pile. I don't just look for the big names. I love promoting unknowns, and have put a lot of energy (energy that's largely VOLUNTEER, by the way, so don't say anyone's lining my pockets with cash) into promoting some really outstanding writers this year, writers like Jon Clinch (Finn), Tyler Knox (Kockroach) and Sam Savage (Firmin), just to name a few.
Should we consider more self published books? I, for one, already do, but the same standards apply. Impress me, and quickly, or I don't review your work. If a self published book can give conventionally published books a run for their money, more power to them. But there's not enough time in the day to review sub-par books published by any means. And there are sub-par books published by all three, self, large houses and small houses.
And that would be my two cents.
Just a few things:
"But out of the total self published books I've received and read, what percentage do you think I'd say should have been published? Less than a third is my guess, without running the numbers."
--In my opinion, about two-thirds of conventionally published books are poor to mediocre writing; self-published books are a bit larger poor-to-mediocre fraction, but not much. I've worked in publishing (scientific primarily at Plenum): that most self-published books are poorly edited or aren't edited at all is the primary quality difference between self-published works and conventionally published. In my opinion and experience, publishers routinely accept crap sometimes rife-with-errors work. With self-published books, readers are seeing what some conventionally published books probably looked like before they were accepted, before they were edited, which makes me sick when these works are thrust into every unpublished-by-the-establishment writer's face as being superior simply because those works were accepted somewhere.
"Cachet" means shit to me. I'm interested in interiors, not surfaces. The literary world (and people in general) relies too heavily on appeal-to-authority type fallacies. Just because some supposed "authority" says a book is good, or has simply accepted a book for publication, and then published it--that likely tells me NOTHING about that book's interior. I've got a mind of my own. I'll ultimately decide whether I think something's any good. I don't listen to hearsay as gospel, to things that are removed from the actual subject in question; doing that's usually an inaccurate way to judge something.
"Because publishing is a business. Businesses need to make money to survive."
--I think quality of "product" should be of paramount importance in any business for that business to survive and thrive, and most large publishers today don't primarily care about quality of product. It's no wonder they're often complaining about disappointing sales. Do they think readers will keep buying the same damn crap for ever-higher prices ad infinitum? Eventually, the buying public will get wise. To a certain extent, I think it has, just not wise enough....
Fran,
Your passion for the topic is wonderful, and I hear everything you're saying. I agree with you on more issues than you may think, but I diverge significantly in other areas.
I have said, and I'll repeat it, I personally do consider self published books for review (in the venues that allow me to review self published works, as not all do), and I will continue doing so. BUT, I've been disappointed so many times by some of the amateurish self published books I've received for review. Have I been disappointed by review books sent by the big houses? Yeah, I have. So far I'm still an independent, so I have the luxury of saying no to everyone. I also have to point out the times I've been delighted by review books have been by far weighted toward the conventionally published books than the self published. I've maybe picked out two or three self published books, in the past couple of years, that I've found impressive. That's out of 150 or so books I've read and reviewed in that period. That number isn't too encouraging.
Big publishing houses do indeed publish a lot of crap. I'm not saying they don't. But what they publish is, when they're doing their jobs correctly, what the public wants. A whole lot of the reading public wants disposable books, books they read for entertainment then toss aside.
Am I happy about that? Hell, no! Do I do my damndest to promote quality writers and writing no matter how they're published? Yes, I do, and so do a whole hell of a lot of other reviewers. I do a lot of it on my own time. I don't have to do what I do. I do it because I care about literature. I care about what gets passed down to future generations, and what should get passed down. On this point I think our opinion converges.
Book reviewers are not evil. We're opinionated, but that's what we get paid (sometimes) to be. We work long, hard hours. We do a lot of things we don't get paid for. But a lot of us are completely fed up with getting crappy, amateurish books. We don't have time for them. We just don't. I barely have time for the good books. Actually I don't even have time for all the good books.
The big and little publishing houses have a lot of big name, quality writers going back to the beginnings of literature. And, yes, there's a hierarchy in literature. All writing is not equal. It's not better to read SOMEthing/ANYthing than to read quality writing. It's subjective, of course, but you can't compare Danielle Steel to Joyce Carol Oates, just because they publish roughly the same number of books. I'm sure Danielle Steel SELLS more, but who's the better writer? And, hey look! The big publishing houses publish both of these writers. There IS a choice there. Which one will the consumers/reading public vote for?
Writing is an art, and like any art it's not that you have to have special training to do it. It's not handed down by the gods. It's damn hard work. Reviewers know that, but if a writer puts out a finished product it has to compete with a hell of a lot of other finished products, and it had better be good or it will be run over before it's even off the presses.
The bottom line is, self publishing needs to hold itself to as high a standard as the bar set by the publishing houses. They need to produce a good, or better superior, product. It needs to be in an aesthetically appealing package. It needs to be well written and well edited. Full stop. If they can't compete on those levels they can't compete at all. Harsh, but true.
I'll still keep giving self published books the benefit of the doubt. If I find something worth reviewing I'll review it, which is exactly my method with conventionally published books as well. I actually cut self published books more of a break than a lot of my peers, apparently, but I have always been pretty patient, too. What I need is for some of you 60 %ers to step the hell out here and take the heat!
WHERE ARE YOU?
Volley complete.
Bluestalking Reader
Bluestalking Reader
...Lisa, I'm not against you and what you and other reviewers do in general. I have mixed feelings about professional reviewers, I neither hate nor love them. I'm pretty neutral toward the whole field as I'm not sure how effective professional reviews are, either when they're positive or negative; more than anything else, reviews probably help publicize books, which I do think is important.
No matter what this (self-report) survey or any other says, I think there's too much I'll wash-your-back-you-wash-mine and fake blurbing going on in the literary world today. And readers have become wise to this because they've finally started comparing book hype to book contents. I don't know how prevalent that back-washing is in reviewing, how much nepotism and possible special relationships with publishers is involved--I don't want to speculate there. But I nevertheless do see some. And this really turns me off to anything "about books." Too much seems fake.
I've tried to keep most of my comments here generalized, but they're often being perceived as attacks. I'm not always angry. I simply have a passionate no-nonsense voice. But how to make people understand this? No matter how many times I explain it, most choose to ignore my explanations.
I'm often criticizing/picking apart humans and society and the traditional publishing SYSTEM, yes, which some here are a part of and so help keep that system intact. But those "some" aren't necessarily "the system," as in they aren't necessarily those with the most power inside it. I wish more of them would stop putting on airs and see that to the EXTREMELY elitist, they're just as much a peon as the rest of us, which is partly why their jobs have been disappearing.
I'm not saying anymore here; it will probably only be misinterpreted. Thanks for letting my posts through this time and for the interesting discussion,
Fran
Can anyone please tell me if there is a specific name used to refer to a person being mentioned in a book's acknowledgements?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home