The Sun Singer

x

x

Sue,

It is extremely difficult to accommodate questions from someone who is taking the role of "publisher" yet does not understand how publishing works. Lane is treating you as an equal and addressing issues on a professional level. You are giving your own perception of how things might be and then asking if your understanding is correct.

As a professional, you should know the answers or seek them out by doing a simple google search. Eventually, you will have learned from experience. In the meantime, do your own research and listen to people like Lane, without the effrontery. Otherwise, we will all end up walking on eggshells and afraid to post in a professional manner because you want to be treated with kid gloves.

D. J. (Don) Stephens wrote:

Sue, I guess I made the same mistake you did. I was under the mistaken impression I could come to a writer’s board and learn from the experts to improve. I didn’t realize I was supposed to Google my questions first and become an expert in order to converse.

Ouch. That's me put in my place. I constantly Google. I'm not an expert. I have answered many of Sue's questions with links to pages found on Google. Maybe it's time for me to stop.

If I hadn't responded to the above posts I would be damned. If I responded the way I want to I would be damned. Either way I come out wrong.

So just consider that I saw the above posts and have chosen not to respond in order to end the dissension.

Thanks, Don!

W. Lane Rogers wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

a)...the purpose of reviews is by no means to peddle books.
b) Reviews are commentary, and often news.
c) [Reviews] are not advertising or publicity.

a) An astonishing comment. The reviewer may have any number of purposes in writing a review. Writers/publishers seek reviews as a means to peddle books.

b) Nonsense. A book review is a book review. It is not commentary and certainly not news.

c) An excellent book review is a superior form of advertising and publicity coveted by writers/publishers.

Appparently, we're not in the same industry or you've been asleep at the wheel.

Lane, you are just flat wrong. Go make these comments on the National Book Critics Circle site and see how many of them think that rather than being journalists, they're in the advertising business.

M

x

Lane,

We can dice this "industry" up any way you like, but reviews are a product of newspapers and magazines that are now morphing to other areas. If you don't want to consider the idea that a reviewer, more often than not, is serving a journalistic function by appearing in a newspaper or magazine, that's fine.

I am aware of the fact that reviews often are prostituted into blurbs and/or written purposefully so that selected graphs can be used in that way. This isn't new; it was probably 30 years ago when we were all calling "The New York Review of Books" the "Review of Each Others Books" based on the notion of saying good things about the books by one's friends.

Bottom line, though--and this was truer prior to the Internet--people first learned about the publication of a new book from a review. Within this function of informing the public, a review is news. To the extent that the reviewer offers depth, the review often becomes commentary because it has strayed from straight facts into the realm of analysis and and opinion.

Reviewers have personal preferences that influence their reviews. Some dislike literary fiction and are likely to quibble about a novel's slow start, non-linear plot, and emphasis on themes and characters. Conversely, other reviewers think most commercial fiction is shallow and will damn it based on its failure to meet the "standards" of literary fiction.

When it comes to the intent of the review, I see it as journalistic (news/opinion) and sometimes as scholarly (essay), and the rationale behind it is to inform others about the book and to then place that book within the arena of other books based on both facts and opinions. While many reviewers these days dishonestly write their reviews to peddle books, I'm not going to bend my view on this question and endorse the idea that reviews are advertising or publicity no matter how they are used after the fact.

You are welcome to your view. I read your review in the other thread. It's bloody excellent, and is a fine example of how to do the job right depending on the publication and word count limits. I'm very familiar with the book you reviewed, and I think you gave it an honest appraisal. If you feel comfortable saying that your appraisal puts you in the PR or sales "industry," then I won't quibble any more about it.

If you hadn't bugged me by saying I've been asleep at the wheel, I wouldn't have said anything at all. We must each define ourselves and our work; my career has included journalism and PR, so I'm not averse to either field even though I'm unlikely to subscribe to your view about what a review is and why it's written.

Malcolm

x

Lane,

A clarification: I didn''t mention the NY times; I was speaking of the "New York Review of Books."

I also don't care for the evolving practice of charging for reviews. In contrast, some reviewers are so picky about the ethics of anything looking like payola, they won't even accept a free book from a publisher or author.

Malcolm

NYT/NYRB. My error. I misread.

Marie, are you speaking of reviewers other than the normal outlets publishers send galleys to? (Kirkus, Midwest, Booklist, PW, and various magazines and newspapers.)

Malcolm

You can send to Midwest Book Reviews as an author; the others I mentioned, I don't think so. Of course, you can also send to book review editors, but if the book is self-published, they probably won't look at it.

If you haven't looked at the site already, here's one with a newsletter and a wealth of information on it, much of it free:
http://www.parapublishing.com/sites/para/

One of his reports includes reviewers.

Malcolm

Midwest Book Reviews only takes books that have been already published, not pre-published books as galleys as most reviewers want.

ParaPublishing is a wealth of information!

Good advice from Malcolm.