james_davis_nicoll (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2015-07-16 12:12 pm
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2015-07-16 12:12 pm
Entry tags:
On a related matter
When I did reviews for PW, I told myself that wasn't the same as doing reviews for PW Select but on reflection, that was the wrong call: having anything to do with one arm of a company is supporting the whole edifice.
Although Romantic Times and RT Review Source are not the same organization, they are connected. The review I will be sending RT this month will be my final review for them, at least as long as their upper echelons embrace the idea of RT Review Source.
I have absolutely no ill will towards Regina Small of RT, who had no role in the creation of RT Review Source.
Although Romantic Times and RT Review Source are not the same organization, they are connected. The review I will be sending RT this month will be my final review for them, at least as long as their upper echelons embrace the idea of RT Review Source.
I have absolutely no ill will towards Regina Small of RT, who had no role in the creation of RT Review Source.
no subject
I'm trying to figure out how much of the bias against it relates to the bias against self-publishing, which used to be a valid concern, and now we have a notable difference between self-pub and prey-on-authors vanity press publishers.
no subject
James is, after all, in that matter and at that time, working for me, not any hypothetical reader.
I can only want one of three things --
1. praise, reliably if not fulsome; paying to be told my book sucks is not a business model that shall prosper James
2. an increase in sales (James' reviews do result in an increase in sales), which is what "a good review" actually means
3. the kind of critical feedback that it is Too Damn Late to apply when the book exists as a book
None of those things can lead to good results; either I don't care about reality, I'm trying to recruit James into a scam, or I've entirely messed up the production process.
For James' opinions about books to be widely valuable, they have to be consistent and they have to be addressing the utility of the book to a reader. The utility of the book to the author can't come into it because the objectives of the author and the objectives of the readers are in conflict.
no subject
I'm speaking in abstract--what about a new blogger? Or a site with 3-5 bloggers who've posted reviews at Goodreads and Amazon and decided to start doing their own book review blog? "We'll read stuff and write about it" is about what it takes to get small publishers and self-pub authors to throw books at you--and, as noted, some of them are willing to fork over money to go to the front of the line, without even a promise of a good review.
... However, yes, taking money and posting "this book sucked, and you can believe me 'cos they forked over good cash to hear my thoughts, and those thoughts are, don't waste your money on this book" will not get more money for book reviews.
So: Posit that the paid reviews have to be positive. Posit further that the hypothetical bloggers will refund the money with apologies if they don't believe they can write an honest positive review.
As a reader, I think their service would be valuable to me. Maybe not as valuable as a blog site that posted book reviews without payment. (OTOH, Goodreads, which takes reviews w/o payments, is of limited use to me; many of the reviewers haven't actually read the books at all, and some read well outside of their genre interests just so they can pan the books.)
I read a lot of indie ebooks. (Or rather: I used to. Right now, I read a lot of fanfic, in part because of the difficulty in finding decent indie ebooks.) From the reader's perspective: while a reviewer who's being paid by the author is biased, if the reviewer posts other content, I can get a sense of their overall taste and maybe ethics, and hopefully come to trust that "a biased review" is not the same as "a false review."
Someone who says "This book is an enjoyable mystery with a few clever twists" is giving me useful info. So is "this book was more romance than science fiction; the intimate scenes were a lot more detailed than I expected, and the sci-fi was handwavey space opera a la Star Trek--enjoy it; don't ponder it." So is "This was heavy on exposition and worldbuilding and light on dialogue; good for those times when you want to really think about everything that's going on around the main characters."
Hell, an honest "I read this and enjoyed it" is valuable info--even from a total stranger. (For a paid reviewer who promised readers that, while every review would be positive, they would also be honest--I'd be watching for "I enjoyed this" as opposed to "this was an intense action-adventure story.") A note of "You might enjoy this if you like X" is even more useful info.
I've read self-pub books where I couldn't say, "the time I spent reading this was not wasted." Having book reviews that boiled down to "I didn't find this a waste of reading time" is valuable to me--and that's about as honest as I could expect a paid review to be.
Oh, I'd like reviews prettied up a bit beyond that--a tweet-length "did not suck" is not likely to garner author dollars, and won't push the book high up on my TBR list. But there are many, many promising-looking self-pub/indie press books, that I would love to read reviews beyond the dreck that often hits Goodreads. ("LOVED this story! The main character had the same hair color as my sister, and she acted the same way when her boyfriend dumped her!" or "Hated this story; the author was a bitch to my friend on LJ.")
I am absolutely not recommending anyone who does book reviews, start taking money for them. If the act feels like sleaze, that'll come across in reviews, and there is no point in going out of your way to cater to the "All I want to know is, does it suck?" reading crowd. (By our nature, we read a lot of things that suck, and we're used to that.)
However: a blog full of "this book does not suck" posts, with tags for genre and other details, would be of interest to me, and might drag me out of the fanfic world back into books I have to pay for.
I do see the ethical issues, but I suspect most of them are more relevant to a different kind of reader than I am. I read approximately 30k words/hour; I can read several novels in a weekend, or literally dozens of short stories. While I'm always happy to find those amazing, heart-touching stories that will echo in my mind forever... I'm more interested in having something new to read on my next 2-hour bus trip, and knowing it won't bore me to tears.
Of course, readers like me weren't PW_Select's target demographic, and are not RT Review Source's demographic. Those magazines, if that's the term, are working hard to imply there's no difference between "author paid us to review this" and "we came across this book and it was so good we decided to tell you about it."
no subject
That's really tough; no one's ever found a way to consistently filter books. Someone like James can be consistently interesting, on top of a couple decades of reputation, but it's very hard to tell if someone else will like the book.
Fanfic communities can work for that because they've got large numbers of people feeding into rating systems and filters and there's no possibility of getting paid for legally doubtful content. That no possibility of getting paid is structurally important; you have to get status via gift-culture mechanisms, rather than a larger pile of money. It, literally, keeps people honest. The pre-existing commonality of interests involved in being in the fandom in the first place matters a lot, too; "the fandom" is a better target than "readers, generally" for just about everything to do with both writing and reading. (This is why there's genre. Fanfiction is effectively a non-commercial genre, busily developing its own internal conventions and expectations and terminology.)
There are some examples of co-opting pre-existing communities to, in effect, get paid for fanfic, but those -- like any other major fandom -- more closely resemble ethnogenesis than they do advertising. I think that's ethically unsupportable as a deliberate act.
Indie authors don't have the money to advertise and can't spend it effectively in any case (where would you advertise?); the thing with books is that the major constraint on supply -- the risk capacity of publishers -- has collapsed and the result is going to destroy the commercial utility of fiction, since it's pretty much impossible to compete with free and there's this endless tide of free because people naturally tell stories. (and some of the free's good.)
I mean, sure, Amazon's deliberately working towards that outcome, but it's pretty clear that most habitual readers don't insist on a copyedit. The value-add involved in traditional publishing isn't value-add enough for people to be generally happy about paying for it. Quality filters are pretty much a negative; fanfic prospers in large part because it does things that aren't otherwise available because of the traditional quality filters.
So that's eventually going to push books into a community thing where there isn't much of a mechanism to allow for the possibility of getting paid, much as music acts (and cartoonists) are using the music to get people to buy t-shirts and that supports the musicians. (and is also more ethnogenesis.)
There just can't be that many tribes; people will cheerfully belong to several, but the strength of feeling isn't freely available.
So I figure written fiction is going to turn into a very quiet corner of the artistic landscape; there's too much to read and too much to keep track of so there's no possibility of a canon or a common universe of discourse outside relatively rare fandom ethnogenesis events. More or less what's already happened to poetry.
no subject
And sure, I'm always looking for better ways to get me the stuff I want to read. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make, or not the question I was trying to ask.
I can see why paying for reviews might not be *profitable* for an author--in the sense that it might not bring in enough extra income, in the long run, to be worth the twist on reputation it also carries. (Worked fine for Locke, though.) I can see that it might not bring the kind of fame or rep an author would like. It won't win awards. It won't bring substantial numbers of real fans, the dedicated kind who put that author's name at the top of their to-buy lists. But it may well bring in a good number of casual readers--"I want a new mystery novel; what's high on the charts this week?"
I know that the history of paying for reviews is full of scams and fraud. I can't tell if that's intrinsic to the practice, or a function of traditional gateway publishing, in the same way that "self-publication" used to be full of scams and frauds (and there's still plenty of vanity presses around to fill that niche). I don't know if pay-for-reviews could reasonably move into the same kind of economic status as pay-for-distribution: the service Amazon and Smashwords provide for independent authors.
Is there an ethical difference between "pay for an ad to appear on some book-focused blogs" and "pay someone to write a blog post singing the praises of my book?" (Presuming, of course, that the book is praiseworthy in the first place. Not talking about upgrading an evaluation--just being willing to evaluate this book, instead of the thousands of others coming out this month.)
FWIW, Amazon absolutely forbids buying reviews, even in the style of "I'll send out free copies to anyone who agrees to review my book with any rating they want." They crack down on it occasionally and inconsistently.
no subject
I would think the obvious ethical difference is that the ad is demarcated from the text.
Advertising is about identifying or creating an insecurity and offering to address it in a way that makes a profit for the advertiser. (The route to the profit can be mistaken or long, but that's the category.) Everyone targeted by advertising at least has the opportunity to recognize that it is not undertaken in their best interest.
Were one to pay for reviews to appear on a book-focused blog, the readers of that blog doesn't necessarily know it's an ad; indeed, I'd expect that business model depends on the reader not knowing it's an ad. The reader needs to think it's a review. (An ad wants you to buy the book; the review wants you-as-a-reader to recognize the reviewer as consistent and useful. These really aren't the same objective.) If they think it's a review, they're being misled.
That potential -- nigh-certainty -- of active deception is I think the ethical difference.