On a related matter

[james_davis_nicoll]

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.

Comments

[elf]

I have a question for you (or anyone else who happens to see it): What's wrong with paying for reviews?

No, I know the answer, or at least, the common answers. I know that implying a paid-for review has the same value as one on a topic (book) chosen by the reviewer is a form of fraud. I know that the desire to keep the income-source happy can skew the review. (Can do so drastically.) I know it violates Yog's Law, and all the ancillary problems with that.

I know that, while Free Book For Review has been a standard practice since approximately the beginning of publishing, and payment to submit a book for consideration for an award is also common, paying reviewers outright (in anything other than more books by the same publisher) is often part of a scam to bilk authors and readers both.

But other than those... If you start with the premises that:
1) The book in question is at least moderately good (up to trad-published standards);
2) Reviewer agrees that, while they might not criticize the book, all their comments will be honest;
3) Reviewer will mention up-front (not buried in an "about" page somewhere) that they were paid to review this book...

What's the problem?

(I will grant those are not always the case, and they'd be very difficult to enforce as standards. But I will also put forward that those are not difficult standards to meet.)

As a reader--I am not an author--I am overwhelmed by choices. Even on a tight reading budget, I have millions of options. ANY review that helps me sort out whether a particular title is in line with my interests is a bonus for me.

There is, I grant, something very fishy about first grabbing money from authors to review their books, and then grabbing money from readers to read those reviews. (I'm not coming up with exactly what the problem is, there, except... yep, fishy. Wrong.) But what about a blogger who takes books and $20-50 and reviews them, highlighting the good parts and not mentioning the bad parts--and lets readers know that's what's going on?

From my perspective, anyone at all who can honestly say "This book reminded me of [author I know] and would probably appeal to readers who like their books"--is a help to me. A review that says "this is a comedy adventure romp with a hint of romance" tells me I'm not likely to enjoy it as much as "a steamy thriller with a few funny moments," which I might not be able to tell from the cover blurb.

Criticism would help me more... but given the thousands of books, especially indie and self-pub books, with no reviews whatsoever, I'd be happy with positive-only reviews rather than more complete ones. I can read between the lines of an all-positive review to see what's not mentioned--and I know other voracious readers can too.

Is the problem mainly that that level of honesty is rare? Is it that the money tempts them into writing for the author's edification instead of to inform the readers? Or am I missing something?

(Honest questions. I know it's considered a sleazy practice; I know some of why; I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing.)

[kithrup.livejournal.com]

What are the problems with PW Select and RT Review Source?

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

James, I admire your principles.

[movingfinger.livejournal.com]

Do they realize this makes them... useless?

[ritaxis.livejournal.com]

My local "INDEPENDENT BOOKSTORE SUPPORT US SUPPORT US BECAUSE WE KEEP INDEPENDENT LITERATURE ALIVE AND WE ARE SO INDEPENDENT" informed my that they would carry my books (not self-published, but published by a small niche publisher, so I guess still "indie") if I paid an upfront fee of fifty dollars and let them keep forty percent of the cover price, and this would get me space for five books. Since the books sell for an average of five dollars each, the loss is about thirty-five dollars total.

Oh, and also, I could pay extra to have the book face-out with a shelf tag.

[julesjones]

Romantic Times has in the past offered reviews in return for buying ads. I am not an unbiased observer in this. From a rant some years ago at Dear Author on a related topic:

"I’ll say right now that I have a bias here — at one point RT was giving authors to understand that taking paid ad space in the magazine would get you a review. During that period, my publisher took out a three page spread in RT to advertise the launch of their new print line. The launch lineup included one m/m romance — mine. It was not reviewed, and will not be reviewed."