Inside Track: Kudos to "Legitimate" Review(er)s
There's more to those anonymous customer reviews than you think
by Francine Fialkoff, Editor -- Library Journal, 3/15/2004
And, yet, maybe it was too much to expect that those "anonymous" reviews are really just from average Joes and Janes or even from friends and family of the writer aiming to boost sales. Writers have attempted to thrust their books onto the best sellers lists before, by buying up copies in bookstores or ordering them on Amazon, as the Times notes, too. But the Times revealed another use of that cacophony of voices: a "war of reviewers" in which the authors themselves, and their literary foes and friends, weigh in on the latest books, all without fear of being named.
According to the Times, among those who've posted to the site are Dave Eggers, apparently to rebut criticism of his friend Heidi Julavits (The Mineral Palace), and John Rechy (The Coming of Night), to give himself five stars. This seems to take to new heights the old practice of "log-rolling"—where authors represented by the same agent or publisher often write promotional blurbs for each other that appear on book jackets and in ads. Besides the technological limitations, the article bares the self-promotion and back-biting in those anonymous customer reviews. True, it's easy to discount the ones that are littered with misspellings and bad grammar and indicate a lack of knowledge about books. Now customers also may have to be equally wary of the reviews that sound literate.
Much as I, too, am drawn to the idea of reader response, the incident highlights the problems inherent in unvetted, unsolicited reviews by nonprofessionals—and it validates the work done by the cadre of reviewers and editors at LJ. Though on occasion we've been accused of bias, such accusations pale in comparison with the opportunities for bias in unedited anonymity. Our editors would never intentionally send a book to someone they knew had a grudge against an author. That is as important as avoiding a conflict of interest by sending a book to a friend, colleague, family member, or the reviewer's own publisher. In fact, the application to review for LJ asks potential contributors to list those very names.
The assigned, edited reviews published by legitimate review media are the product of a dialog of expectations between reviewer and editor. The reviewer assumes that the editor will send books that fit her or his profile—whether by vocation or avocation—and the editor expects the reviewer will assess the book fairly and evenhandedly and return it if there is a conflict of interest. Books are returned more often than you might think, to avoid even the merest hint of bias.
That's why, when we get the occasional gripe from an unhappy publisher or an irate author (as we did recently on a pop psych book), we can safely say we stand by our review. We know the reviewer is an authority on the topic, can put the book in context within its genre or subject, and can suggest alternate titles. We have confidence in the reviewer's expertise and judgment. If, however, the editor decides the review is unclear, if there is disagreement about the evaluation or very little evaluation at all, or if the editor senses bias of any kind, the dialog goes further. Customer "reviews" may have their place, but they can't substitute for signed reviews, vetted by an editor, and written by professionals, especially the hundreds of librarians who review for LJ.
