Tuesday, December 11, 2007
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.
Here is a focal point of some interest (from a similar survey in 1987):
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.
It is reasonable to assume there are a lot of favors being extended. It is hellish to get a book published to a large market. Even then, in modern superstores like Borders an author is competing against thousands of new titles each season.
I want folks to be honest. Why is this important? I think the answer is in damage control. Rampant nepotism is something that no profession can afford if it wishes to be treated seriously...
Hmmm....
SERIOUSLY....
Any thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment