Book Reviews

[PhilB]

Could anyone who`s had a WW1 book reviewed or reviewed one for a publisher tell me - what steps, if any, do those arranging the review take to ensure that the proposed reviewer is likely to approach the book in an open minded and objective manner and that the resulting review is balanced and fair? Or is this not within the publisher`s judgement?

[Desmond7]

Phil - you ask a reasonable question BUT since this is not a 'Book Review' of a WW1 publication per se ... can remain here with some subtle adaptations on your part ... i.e. give it a distinct WW1 context.

Otherwise, it really is a Skindles question. Over to you.

Des

[PhilB]

Slight adjustment, Desmond!

[Desmond7]

Ta

Des

[John_Hartley]

Isnt it commonsense to assume that if a review has been commissioned by a publisher then it is with the intent of assisting sales? Would it not be the case that anything less than complimentary would not see the light of days?

John "Sell my soul for a fiver" Hartley

[PhilB]

Yes it is. Which rather downgrades the review as a guide to the buyer? So is the reviewer chosen to suit the book?

[Chris_Baker]

I am the lucky recipient of books from three different publishers (plus the odd one from others). They arrive unannounced, free and gratis, in the hope that I will write a review. It is up to me what I write and where I publish it. None of the publishers has ever commented on a review nor have they taken any steps to influence what I might say. I publish the reviews on the LLT and usually on Amazon.

[PhilB]

Thanks Chris. So is there any "official" review, bought in to support the launch and sale of a book?

[Chris_Baker]

Haven't a clue. But if I were a publisher and wanted a "review" to support a launch, I would hardly invite someone who was going to be hostile or incapable of saying valuable things. Such a "review" would be marketing collateral rather than an independent review, wouldn't it?

[truthergw]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 26 2009, 04:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Chris. So is there any "official" review, bought in to support the launch and sale of a book?

Seems to me that you are asking if publishers hire people to write favourable reviews regardless of content. Are you expecting anyone who is involved in this to admit it on the forum?

[PhilB]

I`m expecting nothing. Simply trying to learn how it works.

[David Filsell]

I Have been at both ends of this question - as a pr hack for an organisation which had a big and successful publishing arm and as a semi (very) retired journo who greatly enjoys writing reviews.

The fact is you cannot ensure a good review as a publisher and the trick is to chose the journos who are likely to write and actually place a review because they like the book. Even your best "contacts" are genuinely unlikely to boost your product in my experience of hard working and honest journos; and they form the very great majority. There are book scoungers out there though - almost any just published book in the local second hand book shop is a sold-on review copy. In addition few books get reviewed in literary pages, so for motoring/travel which was my field we mailed to motoring journos - press, radio and tv - and specialist writers on the subject who were known to review. That worked very well in terms of placement and coverage, if not always in terms of a 'good' review.

Generally any review is better than none - since as much as anything else you just want to get the book known. I have never been asked to boost a book with an offer of payment - sad really because I don't know what my price is, and we all, they say, have our price. And I do not believe such a practice is common. But I do suspect that some of the internet reviews are publisher produced/inspired and carefully placed on a particular site by "beards". I add it is a feeling since some books I consider very poor get biblical write-ups; and I will name no names for reasons obvious. The fact is that such a stunt is virtually undetectable, and I abhore it.

One bad review by a writer who doesn't like the book is not a reason to exclude him from future mailings. Infact its very silly - it shows you are thin skinned and vengeful, the book may deserve a hammering. I have publicised books that I have told the author/publisher were not going to get a good review - vanity and profits replaced their judgement and the results have often been as I predicted - no reviews or a few hammerings (clever old buffer). Young journos who ask for a copy are worth a try too, they can like Clarkeson (love or loath him) become very influential in their field and they remember your kindness.

You just aint going to get a military book reviewed by a Hastings unless its a block-buster with a known author. The apparent Amazon trick of cutting out a review because the publisher doesn't like it - if that is infact true - just shows the power of international organisations and is very bad news in my opinion.

As a reviewer I am surprised just how bad most publishers are in knowing their market. Pen and Sword, for instance, are extremely good at keeping me up to date with review copies - and I do criticise them at times for their poor picture quality, layout and maps. One bugbear of mine is the Battlefield Europe series - far to many of the books were paste and scissors jobs by lazy authors - but they have improved very considerably I think. A number have been outstandingly good. In fact Pen and Sword they have never phoned me to compalin or cut off copies (pr habit and one which I detest).

But many other publishers must employ complete dummies. Stand To! is one of the very few magazines in which a review can be almost guaranteed - generally each gets about 400 words - although brief notices for lesser books are included. Yet the number of worthwhile books we get is far fewer than the review editor or I, as a regular reviewer, would like. I could list major misses - which include the new Harris Haig book. I do not get paid for my reviews in Stand To! the payment is simply the book. I will not review books which I have bought, why should I, I've paid my dues in cash. Hence a number of very worthwhile books never get a mention.

Like Chris my policy is to be honest - admit when I don't know the subject as well as the author, give a broad overview and comment on the things which I think it lacks - or enjoys - like a proper index, maps, notes and refs, good writing and proof reading - now universally poor - and I say that as a relatively bad proof reader (just read my contributions to the Forum) and appendices to try to give a rounded view. Some bad books - or those below standard are still "important" to some colledctors and readers. Sometimes I don't get it right either. Reviewing is subjective. For instance, had I read the Haig book before looking at G A Custer's detailed analysis of just one section I would have been well off beam.

I particularly like to air small run and privately published works - often they lack the sheer professionalism of major publishers, but they are generally labours of love and detailed study into topics which would otherwise not get a look in. Not least these are the authors who actually call or write to say thanks and that's a real treat for a reviewer.

Probably too much hot air in this - a bit of thinking on key board really, but honestly meant. A reviewers world is not always a happy one!, an never a big money making one (unless you are Hastings, or a Holmes or a Strachan - and they all play in the first fifteen)

Best regards

David

[Alan_J]

I am the lucky recipient of books from three different publishers (plus the odd one from others). They arrive unannounced, free and gratis, in the hope that I will write a review. It is up to me what I write and where I publish it. None of the publishers has ever commented on a review nor have they taken any steps to influence what I might say. I publish the reviews on the LLT and usually on Amazon.

Same here - and equally never had any feedback from the publishers. Although I have been contacted a couple of times by authors who have seen a review of one book, who have offered to send other books they have written for review - but again no feedback after this.

Alan

[PhilB]

I am surprised gents! I assumed a publisher would have to pay someone to read & review a book of, say, 400 pages. Or pay 2 or 3 people and take the best review or bits of reviews. Sending out a few free copies and hoping for the best doesn`t sound like dynamic marketing.

[Alan_J]

Publishers often send out an "info sheet" with their review copies whcih they may hope will be quoted from by those who do not bother to actually read the review copies. I tend to chuck these away.

I agree with some of the statements above - these are pretty specialist niche market books in most cases, although I have had a couple of more "coffee-table" books sent to me as well. If someone is interested in a book in this field, they will find info on the publisher's own site, on Amazon, on 'interest' websites such as LLT and in Stand To - probably not in a lot of other places other than persoanl reccomendation (such as on this Forum!).

Alan

[charlesmessenger]

Phil

There are two aspects to this. First, a publisher will sometimes send the manuscript to experts in the field in the hope of getting a favourable quote which they can put on the dust jacket or on Amazon.

Reputable publishers will also send out a good number of review copies, consulting with the author before they do so, in the hope that if they throw enough mud at the wall some will stick in the form of published reviews. To my knowledge they certainly don't bribe people to arrange for favourable reviews to be published. So much depends on the publication's book review editor as to whether they think that the book is reviewed or not.

Charles M

[Halder]

So much depends on the publication's book review editor as to whether they think that the book is reviewed or not.

Charles M

Very true Charles, and as a book review editor (as well as sports editor, news editor, WW1/2 historian, proofreader, pagechecker, line manager, page designer ), I'll outline some of the thoughts running through my head when it comes to reviews...

I get anywhere between 10 and 40 books with a maritime theme to review each month. I have one, perhaps two pages, in which to review some of those books. I make a blanket ban on fiction. I simply haven't the time to read a novel. I can, however, dip in and out of a work of fact. I few glances at the chapter references and bibliography is enough to tell me whether a book is worth reviewing.

The serious academic stuff is sent to a serious academic (Prof Eric Grove) for review. Sometimes he praises, sometimes he destroys. We've had long-running correspondence over some of the negative reviews. My time's precious enough without having to sort out disputes, which is why I prefer to see positive reviews (it doesn't, of course, stop us publishing the bad ones).

Most of the rest lands on my desk. I try to pick a mix of what interests me (I've got to spend a few hours going through it), what interests our readers (a mish mash of serving and ex-RN personnel) and books we ought to review such as Jane's Fighting Ships as it's an annual bible - and readers expect us to review it.

I do receive a lot of privately published memoirs of extremely variably quality. Most never receive reviews - they're usually poorly edited, poorly put together. I feel sorry for the old boys being taken for a ride by the publishers - and I don't think it's fair to tear into them on the pages of a national newspaper, read by their shipmates, particularly for a book which has such a very limited print run and market.

If there's any bias, then part of it is my leaning towards anything involving Anglo-German antangonism/clashes during the two world wars; but I am also inclined to review books by well-known authors - Andrew Lambert, Brian Lavery for example. From their past record I know the book's likely to be good, but it won't stop me criticising if it's not. This year I am to review as many books as possible on naval aviation with it being a centenary year.

Sporadically, we do get deals with publishers to give away copies of a book, e.g.:

http://publishing.yudu.com/Aqosj/NavyNewsO...esources/45.htm

Did it make any difference to my review? I don't think so. I thought it was a bloody good read; after all, there aren't too many accounts of the air war over Afghanistan.

For November last year we made a conscious effort to review WW1 books to mark the 90th anniversary of the end of war, e.g.

http://publishing.yudu.com/Atbpf/navynewsn...esources/44.htm

At the end of the day, we're not the Naval Review so we leave the high brow to them. And one thing to bear in mind is illustrations. An A3 sheet of paper filled with reviews is tedious to the reader. Whilst we don't judge a book on its cover, we do have to illustrate at least one of the reviews with an eye-catching image. You can do the best review in the world, but if it looks dull, they'll turn the page.

I can safely say that not once in my 15 years in newspapers and six at my current journal has a publisher ever tried to pay for a review. In fact, we almost never hear back from them after a review, be it positive or negative. Very occasionally, we hear from the author, but most of the time it's a very 'hands off' process. Book arrives in post, gets reviewed, or ends up in the ever-growing pile of non-reviewed, copy of review gets sent to publisher, more books turn up.

Hope that helps and I've not rambled on too much. I may, of course, be trying to delay continue translating Ahlfen and Niehoff's So Kämpfte Breslau and its hideous prose.

[n cherry]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 26 2009, 07:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am surprised gents! I assumed a publisher would have to pay someone to read & review a book of, say, 400 pages. Or pay 2 or 3 people and take the best review or bits of reviews. Sending out a few free copies and hoping for the best doesn`t sound like dynamic marketing.

Phil,

Just to add my few words....I was surprised when looking at the Helion website for my next book and saw that Lloyd Clark (more a WW2 man than GW but then the book is on WW2) had done a short review....when I asked the MD about it he said they did have to pay him a few pence for it.....so I suppose if you 'pay' someone to review a book they are hardly likely to run it down.....I wait to get some 'proper' feedback from some WW2 forums when the book has hit the streets in the next week or so.....

[melwar]

...so I suppose if you 'pay' someone to review a book they are hardly likely to run it down.....

You can get paid for submitting a review on the same sort of basis as getting paid to sumit an article, just a per word fee. That would have more to do with the publication the review was in than the publication the review was on, if you see what I mean.

[IanA]

.....so I suppose if you 'pay' someone to review a book they are hardly likely to run it down.....

This is quite mistaken. I reviewed professionally for more than 25 years: I received all books and music free, was not obliged to review any of it, and what I did review I was paid for. Handsomely.

Some publications were so appallingly bad that I took great pleasure in saying exactly what I thought of them. There was never any editorial interference. Responses of complaint were confined to one letter to the editor and one threatening letter to me from the husband of a lady whose work I had damned with faint praise.

[charlesmessenger]

Phil,

Just to add my few words....I was surprised when looking at the Helion website for my next book and saw that Lloyd Clark (more a WW2 man than GW but then the book is on WW2) had done a short review....when I asked the MD about it he said they did have to pay him a few pence for it.....so I suppose if you 'pay' someone to review a book they are hardly likely to run it down.....I wait to get some 'proper' feedback from some WW2 forums when the book has hit the streets in the next week or so.....

Niall

I suspect that Lloyd Clark was asked to endorse your book, which is somewhat different to reviewing it on publication.

Charles M

[MartinWills]

I have to say that in general when reviewing books and the like for the forum, they have generally been personal acquisitions. My philosophy has always been one of being honest and of trying to produce a summary of the value of a volume to a potential buyer. I've not often written a review describing something as poor, but it does happen. I will try to offer good points and bad - especially where the overall view is that a volume is poor. You do no one any favours endorsing a poor volume, and I for one would note those reviewers who might "praise the poor".

Publishers blurb can be useful when it sets out to describe a volume in the set that it sets out an expectation for the reader. Some seem to be far from truthful, but most are reasonably appropriate and can broadly be trusted.

In the context of the forum there are a good few people who will pull you up if you contribute a poor od perverse review and you will find that there is much good writing under book reviews on the forum, even where volumes may be controversial in one way or another.

In a completely different context Kate & I have both contributed music reviews to one or two newspapers. I recall one performance of the Messiah which was fated just not to work out for many reasons. At "half-time" many of the audience left and one or two souls knowing that we were reviewing politely enquired quite what one might say. The result was honest, not least in pointing to the problems of the venue and finding what few good points there were as well as bad. Whilst the journal publishing the review was happy and those we knew in the audience (at least for the first half) thoroughly concurred, the only comeback was to learn that the particular perfoming group subsequently sought to try and control who reviewed their performances rather than recognise the shortcomings of that particular performance. In other works and venues they were perfectly capable of receiving good reviews for good performances.

Of course volumes about (say) Haig will also stir controversy, but as I often say a poor volume makes you think and analyse what you read rather than take it as gospel and that analytical approach can be a useful prompt for a good historian. A bad book can make you think far harder than a good one.

[Paul Hederer]

I am compelled by the entire review process. Walking over to the bookshelf I picked up a volume published in 2003. The back reads:

"Remarkable and compelling...an outstanding contribution to the literature oif the First World War."

I would describe it as one of the worst books I've read on the subject.

"Boring, tired and flat--mostly culled from recent secondary sources, with nothing new to say," would have been my review.

It seems that no matter what the process the publishers can ALWAYS find someone willing to write a superlative review somewhere.

I find the reviews posted in the book section here to be extremely valuable. "War in History," als has a great review section.

It always makes you wonder when you see well-known authors providing positive reviews of bad books.

Paul

[Gibbo]

A few years ago, an article in The Times complained that theatres were taking quotes from reviews out of context in their advertising, and thus making it appear that a negative review was in fact positive. In one example a review had stated that 'before seeing this play I'd have thought that X [its writer] was the ideal man to write a play on this subject. I was wrong.' The reviewer then went on to say why the play had failed to meet his expectations. The adverts for the play and the placards outside the theatre said 'X...the ideal man to write a play on this subject.'

Does this happen with books?