Belatedly for me, an "ethical" decision

Today, I received yet another review copy in the mail.  It might be my fourth or fifth one this week so far; I can't recall for certain.  It is a slim enough volume, perhaps a little over 300 pages.  The description is intriguing enough that I might read it and if I like it, perhaps review it sometime in the next couple of months, time permitting.  The title of the book does not matter, as it could describe any number of books, received as a review copy or purchased by myself, over the past 3.5 years.

What does matter, I suppose, is how I prioritize things.  For the past year and a half or so, I've felt more and more disinclined to participate in "herd" activities.  Sometimes, I am lauded for that, other times I am castigated, sometimes rightly.  I do try to stay true to myself, but that does not always happen.  Errare humanum est and all that.

Recently, I slipped up and said more than I meant in regards to my general impressions regarding a certain book.  I did not sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (although I have signed one in the past), but I had meant to try and keep to the letter of the request not to divulge content from the upcoming book, the thirteenth Wheel of Time book, Towers of Midnight.  I made the mistake of responding too frankly to some comments on a thread I posted at the Read and Find Out site about receiving the book and in trying to walk the fine line between not revealing spoilers and trying to answer questions about my general impressions, I slipped and in the minds of many, especially WoT fans, I crossed a line which I regret crossing.  While I do not believe that I definitively revealed anything of importance, the shadings caused by a few responses have created some regrettable controversy.

Of course, I was not alone and it seems another has been a bit more direct in stating his opinions on what he has read so far.  Perhaps Pat's posting of his initial impressions 2/3 into the book violates not just the spirit but also the letter of the "review embargo."  I'll leave that for you to decide.  But what I found to be more interesting, however, were some of the responses.  I see that in the past day or so, there have been a couple of posts by other bloggers about "ethics" and "embargoes."  In addition, I have seen in my Twitter feed several comments regarding the "legitimacy" of "certain reviewers" getting to review said books and/or whether or not "they" ought to be permitted to receive more advance review copies.  Several interesting points were made.

In reading through these (I have not responded directly to anything until now), I first found myself thinking, "well, I guess I fucked up worse than I thought," only to have that thought followed with "wait a minute, weren't some of those complainers just blogging or tweeting about receiving the 'latest' book weeks or months before its release date? "  I am not going to state much more on this line of thought except to say that it led to me considering a couple of comments in one of the links above.

In those comments, two people discuss "ethics" from the vantage point of reviewers and their relationship with companies.  One opines that perhaps "embargoes" are a ridiculous concept that only serves in the end to make the reviewer a presumed extension of the publisher's publicity department, while the other notes that there is a risk involved in breaking such embargoes, ridiculous as they might seem to others, and that perhaps the price for true reviewing "independence" might be giving up access to those advance review copies.

I have seen iterations of these arguments several times before, but this recent situation, coupled with a sea shift in interests away from focusing on recent releases and toward a mixture of exploring older fictions, promoting offbeat fictions that appeal to me, and freelance translations on occasion. Perhaps it might be more "ethical" for me to have this blog focus more on those interests, with only occasional "new" releases discussed because they interest me.

So what I have decided to do is this:  I am not going to actively agree to receive review copies or sign any more "embargoes."  I will respond to personalized inquiries, but I will not seek out any more releases unless I personally know the other party.  If I am dropped from mass mailing lists, I will understand.  If I do receive an unsolicited book, I will consider the book, but I will not "slot" it into a specific release date window.  The latest book I received is scheduled to be released in the US on October 26.  I may read it this weekend, or it might not be until mid-November before I read and possibly review it.  That way, there can be something more "natural" about the reviewing, I hope.  As for the book at the heart of this, I did have genuine interest in it after the last volume and I will review it.  However, since my comments elsewhere have stirred up enough attention as it is, I will likely wait a few days after its November 2nd release and write a review that will be more formal and thus more "spoiler-laden" than typical.  I think that will allow me to have the space for a better-written review than what I might have done and not "reward" myself with increased hits that tend to come when publishers post links to release-day reviews.

So if this means I won't receive as many advance review copies or only from people I know personally, so be it.  I believe this will be the best course of action for me in the future.  Too bad it came after a stupid mistake on my part.