Thoughts on a few blogger/reviewer-centric matters

Now that the dust clouds are beginning to settle down from the past week's controversies surrounding who said what and how much was said about a pre-release book, time to stir it up again (only a little, I hope, since I really don't have the time during the work week) and explore a few interesting patterns I've noticed in the past few months.

The first thing I've noticed in the ease in which certain bloggers can be "demonized."  Since his name was never directly stated in the original post on Floor to Ceiling Books, a lot of the talk has been about Pat St. Denis of Pat's Fantasy Hotlist.  Now I'm not a fan of some of his approaches to reviewing books and I certainly disagree with his political views (and have parodied that on several occasions), but I do feel that there was too quick of a reaction to attack him for posting initial thoughts on that WoT book.  Considering that the majority of those waxing eloquent and emotional about review "embargoes" were those who weren't even visible bloggers (if they even had a blog in the first place) when the previous volume of the WoT series was released last year, they probably didn't even consider that things might have been a bit different and that there might have been an assumption that things could be the same this time.  That's how I was able to misinterpret the request (for which I have said my piece earlier) and that's why I think Pat felt he could post what he did.  Regardless that I think his post was a bit too direct in a couple of places, I don't think it was as egregious of an error as some of the newbie bloggers have made it out to be.

The sad thing about this spectacle is that it opens up quite a few cans of worms.  Two of the more vociferous critics of this past affair, Amanda Rutter and Aidan Moher, have written columns/reviews that are hosted on Tor.com.  While Tor.com is a separate arm of Macmillan (who owns Tor/Forge, who in turn publishes the WoT series), there could be a sense of "impropriety" in which those criticizing the most are in fact those who have the most vested in others following the publisher's wishes.  I note this not because I believe either one to have this consciously in their minds, but to raise the question of the entangled nature of reviewing, online and print alike, and its relationships with publishers.

It can be very easy for an uninformed, casual reader of several blogs, websites, and Twitter/Facebook accounts to wonder if those sites (including this one, I suppose) are a bit too "close" to the objects of their posts.  Yesterday on Mark Charan Newton's blog, I wrote about a need for a "healthy distrust" (or "skepticism," which might be more apt). on the parts of reviewers (or critics, but since quite a few seem to despise that term for one of a reviewer's jobs, I'll just merely note that semantic tension and leave it for now) when it comes to reviewing books.  Too often, I read comments where some, usually newish or more obscure bloggers but not always, state that receiving review copies is a "privilege."  If that mindset is the dominant one, then no wonder why so many online review sites have problems with credibility beyond their inabilities to review at a greater depth than a fifth grade book report bolted onto a "feelings" summary that has a blurb stapled to it!

In an ideal world, reviewers would be equally likely to rip apart a book they receive from a publisher or author as they would a book they had purchased.  It doesn't happen.  There are some built-in biases and pressures.  I know I have to be extra careful in reading/reviewing books by people I consider friends of mine because I worry I'll be too forgiving of their books' faults when I read them.  Sometimes, I might in fact be harsher in my opinions of those books precisely because I'm trying to counterbalance any initial personal bias.  But even in these cases, some could rightfully question whether or not my own entangled webs affect the reading. 

There has to be some sort of distance.  It is almost a case of the speck/mote and the beam/plank in the biblical parable of things in people's eyes being pointed out here.  Some of the people criticizing others for their actions perhaps do not realize that their own positions are tenuous at best, based on the tricky relationships in which they find themselves.  But instead of pointing fingers at others and trying to account reiterations of "J'Accuse," perhaps it might behoove all of us to get our own houses in order, try to have as few ties as possible to the objects of review (unavoidable when one is working in other areas, like I have been over the past year with editing and translations), and focus more on correcting our own faults rather than pointing out the foibles others commit.  It has, after all, been a remarkable quarter year or so for backbiting in some quarters and I regret contributing to some of it.