Reviews and Remuneration

[_ocelott_]

There's been a bit of furor online recently about reviewers who get paid (due largely to BBAW and the folks who were appalled to find a site where the reviewer got paid for reviews was nominated alongside the others). Being paid for review seems to be a phrase open to interpretation, since for some it includes reviewers who accept ARCs for review

Comments

[gkr]

Well, the post of mine you linked to is about someone who charged cash for their review. I only mention offhand ARCs there.

But there's good reason why ARCs for bloggers is dangerous. What works in the newspaper world doesn't always work quite as well for one person outfits like a lot of blogging is. But I don't view ARCs as always bad even for bloggers. Just that a lot of bloggers who accept ARCs have turned into shills for publishers. I posted a much more detailed explanation, rather than the side comment I made in the post you linked.

[_ocelott_]

Yes, I've actually linked to both posts.

[gkr]

So you have. I missed the second one.

[janicu]

I think people just need to follow their consciences, but people's idea of whats wrong and right aren't always the same. When in doubt, just be clear so people know. I always say where I got an ARC from. Otherwise I bought/won/borrowed the book. People can then decide if they think I'm being too kind in my review or not.

About this particular controversy: I finally (today, been avoiding it really) went to that Book Reviews by Bobby site and it looks like maybe they updated it: says they don't get paid for their reviews there, only for the reviews on their Dedicated Book Reviews site (where it's clear they're being paid). And it seems like they withdrew from BBAW. In my mind BBAW and blogs that get paid for ARCs thing is resolved then.

All the comments about BBAW itself that came from this: it just makes me sigh. Too much drama. The spirit of it I thought was good and I see people working hard with it. And I wasn't nominated.

ARCs! ARCs! ARCs!

[ed_rex]

I'm in full agreement with you, I think. I've only twice (so far) received a free copy of a book for review. The first saw me being almost as cruel as I can be, and the book came courtesy of the Globe and Mail. The second came directly from the author, a self-publisher, more or less, and I admit that I wanted to like it, since I'm a fan of the marginal (at least in principle) and self-publishing is about as marginal as it gets. As it happened, my review was fairly positive. Had I hated it, I would have had a conversation with myself about whether I wanted to say so - I am philosophically sympathetic towards small and self-publishers, but on the other hand, if they want my opinion, I suppose they ought to have it.

All of which is an attempt to say that there is a difference in kind, not degree, between receiving ARCs or free books in other forms, and actually being paid for a positive review.

The first is an informed gamble on the part of the author/publisher; both parties know the reviewer is not only free to provide his or her