Authors reviewing 'in house'

1. No. Best not to review stablemates.

2. No.

3. No.

In respect of (2), I found a vanity publisher who has favourably reviewed on Amazon books she has been paid by the author to publish. How unethical can you get?

Helena

Big NOs across the board. The way to get reviews is to send out free copies to actual book reviewers, preferably several months ahead of publication, and to put enough effort into marketing and publicity to sell copies to actual readers. And it goes without saying that the book should be good--when publishers engage in the practices you described, it's not hard to see, and all it does is convince people that the book must not be good enough to get reviews the honest way.

Since these are general questions not really involving self-publishing, I'm moving this from the self-pub forum to here, where it may get more discussion.

- Victoria

I definitely agree with the others, NO down the line...For the reasons already stated. Thanks for moving this Victoria, good call, I never would have seen it before down in Self-Pub and think this is an important thread just to help hit home the unehtical behavior any honorable writer would never dream of engaging in.

Nope X 3.

Aside: I work for a large newspaper where many authors send their work for review. The pile sits there and the reviewers never look at it. The books are eventually sold by the newspaper to the employees during a kind of year end jumble sale. The reviewer reviews what everyone else is reviewing, whatever the top commercial novel is at the time. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't copy each other's notes.

Jill said:

Should publishers expect their published authors to review each others books favourably, regardless of what they actually think of them?

Click to expand...

My opinion is that it is perfectly okay to expect anything of anyone. The trouble (if there is trouble) is not in the expecting, but in what actions you take based on the expectations.

If publishers reward or punish their authors in any way based on the authors' reviews of the publisher's books, that's a problem.

Is it ethical for a publisher to post favourable reviews on online bookseller sites (i.e.Amazon) of the books that he has published?

Click to expand...

Yes if (1) in the text of the review itself the publisher clearly acknowledges being the publisher of the book, and (2) the publisher's numeric ratings are not included in the site's calculations of average reviewer ratings.

Otherwise, no.

Is it ethical for the author him/herself to review, (favourably of course) their own book? With or without using a pseudonym.

Click to expand...

Similar to publishers reviewing their own publications. If the author discloses authorship, then as tacky as this is, it ain't unethical.

Dale

1. If by expect you mean penalize the author in some way for not reviewing favorably, this is wrong.

2. & 3. This is unethical to do without disclosing your relationship to the book and stupid to do if you do disclose your identity.

The list makes me ill because it reminds me of the time I spent "published" by PA. If you had even a slightly negative thing to say you'd get slammed and accused of not "supporting" your fellow authors. It didn't matter how poorly it was written, it only mattered that you put up 5 stars. Ick, I need to go shower now.

Jill said:

Should publishers expect their published authors to review each others books favourably<snip>?

Click to expand...

By review do you mean pages of a wel-considered review or a 1-line cover quote?

The former *should* be an honest opinion, not a sock puppet favor for a pal.

The latter is a legit marketing device. If you like Writer A and she says nice things about Writer B's new book, then it can mean you might enjoy it, too.

I've given cover quotes, but only to books I really liked. Other writers hand out genric quotes just to get their name on another cover. I have asked for cover quotes, too, but only if the other writer had the time to spare to read my book.

Is it ethical for a publisher to post favourable reviews on online bookseller sites (i.e. Amazon) of the books that he has published?

Click to expand...

What ethics? It's simple advertising. Of course they're going to put up nice things about a book they've published. They want it to sell. If you disagree with their opinion, don't buy.

Is it ethical for the author him/herself to review, (favourably of course) their own book? With or without using a pseudonym.

Click to expand...

Certainly not. There's enough sock puppets out there. I think there was an across the board layoff at Sesame Street and they all started posting book reviews while waiting in the unemployment line.

Gillhoughly said:

Of course they're going to put up nice things about a book they've published. They want it to sell. If you disagree with their opinion, don't buy.

Click to expand...

I think that the original poster meant "posting positive reviews under sockpuppet identities," not "posting a positive publisher's blurb or summary."

I'm pretty sure these questions were inspired by the recent kerfuffle about organized harassment of Amazon customer reviewers.

When you get picked up as a first time author, will the publisher seek a back cover blurb from their established names within the genre?

JJ

Thanks for the clarification, IceCreamEmpress--I didn't get that bit from how the question was phrased.

I would HOPE that the publishers don't put up sock puppets. I see enough of that from some writers with more stones than talent. There's one I know of one who self-pubbed with a book so awful that PubliSHAMerica rejected it, but it's got all these 5-star reviews.

When you get picked up as a first time author, will the publisher seek a back cover blurb from their established names within the genre?

Click to expand...

Depends on how much push they want to put behind you to get you noticed. You can ask your agent or editor if this kind of thing can be arranged. They'll send copies of the MS or galleys to other writers for quotes. Sometimes you can ask others in the genre if they will provide a quote--but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're friends with a Name.

I was tapped to give quotes some years ago. One was for a writer who is doing very well now, though I doubt my quote had anything to do with it.

The other MS I tossed in the recycle bin, asked my editor if I could put the perp in one of my workshops to help him get up to speed with Writing 101, and asked in all seriousness if the advance check had been signed. I couldn't believe they'd bought that piece of c**p.

There were no quotes on it, so I suppose they couldn't get any other writers to help it along, either!

.

Gillhoughly said:

I would HOPE that the publishers don't put up sock puppets.

Click to expand...

Sadly, your hope would be in vain. In vain, I say!

Firstly, Jill, congrats on being 'sacked' and well done for retaining your rights.

I'm a thrice NO person regarding the Q's you raised. What may be legal is not the same as being ethically acceptable. Incidentally, there are two others who review Scott's books on Amazon who do seem to have some personal resemblances to Ken Douglas. But it is as Ken Scott that he offers to review people's books for the sum of £20.

Joining you in that shower, icerose - but pass me a bucket first!

Jill:
Check out books published by Libros International, in particular reviews by author Ken Scott aka Ken Douglas 'Director of Operations' at Libros International.

Click to expand...

There's a Thread on Libros International here in Bewares and Background Checks if you want to share your experience, Jill. I remember that there was a lot of discussion there last summer about some of LI's practices, most of which left a sour taste in the mouth.

MM

Jill said:

The thread was not motivated by the Amazon review discussion - I will now be looking at it. Check out books published by Libros International, in particular reviews by author Ken Scott aka Ken Douglas 'Director of Operations' at Libros International.

Click to expand...

Oh, my heavens. Your experience is almost exactly like the experience reported by some Highland Press authors in the recent flap regarding that press (being harangued over an email loop to astroturf other press authors' books, etc.)

Jill, I assume you remember the Libros Press thread well because you posted several comments in defense of Libros there, including posting a defensive email from Ken Scott/Douglas/Man of a Thousand Sockpuppets. I've just gotten to your very classy apology for having been part of the whole kerfuffle, and I want to applaud you so much for that. That was an amazing thing to do, and shows tremendous integrity on your part. Brava.

But clearly, you and fellow Libros authors posting on the thread were being told that AW was full of mean people, motivated by "sour grapes" or too old-fashioned to understand where the publisher was going, blah, blah, blah. This is generally how unscrupulous and/or incompetent publishers respond to pointed questions about their business practices, and the sad thing is that it's easy for them to convince authors to go to arms in their defense--even when those business practices are, in actuality, affecting those authors negatively.

It makes me more angry on your behalf (and that of your fellow authors) that the folks at Libros were using your goodwill to fight their battles for them.

I think that being asked to astroturf (create artificial "grass-roots" support) by a publisher is probably a very good indication of that publisher's lack of scruples and professionalism. My hope is that Jill, like the Highland Press authors who have come forward, will share their experiences so that when other authors encounter the same "call to arms" from their publishers, they'll evaluate the situation with a critical eye.

I'm sorry that your good experience with Libros turned bad, Jill. I hope that you'll use that experience to help others avoid similar snares in future.

In fairness to a woman who listened to and took on board a lot of stuff aired on the Libros thread, may I direct you to one of Jill's later posts?

Page 15 of the thread. Post #366

As I was instrumental in supplying info on that thread that caused Jill to wise-up, I would like to see recognition of the fact that she backed down in an applaudable manner. More to the point, she now seems to want to air further knowledge she is in possesion of for the specific purpose of attempting to prevent other writers from suffering her own experiences.

No, I am not a Jill sockpuppet. I just like to see fair play.

Jill - thank you for coming back to AW and I hope that you feel comfortable posting what's happened to you with LI and most importantly, I hope you stick around.

MM

qwerty said:

In fairness to a woman who listened to and took on board a lot of stuff aired on the Libros thread, may I direct you to one of Jill's later posts?

Page 15 of the thread. Post #366

Click to expand...

Thanks, qwerty (and Momento). I had just gotten to that section of the thread. and was coming back here to edit my post to include Jill's very thoughtful and honest apology. But I think you're right--it's inappropriate for me to reproduce her posts from that thread, especially in light of her apology. Jill, I'm sorry.

In any case, I truly didn't intend to single out Jill for criticism: it was more that the conjunction of the posts in that thread, and this, exemplify a pattern I've seen so many times here in my short time on the board.

It's so hard to accept that someone you trusted with your writing, the work you've spent so much of your own energy and soul on, is unscrupulous and/or incompetent. I really do understand the powerful impulse to side with your publishers against the people they characterize as "haters" and tune out the fact that the criticisms being made are valid.

Jill, my apologies for reacting in anger and impatience to your earlier posts in that July 2007 thread. I'm so sorry that you were treated so poorly by Libros Press. And I really value your input here--you have an important perspective to share on these folks, and others who use similar practices. I know that, without people sharing their life lessons with me, I'd have made every mistake in the book.

IceCreamEmpress, you're right in saying that too many skanky operations try to use their authors to defend them and their practices and I share your irritation at seeing people being used and abused doubly by their 'publisher'.

I saw your edited post and have edited mine accordingly. Damn. No drama to see here ... Maybe we should start a flame war?

MM