Confessions Of A Book Reviewer

You may or may not be up to speed on the controversy bubbling in the blogosphere about the attack on bloggers who dare to rise above their station and write book reviews. A summary of the debate so far can be found at Skint Writer.

Rachel Cooke's piece in The Observer - I don't know if she actually works for them or just sells her wares to them from time to time - really raised the temperature, and her motive for producing the piece was evident in her rambling opening paragraph:

"There are few things more enjoyable than watching bookish types acting catty, so it is with some glee that I have been following the row that has broken out between the critic John Sutherland, the novelist and uber-blogger Susan Hill, and an as yet unnamed literary editor of a national newspaper."

With a puerile opener like that, I wonder how was it possible that anyone expected an intelligent, measured or rational piece? Blimey! Talk about good writing and leaving it up to the professionals! This woman must be desperate for things to write about, to ensure that she is kept on that list of those writers receiving money for their "good" writing. By the way, Frank at Books, Inq is not included as a target for this post; he has stated his sound position very clearly!

I don't mean to be catty, honest! It's amazing how reading articles like that will put you in the mood for a cat fight though. And it's not even due to my "putrid bitterness" caused by "a very deep sense of exclusion", which she says bloggers suffer from. It just so happens that I'm a working journalist AND a blogger, paid handsomely for my words as well! What category, therefore, am I in, Ms Cooke?

It seems Rachel Cooke will always be the source of a raised eyebrow in my household, however. I remember back in 2004 reading one of her more "famous" articles. She interviewed the family of a missing woman in Texas in the US. Why? What was the news value for a UK audience? Oh, that's simple: the woman had the same name. Reporter Rachel in the UK says she searched for her own name on Google. It turned out another Rachel Cooke, in the US, was missing, presumed murdered. Our Rachel was so taken aback - never mind the news judgement - that she flew to Texas a few weeks later to report on her namesake. Journalists are still scratching their heads about this one. I say what a novel way to earn some more of that "good writer's" cash that she goes on about. Of course, no disrespect to the Texas family at the centre of that article; what's in question here is the UK reporter's motive for covering it.

I digress, however, which illustrates the power of cattiness! I'm sorry and promise to be good for now on! Purrrrr Purrrr. Let me give the last word on this to Norm, just as Susan Hill did. A sensible, intelligent piece on a blog. Fancy that!

Because what I really wanted to post were the details of a recent conversation I had with a friend who reviews books for a reputable publication. I won't name her, because she relies on this job to pay her rent. It's not Ms Cooke, and I'm not referring to The Observer. My friend has given me permission to quote her though, finding all this hoo-ha a "bit of a laugh".

- She says she was wined and dined last month by the publishers of four different publishing houses, the bills going through the ceiling. She says "of course I later wrote favourable reviews for them" because there are more restaurants "I'm keen to get a foot in".

- Her editor changes her reviews regularly, making them better or worse, depending on what partnerships, promotions or freebies are on offer. It also depends if the parent companies - reviewer's publication and book publisher - are linked.

- She has been told to write "favourable" reviews when the publication is keen to score an exclusive interview with a famous author. Bad review, no interview, ever!

- Publishers who don't advertise in said publication don't get their books reviewed.

- Bad reviews of books could mean publisher's adverts being pulled, or promotional-partnership events being cancelled, so they are all vetted by editor, who is vetted by corporate bosses.

- Sometimes a review will be favourable or bad depending on what a rival publication has written.

- She has had to write seven favourable reviews this year for authors with close connections to the publication.

My friend is also happy to be quoted as boasting the following - with hearty laughs: she is 26; never studied literature; never written a book; only ever reads the first 10 pages of a book, then dips in and out until she has enough to write her review; she admits she doesn't know "a lot" about anything, let alone books, as Rachel Cooke argues; her reviews appear under a pseudonym in the publication, because she is often embarrassed about what she writes; she swears that this is not an isolated case.

So, there you are. That's why I don't treat the entire mainstream reviewing machine as a sacred cow. Nor would I ever treat all blog reviews as a sacred cow. I will go forward with my eyes open and judge things as I find them. Long live diversity and free thought! And I will try not to be catty, as long as I'm not forced into it!