Playing The Man Not The Ball : On Reviewing Book Covers

 I awoke this morning to find this beauty waiting for me in my feed reader.  It is a Tor.com review of the cover of Austin Grossman's Soon I Will Be Invincible (2008), an addition to the steadily growing subgenre of superhero stories presented in book rather than comic form.  Don't worry, I don't get it either.

The review itself is by Pablo Defendini, who is himself a designer and it is well-written and doubtless interests the people who are interested in that kind of thing.

The piece caused me to realise that whether it is in the shape of cover porn, direct discussion or even award handicapping, this type of content is becoming ever more common and that makes me somewhat... uncomfortable. I shall try to articulate why I think this is a dangerous trend:

At its best this type of content is lazy and ethically questionable.  At its worst, it is out and out advertising.

'Cover Porn' is this type of content at its most harmless.  Born of a sense of obligation towards the publishers that send them free books, a growing number of bloggers will post pictures of the covers as an acknowledgement of the gift as well as a bit of easy content.

I can entirely empathise with this attitude.  I have written before about how easy it is to feel obligated to review the stuff that you are sent.  I can also sympathise with the need for some quick and easy content.  Not every post can be a 2000 word examination of a book.  However, will I have a great deal of sympathy for the decision to put up cover porn, I do think that it is ethically questionable.

The last week or so has seen an argument fizz around mainstream litblogs over the role of advertising and one of the positions argued for is that it does not matter whether or not people actually click on the ads, the publishers pay for eye-balls and that is what a banner gives them, even if the adverts do not necessarily result in direct sales.

By putting up pictures of book covers on your site, you are giving the publishers eyeballs.  If you even go that further step and give away free copies of books then you are going even further to raise awareness of products.  You are not commenting on these books, you are advertising.  You have crossed the line between editorial and stepped into the world of sales and PR.

As a critic, I am not a part of the publishing business.  I have a relationship with different parts of the business (chiefly that of being a consumer) but it is not my role to boost sales or to convince you to part with your money.  In fact, it wouldn't bother me if nobody bought a single thing I reviewed positively on this site or in any of the other organs I write for.  My role is to engage as fully as I can with the subject material of the books.  As Clute puts it in Look at the Evidence (1995), the critic's task is...

"That of unmasking the being of the book; re-creating that being, freeing the book from the author of the book and from the beehive cloister of the affinity group; and, in the end, granting a privilege.  The author's true privilege is to be misunderstood [...] and the critic's true function is to make misunderstanding into a door of perception." [page 7]

Now, not everyone considers themselves a critic.  A lot of people wear too many hats to fit into a single role or they are content being fans, However, if you have a blog or you post to SF forums or contribute anything at all to the wider genre community then chances are that you are aware that you are sharing an opinion about SF or commenting on it.  As such you have to consider the credibility and the authenticity of what you say.

If that is the case then you have to ask every time you post, are you doing for free what a viral marketing agency might possibly pay you for?

Discussions of book covers and posting book covers are examples of raising awareness about a product without actually commenting upon, evaluating or criticising the actual product itself.  You're playing the man and not the ball by taking about the advertising instead of the product itself.

Now, not everyone is going to agree with this and you have to set your own ethical standards for yourselves but I would encourage you to think about the extent to which your voice and the content of your sites are yours as opposed to that of the people who send you free stuff.

Comments

[Ian Sales]

So what would you make of posts such as this - http://fantasybookcritic.blogspot.com/2008/08/spotlight-anathem-by-neal-stephenson.html ?

I suspect the blogger needs to change the title of his blog...

[Jonathan M]

That's just cut and pasted from a press release. I didn't comment upon that kind of thing because I think it's pretty bloody obvious that it's just lazy advertorial rubbish.

I hate that type of thing so much that I simply can't read magazines like SFX anymore.

I remember when I was doing my PhD someone said that the point of social research is to give a voice to the dispossessed and the downtrodden and while I'm not quite THAT ethically motivated, it's a fuckload better than posting free adverts for products under the cloak of editorial commentary.

[Jonathan M]

Christ... that site is just papered with adverts and give-aways and links to publishers.

I vote for Fantasy Book Pimp or Fantasy Book Toilet Slave.

[Martin]

Of course the book cover is part of the actual product. When I buy a book it doesn't come in a Tesco Value jacket with just the name on it. The cover isn't part of the text but it is part of the artefact and since when has design been an illegitimate field of criticism?

[Jonathan M]

Design is a legitimate part of criticism.

A long piece on "The art of X" would be legitimate. Posting pictures of books is not criticism. Neither is criticism a description of a book cover robbed of any interpretation and posted under the title "Book Cover Review: Soon I Will Be Invincible".

The art involved in book covers is totally separate from the creation of the actual book. The authors have no say in its creation or even its the final choice. It is in no way part of the same artistic entity.

You could probably make a case for the critical role of artwork in establishing mood and as an imposition of a certain interpretation of the work but that would involve proper criticism. This is looking at book covers.

[Max Cairnduff]

There are of course blogs which only review covers, which is a slightly different matter. That's not a question of advertising, rather those are design focused blogs. I link to one such from my own blog, it makes fascinating reading.

I would note, however, the chap I link to decides what he blogs about and much of it is out of print, so the commercial angle doesn't arise. I also agree with your final comment that it has nothing to do with the content, which is likely why book cover design blogs almost never discuss content. As you also note, authors often have no say in the covers they get, separating the two is logical.

Many bloggers include pictures of covers and then go on to write what they would have written anyway, the cover is mere decoration, or at best an aide to those who having read the blog go on to seek out the work. Personally, I prefer not to, as the work lives on while covers come and go with different imprints. I'm not sure the mere fact of including them though is a problem, in and of itself.

Rather, I think the problem arises where you are accepting works for review from publishers, which changes the nature of the blog quite dramatically. Most literary bloggers I follow buy what they blog, and blog what they read. The SF blogosphere seems more publisher content provision driven, with the result that people frequently blog about books they would never have bought themselves.

If you are blogging something you chose, and you show the cover, that is merely part of your private commentary, you have after all no relationship with the publisher (certainly no ongoing one). If, however, you are taking books for review, you are now also arguably advertising those books and at that point a line may well have been crossed.

I think the issue isn't so much posting covers, as accepting books for review in the first place. The very moment you blog about a book you were given to review, even if you slate it, you are advertising it. That's not bad in itself, I read your reviews after all and find them frequently useful, but you are giving eyeballs in a sense and I would have thought the moment you review professionally as opposed to casually (ie the moment you accept books for review which you didn't choose yourself) you are in fact part of the publishing business.

You may not see it as your job to boost their sales, but that possibility is the only reason publishers provide books to reviewers.

I would note, I'm not arguing for some pure world in which there are no professional reviewers, that would be both absurd and a great loss. Rather I'm suggesting the problem you identify is a manifestation of something larger, of the contract already entered into between the blogger and the publisher.

[Max Cairnduff]

That fantasybookcritic blog is rather oddly named, it seems more a central clearing house for press releases and competitions and suchlike. Nothing particularly wrong with that, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with book criticism.

I expect any blog worth reading to take what it does seriously. I read here because I expect Jonathan to take his responsibility as a critic seriously, there isn't anywhere I read regularly where that doesn't apply (though many places I read would see themselves as fans or readers, rather than critics).

I suppose one could take posting press releases seriously, but precisely how presently escapes me.

[Max Cairnduff]

Reviewing "casually" should have been reviewing "on an amateur basis" above, I blog stuff I read on an amateur basis in that I do not regard myself as a critic, but I don't do it casually.

[Jonathan M]

Max --

Excellent points one and all.

Totally agree with you about design blogs. I actually quite enjoy reading art and design criticism but it is not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about are pictures of covers. Even Defendini's piece, which is better written and more thoughtful than most cover commentaries by the SF scene, is not design criticism. It's barely evaluation. It's also titled in such a way that it will turn up if you google 'Review + "Soon I will be invincible"' (in fact it's currently entry number 17).

I also completely agree about the fact that the SF blogosphere is morally compromised by virtue of having gotten into bed with the publishers. Some blogs do better with this than others (I'm still mildly horrified by fantasy book critic, a site I'd never looked at before for obvious reasons) but the taint is there and we all have to come to terms with what is acceptable to us personally.

I am, as you imply, tainted by the machinery too. I use posters and covers to illustrate my reviews and I even find myself reviewing nothing but current books despite the fact that they're only maybe 50% of what I read.

Where one draws the line is ultimately a personal matter though. For example, I don't think that I'm advertising a book if I review it. I'm commenting upon it. If I wrote about politics I wouldn't be supporting any of the parties I wrote about. Yes, my reviews may be used by people who are looking to buy stuff but as I said, I really don't care. If people illegally downloaded every film and book I wrote about it wouldn't overly bother me.

Given that we do not live in a universe with obvious moral facts (or moral facts at all for that matter) we all draw our own lines in the sand and it's good to reconsider those lines from time to time. Which is what motivated the post.

[DBE]

"Discussions of book covers and posting book covers are examples of raising awareness about a product without actually commenting upon, evaluating or criticising the actual product itself. You're playing the man and not the ball by taking about the advertising instead of the product itself.

Science fiction and fantasy book cover illustration and illustrators are a topic well worth commenting on and criticizing in its own right.

I wish there was more of it, not less. The best SF illustrators of today are producing magnificent work well worth more, and more in-depth, critical attention.

When the discussion of the cover is shallow, that is, I agree, a poor reflection on the blogger. But you seem to be critical of discussion of book covers in general. Which is another thing entirely and, on that, I couldn't disagree more.

[Martin]

We will have to differ if you think there is no interpretation in Defendini’s piece. To me it seems like it is exactly what is claimed: a science fiction book cover reviewed by a science fiction book cover designer. I don’t see what this has to do with “acknowledgement of the gift” cover porn blogging. It just seems like a very bad example to hang this discussion of the compromised nature of the SF blogosphere from.

[Jonathan M]

Martin --

Cover porn frequently IS a way of acknowledging the gift. You receive a book and even if you don't review it you turn it into content and it gives the publisher eyeballs. It's slightly different from sf art criticism but it it is fairly common to put up a load of book covers as a part of a cover porn/books received post.

As for the wider issue of reviewing commercial SF art, it makes me uncomfortable as it strikes me as an area where the moral compromise is even greater than with reviewing. Especially if people receive free books in order to write about their covers.

I wasn't using this as a launchpad for wider discussion of the moral bankruptcy of SF blogging, I simply felt a bit uncomfortable when I read the Defendini and thought it might make an interesting talking point.

I think there's room for a wider discussion of the ethics of SF blogging but I think it's better to be quite focused so as to prompt people to think. Throwing one's hands up and going "it's all wrong" is a touch alarmist and not particularly conducive to discussion. Particularly as it would invariably devolve into "Ah... but you were POLITE to an author you don't like... SELLOUT!".

[Liviu]

"If that is the case then you have to ask every time you post, are you doing for free what a viral marketing agency might possibly pay you for?"

This sums in a nutshell why this post is wrong headed and sounds like sour grapes as Andrew Wheeler put it a while ago about another post here.

Why should I care that someone could pay me for something that I am happy to do for free? Am I part of a union/guild of bloggers/posters who swore not to undercut the hard work of others by offering my wares for free??

And regarding Robert' site or Pat's Fantasy Hotlist and similar ones that are part review, part promotion - while their impact is limited by the simple arithmetic of book sales due to online promotion which as any professional could tell you that percent wise is in the low teens at best - they are still doing a lot for sff authors by their promotions, spotlights and such. The comments above show that none making them is a published sff author since otherwise they would realize that hitting the hand that helps feed you is counterproductive at the least.

And let us not forget that John Clute is paid by the granddaddy of commercial low-grade sf - sci-fi channel - and I would not dream of accusing Mr. Clute of selling out or such. Judge the content of posts/articles rather than making prejudgments.

[Jonathan M]

You should care about doing something for free that you could be paid to do because if you're just pumping out advertising then you should be looking to be paid. If you're not in the business of pumping out advertising then you should care about your integrity.

I'm a critic. I'm not in the promotions business. My role is not to do stuff for SFF authors and my comments on people who call themselves critics whilst in fact serving as a clearing house for give-aways and press releases reflect the fact that I think that a certain amount of integrity is required if you want to call yourself a critic.

I can completely understand that there are vested interests on both sides of the advertising/editorial line that want it blurred but I disagree. It's not that I'm failing to understand because I'm not an author (which is a stupid point to make anyway), I'm saying that the blurring of that line is categorically a bad thing.

I also categorically reject the idea that worrying about integrity is, in some way, hitting the hand that feeds me. I'd have to be actually fed for that to be a concern and even if I was that would be an issue between me and my integrity... what kind of criticism is it to say that someone is putting their own principles ahead of immediate personal gain? I tend to make it my business to chow down on the hand that feeds me. That's how I make sure that the hand that feeds me is not also the hand that holds the whip.

[Robert]

This is Robert from Fantasy Book Critic. I created and run the blog, and I came across this article via OF Blog of the Fallen...

What I find interesting about the comments above regarding my website is that they are superficial comments. You look at the giveaways, see the advertisements, the press releases and make a snap judgment. If you dug deeper, you might realize that I put a lot of time and effort into criticizing books--that I did so from March 07 until August 08, and only recently stopped doing reviews/interviews because of family-related and professional matters.

You might also have realized that I purposely use Fantasy Book Critic as a promotional tool to help promote books and authors. Why? Well one, I'm good at it. I did it professionally with record labels when I used to work in the music industry and ran a music blog, and I'm using that knowledge now with Fantasy Book Critic and working with publishers. Two, I like doing it. The reason I helped promote artists was because I love music and I have a major respect for those people who dedicate their lives to music. The same can be said for those who dedicate their lives to writing, and Fantasy Book Critic is a way for me to show my love & respect toward writers--and hopefully to help them.

That all said, that doesn't mean I'm a 'pimp' or 'slave' for these publishers/authors. I make NOTHING off of Fantasy Book Critic. In fact, I pay a few monthly bills to keep the site running. Advertisements. Nada. Every advertisement I post is for free. And I don't just run advertisements or host giveaways because someone requests them. I'm only going to post an advertisement or host a giveaway if it's for an author/book that I personally enjoy or think I would be interested in. In fact, the majority of giveaways I host, the advertisements I post, or the press releases I put up are because of me. I request what banner I want to post, or what giveaway to run, or what press release to post. Me. Sure, there are exceptions, but it still comes down to what I want. So basically what I'm saying is that a person can be promoting an author/book and still have "integrity". I think it would make a big difference if I was actually being paid to promote these books or if promoted every single title that a publisher wanted me to. But I don't. And that's what annoys me when people make judgments without knowing all the facts...

As far as press releases: Like I said before, I've had to stop doing reviews/interviews because of family related/professional matters. Even so, I still try to do what I can to help promote certain authors/titles with what limited time I have. Hence the press releases. Yes, I mostly copy and paste them, but it's easy and doesn't take up much time. And if they help give an author attention, or at the very least get another blogger interested in covering a certain title on their own website, then it was worth it.

As for "authenticity", that's not for me to judge. That's up to the readers. If someone likes the way I do things, that's great and I hope they continue to enjoy reading Fantasy Book Critic. If they don't, that's great as well, and I hope you find what you're looking for in the thousands of other blogs out there. As for those who like to judge, there's nothing wrong with that, but you might want to get all of your facts straight first...

[Jonathan M]

Hi Robert :-)

Thanks for dropping by.

I couldn't do what you do. Firstly, I don't only cover stuff that I like. I give a full range of opinions from "meh... it's okay" to "it stinks!". If I only covered stuff I liked then I would be doing promotion.

Similarly, I don't do give-aways or press releases or even interviews unless I really have a handle upon the author and think there are questions he really needs to answer. I don't see it as the critic's role to help shift units and I think it is important, for me, to make that clear.

Do you actually read all of the books that you promote? do you get them for free in return? because if so, there is a quid pro quo and while you're not 'getting paid', you're being compensated for your amateur PR.

As you say, this is between us and our respective readers but my principles (which were always tightly wound... too much Fugazi as a teenager) mean that I can't do what you do and I think it's regrettable that you've decided to change what you do (I actually remember you being an actual critic, I just didn't subscribe as you covered mostly fantasy).

[Robert]

Jonathan:

Well my time is limited, so I only try and read/review books by authors that I enjoy or think that I will enjoy. It doesn't always work out that though, so if there's a book I didn't like, I'm not afraid to say so and I have my share of negative reviews.

Before my circumstances changed, I did try to read every book I promoted. Heck, a lot of the interviews/giveaways I did, I did after I had finished the book and enjoyed it. As far as changing what I'm doing on Fantasy Book Critic, family always comes first, so I have no regrets. After all, the blog was just a hobby that I enjoyed doing, and still enjoy doing in what free time I have. And of course, it was always my intent to promote anyhow. I've never hidden from that fact.

As far as ARCs, sure I get them, but that doesn't change anything. I only cover the titles I want to cover, and even if I didn't get free books, I would still operate the same. Besides, I think it all balances out in the end. After all, I spend a lot more money purchasing books now since I started the blog than I ever did before it, because the website has helped open up my eyes to all of the many wonderful authors out there that I had never heard of before :)

As to principles, I respect that you can't do what I'm doing. To be honest, I couldn't do what you're doing, or what Larry is doing at OF Blog of the Fallen, etc., and I think that's healthy. It offers readers different options to choose from and you know, diversity is the spice of life :D

[Josh Jasper]

one of the positions argued for is that it does not matter whether or not people actually click on the ads, the publishers pay for eye-balls and that is what a banner gives them, even if the adverts do not necessarily result in direct sales.

That's a bad argument, If media planer is not allocating budget based on delivery *and* clicks, they're wasting the companies money. Better still, if there's any sort of conversion goal, like signing up for a newsletter, the CPA (cost per acquisition) should be calculated for all sites an ads running on, and sites that don't perform should be replaced with ones that do.

Online advertising has the capability to be far more sophisticated than print. If an advertising department isn't using it, and has a way to do so, they're failing.