| Author | Message | ||
     Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.169.73.112 |
http://www.sfcrowsnest.com/bookreview.php Hmm, interesting. Does it mean what I think it means? Seems a bit different from buying books to review, as I always do! | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
Good grief! Three hundred quid to review a book? That's ridiculous! I didn't know that was the way that site worked (I've heard of SFCrowsnest - thought they had a good reputation). I'm sure most places don't do it that way. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 82.35.230.27 |
There are similar schemes at Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, Foreword Magazine, etc. All about bilking money from suckers. Or giving hope to the hopeless. Letting people buy a bit of respectability. | ||
| Mbfg (Mbfg) Username: Mbfg Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.154.35.112 |
It's outrageous! So does you three hundred quid ensure a good review? | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.61.103 |
Not necessarily.  | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.160.36.85 |
The material at the above link seems to have vanished. But I understand on good authority that the PayPal links did work when they were in place. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
It's interesting that it's disappeared. I wonder if it was just an idea he was toying with (and perhaps decided against when people said the same as we did)? As I said, I did think that site had a good reputation so I was really surprised when I saw it (especially the amount). I guess his good reputation will now remain untarnished!  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
Nice patronising paragraph about presenting manuscripts, too, especially as it has a grammatical error in it: "Read and, more importantly, understand a book or two on basic grammar and keep a decent copy of Chambers 20th Century Dictionary and a Roget's Thesaurus by your side as *word processor's* spell-checkers can't tell the difference between context and word usage even if a word is spelt correctly." | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
Is this guy for real: "I spend time going over all material, giving comment and opinion on what you've wrote whether it's acceptable or not." | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
Oh my God: "10. If you survive me then your chances are better that you'll come away a better writer. At the end of the day, that can only serve both of us well." File under AVOID HENCEFORWARD. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
More advice: "Don't pad, waffle or use unnecessary detail." Hilarious! | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.61.103 |
If you survive me then your chances are better that you'll come away a better writer I can't wait to do him in  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
>>>press releases should be sent to news [strange round-ish e-mail symbol] sfcrowsnest [little dot] com Genius! Strange roundish email symbol! | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.159.21.6 |
"Read and, more importantly, understand a book or two on basic grammar and keep a decent copy of Chambers 20th Century Dictionary and a Roget's Thesaurus by your side as *word processor's* spell-checkers can't tell the difference between context and word usage even if a word is spelt correctly." He's talking about spell checkers belong to word processors so this is a correct usage of the possessive apostrophe as far as I can see. Not defending him at all. the rest of the mistakes are certainly bad errors. This one is debatable. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.159.21.6 |
3. Using living people, other than those who would be deemed as public property, as characters. We don't want to be sued, have a fatwa, etc for character assassination. I don't think you want to "neither." 4. No poetry or "filk-songs". There are other websites who are happy with this kind of material. Support them instead. Two more. Unless a filk-song is something other than a typo for folk song...}}} | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.171.20.248 |
This is the original posting that ws deleted: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fFXdjOfjIpYJ:www.sfcrowsnes t.com/bookreview.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk I think it is more interesting to discuss the repercussions of asking for money to review a book. But of course that does not meanI it *is* more interesting. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.61.103 |
But shouldn't it be "wordprocessors' spell-checkers"? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
Yes, it should. Elementary grammar. The minimum requirement, I would have thought. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
OK, let's discuss the repercussions of charging £300 for reviewing a book. Fucking unbelievable coming from some self-important arriviste with a terrible command of language. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
That PayPal button's working again, btw. Fill ya boots, folk. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.171.20.248 |
I've seen a lot of other strong feelings against it on-line. But perhaps we should make a cool appraisal of it and why it was considered feasible. There are millions of budding writers etc who want reviews. I'm sure it would do well assuming that the website itself is seen to be regularly visited and influential. That's the difficult bit. This one looks professional on the surface and it has been going some years. So it must have had some success.... (btw, in the original £300 post, I've just noticed that LIASE should be LIAISE.) | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.61.103 |
Apparently everybody is in dire need of extra money nowadays, except such venerable bona fide outlets as TLS. I'm old-fashioned in that I still think any work should speak for itself. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
The average small press book makes less than £300. So basically we're moving towards a world in which a book reviewer can make more money than an indie publisher or the authors it publishes. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
Also, there's a common misperception that reviews sell books. They don't. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
So, stripping out that factor, the only thing Mr Hunt has to offer is his critical judgement. I think it's demonstrated above that he's decidedly lacking in this capacity. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
Also, there's a common misperception that reviews sell books. They don't. Indeed. The most salient point of all. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.171.20.248 |
They can perhaps prevent sales, however? Or, on the other hand, enhance the environment for a book, if not create sales. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.61.103 |
Reviews are pretty innocuous, yes, but most amateurs-at-large don't know this and can easily be conned into thinking otherwise. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
So how does that justify charging £300 for one? "Hey, folks, pay me £300 and I'll review your book, and if it's a good one, it won't prevent the sales you wouldn't have lost without the review." I accept your contrarian attitude, Des, but I can't see how this can be justified in any 'functional' manner. It seems to me as if the guy is out to make an easy buck. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 82.35.230.27 |
Not really an arriviste - SF Crowsnest has been around a long time. There's lots of people doing this kind of thing - just comes as a shock to have "one of us" doing it. I don't think it's about the review itself selling books, it's about establishing your legitimacy, improving your platform. The author who buys their review can approach a local paper and say "local author reviewed in Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, winner of the Foreword Golden Tinsel Award" etc. Posting reviews that you've been paid by the author to write is actually against Amazon's terms and conditions. A company offering the same sort of service - Allbooks - had all their reviews taken off Amazon, and got quite upset about it. (I blogged about it here.) | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.171.20.248 |
Well, Gary, I agree that one should not charge for a review. It would be counter-productive in all senses. I happen to go the extra mile and purchase the books I review. But I can see the tradition of free review copies is justifiable to ensure the optimum number of reviews for any one book. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 82.35.230.27 |
Victoria Strauss on Writer Beware did a round-up of similar services a couple of years ago: http://accrispin.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/pw-select-opportunity-or-exploitation.ht ml And this blog post from a disappointed customer caused much hilarity earlier this year: http://www.chicagonow.com/a-city-mom/2012/04/publishers-weekly-seems-to-relish-s cathing-reviews-of-self-published-books/ There are even some magazines charging authors to submit stories now... | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.61.103 |
I always got the books I reviewed (for Necrofile, a few for Dead Reckonings) for free. That didn't stop me from lambasting at least one complete book and not a few short stories I really didn't like. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
Not being an arriviste makes the whole thing even worse. Naivety could perhaps be forgiven. This is just an obvious attempt at exploitation. The guy sounds very unintelligent. If that's an excuse, well, bugger me. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 82.35.230.27 |
That's why it's caused such a flap, I think - it's not a faceless corporate greed machine of whom you'd expect nothing better, but an established author and a fellow fan. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 82.35.230.27 |
Here's what one semi-self-published writer said about it on Facebook (her only real complaint was the price): "A review process is the sought after thing on the market place at the moment. [...] If you have a quality product, getting a review can be nigh on impossible. The sheer numbers stand against you. Review skills, whereby the reviewer is competent and capable of actually giving a proper review, are rare. Actual reviewers, with skills and status, have waiting lists of up to two years. Paying them for their time, when they have skills, is not such a loony idea. If it brings quality reviews out, to match the quality of your work. [...] Stephen's idea is not out there. There is a market for good reviews. Good review sites are charging nominal fees, to pay for books to go to the top of very long queues. [...] People are willing to spend a lot on their masterpiece. [...] But it does reflect, that a good reviewer, is like gold dust at the moment. :-) You're paying to be going to the top of the queue." What that doesn't explain is why they're so desperate to get those reviews. Maybe it's just like other hobbies, where you buy accessories and peripherals to improve your chances. Or maybe it's that there aren't many other ways of improving your chances, and here's one. Maybe people just have more money than sense. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
Don't want to open up a can of worms here, but isn't it the same argument with awards? A good review is seen by some authors as a way to "sell" their books. Similarly, an award is seen as another way to "sell" said book. I don't think any of you writers here can actually moan about this too much. After all, you put nice quotes about your work on your book covers in order to sell them, and, if you win an award, you'll happily describe yourself as "award-winning author", etc. It's just all part of the marketing process - whether we like it or not ... But paying £300 for a review is just plain silly. Interestingly, I've read recently (I won't say where or who) about a certain .. er, shall we call it an "institution"? .. which has, allegedly, bought itself some awards recently. The reason I don't want to say who or where is because I don't know about the legitimacy of the source - it's just something I came across while seeking out news for the BFS site. So, are we getting to the stage where authors/publishers "buy" themselves good reviews or awards as a marketing device? I hope not. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 82.35.230.27 |
It's certainly a lot like the Foreword awards, and things like that - awards mills, places where you pay some money to buy some legitimacy. For that matter, £300 would probably be enough to buy a spot on the BFS shortlist in most categories... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
After 9 years of publishing, experience tells me that reviews make no difference to sales. With newbie writers setting out thinking they are the royal road to success (intuitively, it seems so), charging them £300 is just appalling. Even worse - and the fact we seem to be missing here - if the reviewer is claiming to help you become a better writer when s/he can't even write with basic competency, that just compounds the ignominy. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
>>>I don't think any of you writers here can actually moan about this too much. After all, you put nice quotes about your work on your book covers in order to sell them, What?! | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.159.21.6 |
"as *word processor's* spell-checkers " Sorry to drag it back to this (not been online for a few hours), but in this context the word Wordprocessor could be singular or plural and both would make sense. If singular, the apostrophe is in the correct place. As I said, this particular example is debatable. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
Then it should be "a Wordprocessor's spellchecker" and not "Wordprocessor's spellcheckers". | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.159.21.6 |
And back to the topic at hand, Nicky P has tried a few times to charge reading fees to submit for his magazines. Luckily no one has ever taken him up on it. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 82.35.230.27 |
Gary - while I get your point, the "SFcrowsnest Review Program" page didn't say anything about helping people to be better writers - that's all on the page about writing for the website. Weber - no, the apostrophe is in the wrong place, because it's talking about word processors in general. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 82.35.230.27 |
There's an article here about magazines charging to read submissions: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2011/10/27/literary-magazines-struggle-w ith-submission-fees-for-writers/ Amazing that they get away with it. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
Oh, giveover, man. The whole site is geared towards the self-deluded idea that he's got the power to improve others' writing. Why else does he think he's good enough to charge £300 for a review?! Sometimes these things are implicit, and yet far from vague. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 82.35.230.27 |
No worries, Gary - just thought you had thought that was the page people were complaining about. Victoria Strauss sums it all up really well: "paid reviews are less an effort to expand review coverage to worthy books than an opportunity to make some extra cash by exploiting self- and small press-published authors' hunger for credibility and exposure." | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
OK, mate. Victoria puts it well. I just want to make it clear to any new writers than reviews do not translate to sales. (But can be very useful for artistic calibration.) | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
">>>I don't think any of you writers here can actually moan about this too much. After all, you put nice quotes about your work on your book covers in order to sell them, What?!" I was referring to moaning about reviews generally and their relationship to selling books, Gary - not to the moan about charging £300 for a review. Of course charging that amount (any amount?) for a review is crazy. But getting a good review/getting a nice quote for your book cover/getting an award are all part of the marketing process for a small press author/publisher. You can't deny that, surely? | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
"For that matter, £300 would probably be enough to buy a spot on the BFS shortlist in most categories..." Stephen - you are a very wicked man!  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
Caroline, these are two separate issues, surely. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
Yes, they are Gary. But you took just one part of my (probably rather rambling) post out of context, I think. Have another read of my entire post again. It may make sense, or it may not - it's been a long day! Sorry if what I was trying to say didn't come across properly, but I'm too knackered to explain what I meant right now. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.74.229 |
Don't worry. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 82.35.230.27 |
"Stephen - you are a very wicked man!" I am, but let's not talk about that right now. ;-) | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
  | ||
| Jamie Rosen (Jamie) Username: Jamie Registered: 11-2008 Posted From: 173.32.63.252 |
Just wanted to chime in to say that "filk songs" is not a typo. Filk songs are, in essence, songs about sf/fantasy works in a "folky" manner. I do not like them, Sam I Am. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.214.176 |
Yes, I recall filk songs the few times I went to SF conventions in the 'eighties. Definitely not for me. | ||
| Richard_gavin (Richard_gavin) Username: Richard_gavin Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 65.110.174.68 |
"Sometimes, there are editors who will print bad stories simply because they're better than some they've already seen!!!" Be wary of anyone who promotes something like this as a boon for writers or editors. Also be wary of anyone who uses multiple exclamation marks. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 92.40.254.186 |
I think the other continuing con in the business is the fee-charging competition. There are plenty of them out there, often disguising themselves in a cloak of slef-generated respectability. There are some writers' magazines, sold in WH Smiths, that seem to exist on charging you to enter their writing competitions. If someone tries to charge you for reading your stuff stay clear. Or tell them to f*ck off. If you were a plasterer, you wouldn't expect to plaster someone's wall and pay them so you could do it, to hear them tell you how good you are at it. £300's a corker though. Sort of funny. To a point. I mean, how long's the review? On the price of most advances, it'd have to be damn near as long as the book to function as value for money. F*ck off! | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 92.40.254.133 |
And forgive me, but the free ARC to reviewers thing is also something of a con. How many are ever actually reviewed instead of sold on e-Bay or given to charity stores. Seems like a middle-class con to me...! Buy your books!!! (MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!) | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 92.40.254.131 |
Filk songs? Never heard of Em. Am I to assume it involves Klingons folk dancing? | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 82.35.230.27 |
Mark - people send out ARCs to get us to read and review stuff we *wouldn't* buy and review otherwise. If people stopped sending us stuff to review, I'd just review whatever else I was reading (which is what I do quite a lot of the time anyway). That's as far as books and comics go, at least. I have to admit, I miss the Big Finish and BBC Audio stuff I used to get when reviewing for the BFS. Luckily I have a small backlog of those to work through! I have seen some blogs receiving 100+ print books a month, and you do wonder why they don't tell one or two publishers to not bother. Over the last year we've only reviewed 12.1% of the items we've been sent at TQF, which would be hugely wasteful if it wasn't nearly all pdfs and ebooks. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 92.40.253.213 |
Yup, I get that bit, Stephen. But you'd tend to review the stuff you most wanted to anyway, wouldn't you. ARCs seem to be a sob to the author as much as a reviewer, from the publisher, instead of a promotions budget! I can understand ARCs going to booksellers, because booksellers can make a difference pushing a title in-store. Book reviews in most places tend to be little more than the blurb on the cover. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 94.169.46.183 |
One odd thing about mainstream ARCs is that a lot of them are so gigantic - the postage costs must be immense. Some publishers are starting to cut back on them - at least one will now only supply them to people who guarantee to review within a week of the publication date. I much prefer using Netgalley to receiving print ARCs - I can pick out the ones that genuinely look interesting (like Liz Williams' Worldsoul, which I'm reading now). But I'm not quite at the point of telling publishers to stop supplying print ARCs altogether, because you can easily pass them on to external reviewers. Publishers don't generally like you doing that with ebook review copies, for obvious reasons. |