Book Babes

Hey Ellen,

Some journalists may dream about asking friends and relatives to send in glowing letters to the newspaper where they work, praising their efforts ("Give that amazingly talented journalist a raise"). They might imagine writing those letters themselves. But anyone who knows how most "Letters to the Editor" columns work wouldn't risk it. My newspaper, for example, has a pretty sound system for weeding out phony letters (postcards are sent out to the addresses given, follow-up calls are made, and we never print anonymous submissions).

Not so on the Internet, where anonymity reigns supreme. Or at least, it did until last week, when a glitch on Amazon.com's Canadian site accidently revealed the once-hidden names of thousands of reviewers, some of whom -- oops -- turned out to be friends, relatives and even the authors themselves. In The New York Times article by Amy Harmon that reported the outing, several reviewers who had hidden behind false monikers -- San Francisco author Dave Eggers, for one, who posted a glowing review of his friend Heidi Julavits' book, calling himself "A reader from St. Louis" -- justified their actions as reprisals against other anonymous, self-serving -- and cruel -- reviews. "I just tried to bring back some balance," Eggers told the Times.

I believe that balance is a good thing, too. But balance doesn't come about through deception. How are readers supposed to trust reviews if they don't know who the reviewers are and what their biases may be? Lisa Jardine, a former chairwoman of the Man Booker Prize judging panel, told The (London) Observer that she didn't see anything immoral about an author plugging his own book. "This is a marketing website," Jardine told David Smith. "You might as well say putting your own stuff on eBay and plugging it is immoral." Well, fine, but then why hide from the reader that it is you who are plugging your own stuff?

My objection to anonymity on the Internet, by the way, does not mean that I oppose letting anyone have their say about a book. In fact, I like the democratization of Internet reviewing, which often challenges the so-called "professional" critics to hone their acts. I just want to know who it is serving up the criticism or praise and from where that opinion is coming. Then I can decide for myself if the point of view is useful to me or not.

Ellen Heltzel

Margo, a.k.a. "Thrilled in Florida,"

You are absolutely right. Controlled chaos is one thing, but this unsupervised free-for-all is almost as silly as those "What do you think?" call-ins that measure "public opinion" on TV. But more than one can play the deception game, so I checked with my friendly Deep Throat to find out what's really going on behind the curtain at Amazon. It's scary, I'll admit. There are millions of self-styled reviewers, and an editorial staff cut to the bone as the company pursues its mission of creating an automated technology into which anybody can plug their business. How things have changed.

As a start-up, Amazon.com invested princely sums in a review program with substantial in-house talent, which created a quality destination for not only buying but also assessing books. But now, customers are hooked. So, as my source told me, "They would be crazy to do that," because the cost wouldn't bring in more customers. So the keys to the kingdom have been turned over to the hordes, and this is what you get. Everybody is a reviewer.

Granted, everybody is entitled to an opinion. And I appreciate the small-d democratic philosophy of a company that refuses the elitist approach of virtually every print publication on the planet, where critics dictate what is worthy. But c'mon, Margo, which side are you on?

If Amazon is right, then all those newspapers and magazines must be wrong. And I don't think they are. If we look at what a real "review" is supposed to accomplish, I think -- hope -- there's a difference. A book review worth the ink should demonstrate 1) systematic thinking, 2) an articulate voice, and 3) added value for the reader. For example, I just read Heller McAlpin's review of Anne Tyler's latest novel, "The Amateur Marriage," in the Los Angeles Times Book Review. McAlpin not only let me know what the novel is "about," in both the practical and metaphysical sense, but also cast it against the backdrop of Tyler's work. All this was done in a methodical way that gives me, a Tyler fan, the appropriate context in which to consider this latest book.

To be fair to Amazon.com, the site picks up reviews from the same authoritative sources that people in the book industry, including book editors and reviewers, use. I check those out when I hunt for a title. But my populist spirit takes me only so far when it comes to bothering with the reader feedback, because how do I begin to know whose opinion (not to mention identity) I can trust? I've never been a great fan of "man on the street" interviews, either, for much the same reason: I'd rather get an educated opinion or stick with my own.

Margo Hammond

My dear Madame,

I am certainly not suggesting doing away with any professional book criticism. If nothing else, I like my job too much. But I don't see why hearing from ordinary readers is so threatening -- as long as those readers are not deceiving me and they are letting me know who they really are. The problem is not with the quality of opinions. The problem is that Internet sites like Amazon.com are not concerned with conflict of interest the way newspapers are.

For me the question is not whether everyone has the right to an opinion. The question is what weight should be given to any particular opinion. And in order to figure that out, I need to know, at the very least, the reviewer's name and then his or her biases.

A book review that appears in a newspaper or magazine has presumably been vetted by that institution, which has its reputation at stake if it deceives the reader. A newspaper's only currency, after all, is its credibility. Amazon.com, on the other hand, doesn't seem at all perturbed that the recent "glitch" in its system uncovered deception. That's the difference between an institution that considers itself a "marketing site" and newspapers that, hopefully, still adhere to a code of ethics.

Of course, even newspaper book editors can differ on what they consider a conflict of interest. One book critic, for example, famously would not let anyone review a book if they had so much as ridden on an elevator with the author.

I recently asked Jason Berry to review David France's "Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal" for the St. Petersburg Times book pages. As a tagline, I identified Jason Berry as the author of "Lead Us Not Into Temptation," a 1992 history of clergy sex abuse, and co-author of "Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II," forthcoming in March. France, who covered the sex-abuse scandal as an investigative editor at Newsweek, has contacted me, objecting to my choice, arguing that Berry is "the only writer in America with a pending book that competes directly with mine.'' Here's what he wrote in a letter to be published on the Times' book page:

(Berry's) book and mine have often been described in published accounts as head-to- head rivals; he has repeatedly highlighted this rivalry in conversations with me. Yet there he was in the pages of the (St. Petersburg) Times, appearing for all the world like a disinterested observer sharing his observations, some of which were less generous than Howard Dean's take on John Kerry. My book is about the dangers we court when we hide behind the mantle of authority to advance personal interests. In reviewing my book, Berry should have made his personal interests plain. Surely your readers deserve to know of any conflict of interest like this.

Personally, I don't mind reading a review even by an author's mother -- as long as I know it's Mom's opinion I'm getting. Then I can decide for myself how much weight to give it. I think I gave readers enough information for them to decide for themselves whether or not to trust Berry's take on France's book. But I'd love to hear what other book editors think about this.