Cormorant, Carol Windley, and conflicts of interest
Sharon Burnside’s Public Editor column in Saturday’s Toronto Star took on an explosive and controversial subject topic: book reviews. In particular, the Star’s review of Carol Windley’s Giller-nominated Home Schooling, in which the reviewer, Len Gasparini, declared at the outset that he’d never heard of the author before. Given that the review was ultimately unflattering, Windley’s publisher, Marc Côté of Cormorant Books wrote a letter to the editor that Windley’s previous awards and nominations were included with the review copy, and that, furthermore, Gasparini’s own novel had been rejected by Cormorant earlier this year.
Burnside, probably wondering where all these sparks were coming from, given how shy and retiring book people are, wades into the debate, declaring that Gasparini’s rejection was “a conflict of interest that should have been declared and shared with readers,” to which the Star Books Editor, Dan Smith, replies, “In Canada there’s no such thing as an unbiased reviewer.”
(Quillblog, by the way, finds both statements a bit of a stretch.)
After consulting, among other things, Q&Q’s own reviewing guidelines (which are available on our website), Burnside draws a much more reasonable conclusion. Namely that, even though “some [in the book industry] argue there is no point in publishing negative reviews, and some reviewers will not review books they don’t like … the newspaper’s responsibility is to pursue the truth…. People who read book reviews want to know if a book is worth reading. And they shouldn’t have to read between the lines.”
Amen to that, though we can’t help but note that these perceptions of conflict arise only when the review in question is negative…
Related links:
Read Sharon Burnside’s column here
Go here to read Q&Q’s starred review of Home Schooling
Go here to read Q&Q’s reviewing guidelines
A lot of people who read book reviews do so only because they want to be able to appear conversant at cocktail parties.
Dear Quillblog,
You all know me much better than to suggest that my letter(s) to the Star were motivated by only the negative review of HOME SCHOOLING.
Len Gasparini is entitled to his opinion and, even if I disagree, I’ll uphold that right. What Len should be mindful of is making the statement that Carol Windley had published two books before, lived on Vancouver Island, and, beyond that, he knows nothing of her. Nothing? Her publishing record, with award nominations and wins was provided in the press release and was on the cover of the book. He did know more, but withheld it. Why did he withhold it? Because he intended to write a negative review. Had he written “Carol Windley has an impressive string of award nominations and wins, to which she adds a nod from this year’s Giller jury. These accomplishments noted, I still found the stories lacking …” I could not have argued.
Have I ever picked up the phone or written an email or letter to the Quill when any Cormorant title has received a negative review? Have I ever done the same to Martin Levin at The Globe and Mail? The answer is no. If I don’t like a review, because it has errors, I’ll point it out — but that’s about as far as I go.
Although the Quill, the Globe, and other papers are naming HOME SCHOOLING as one of the best books of the year, one or two other venues have disagreed strongly — and they have not heard from me. Nor will they. (In fact, my earlier example of what Mr. Gasparini should have written is a paraphrasing of one of those reviews.)
When I was an itinerant book reviewer, Jack Kapica, then the Globe’s book review editor, gave me several pieces of advice — “An author spent a year or more of his life writing the book you’re going to review in a day. Remember that.” and “A completely negative or dismissive review doesn’t help any one.” Sound advice — a version of which is in Quill’s guidelines.
Good book reviewing isn’t always about a positive review, it’s about providing the reader with sufficient information upon which to base his or her decisions. It’s a conversation, not a rant.
Enough said. I have to get back to work.
Marc Côté, Publisher
Cormorant Books Inc.
Marc Côté never reviewed for the Torotno Star, nor did he approach the Star at any time in search of such a gig. He has reviewed for Quill & Quire, The Globe and Mail, and, among others, the now-defunct Canadian Forum. Cormorant Books advertises in The Globe and Mail and in Quill & Quire, but not to either company’s satisfaction. Cormorant Books has not advertised in the Toronto Star.
“Have I ever picked up the phone or written an email or letter to the Quill when any Cormorant title has received a negative review? Have I ever done the same to Martin Levin at The Globe and Mail?” The Glob doesn’t publish bad reviews, does it?
Negative reviews are motivated by a host of reasons, sometimes even bad writing. (Which is why it’s high time blogs like this got reviewed too). Writers like me pray–several times a day–for publishers like Marc Côté because he backs Cormorant’s writers all the way, and then some. That’s why Cormorant keeps getting better and better.
Of course, the big Q is, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not the reviewer has heard of the author? The book should speak for itself. Or not. And as for Smith’s assertion that there’s no such thing as an unbiased review, his comment speaks volumes about his disdain for those of us who review our peers. So what I want to know is, why does he have his job? Then again, nothing surprises me about who says what about whom in the bitchy village of Toronto.
OK, so now it’s bean-spilling time. My next book (if it’s any good) is getting published by Cormorant. I wrote and published a not -too-bad book eight years ago but the experience almost put me off wanting to continue writing. However, Marc has been a constant source of support and motivation, as he has been for writers across this country, and he is the only reason I’m back in the saddle.
I wish more publishers had his guts.