Bev Walker wrote: > With my editor's hat on, I would like to explain something about review > etiquette in paper publications. > When a publisher sends a review copy, it is with the intent that the > publication will write a positive review.
Of course a publisher wants a positive review, but my opinion is that publications should give good and bad reviews according to the quality of the book - newspapers certainly publish reviews saying this is a bad book. I've reviewed books for the UK Lace Guild magazine. The instructions ask for certain factual content, but don't restrict what judgement I can make on a book. If I were given a book I considered bad, then I would say so and why. The worst review I've given was a tatting book that had nothing new or interesting in it, just more of things already available elsewhere. That review was published; so far as I know a more negative view would also be published. > In the Canadian Lacemaker Gazette we write as objective a review as > possible to help our readers make a decision if the book is 'for them' > or not. Our bias is that a book will be useful for some lacemaker, > somewhere, and it is our job to put the book in a good perspective. I world prefer to be told the flaws in a book as well as its virtues, so that I can decide whether they are important to me. I don't understand how a reviewer can be objective while at the same time "put the book in a good perspective" if it's a poor quality book. Regards Steph [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
