Crime Fiction Dossier

Do rave reviews sell more books?

I.J. Parker asked a question over on Sarah's blog that got me thinking: why don't rave reviews translate into bigger sales for books?

(We'll assume for argument's sake that the premise is true. It's hard to measure the relationship between reviews and sales, as there is no direct method of tracking them. But I think that there is to at least some extent a disconnect between the two. I do believe that reviews sell books, but I'm not sure that the intensity of preference expressed by the reviewer makes much of a difference.)

I think that for most readers, reviews function more in the manner of advertising, rather than as specific motivators to buy. They make the consumer aware of the product, but they don't necessarily compel them to buy it. Therefore, the relative enthusiasm the reviewer expresses for the book, whether positive or negative, doesn't matter that much.

People see a review and it puts the book in their mind. So perhaps if they have some degree of interest in the author already, or if they see some subsequent reinforcement of that image, they might decide to buy the book. But I don't think there is a large number of readers who read a rave review and then, as a direct result, go out and buy the book. I would like to think that we, as reviewers, have that kind of influence, but I don't believe we do.

Obviously, this is all speculation, as we don't have the data to test the premise. (Although a few economists tried a while back, using some fuzzy Amazon data, and concluded that the positive or negative quality of the review did have an impact on sales.)

Perhaps the overall problem is a larger one, namely that readers don't pay a lot of attention to book reviews in the first place. I also don't think the average newspaper consumer is a careful reader of reviews. They'll be flipping through the paper and see a review of the new Dan Brown book and think, "Oh cool, the guy who wrote The Da Vinci Code has a new one out" but not stop to appreciate that the review is actually saying it's a piece of garbage.

I also wonder if the "grade inflation" in reviews -- too many raves for too many lousy books, a phenomenon I see all the time -- has caused consumers simply to discount the praise reviewers bestow upon books. This is also a significant risk, I think, of the proliferation of amateur online reviews, which are generally ill-considered and overly enthusiastic, if not outright puffery (paging Harriet Klausner).

I don't have any hard answers here, but I find it interesting to think about. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below.

Do statistics matter?

In my comments to yesterday's post, I made reference to the statistics collected by Sisters in Crime. That organization, dedicated to raising the awareness of female authors in the mystery field, conducts what they call the "Review Monitoring Project."

They collect data on dozens of publications, breaking down how many books by men are reviewed, versus how many books by women. (They aren't explicit about whether or not they only count books from the crime genre, but I suspect that they include everything.) Their mission is "to make sure women are reviewed as often as men."

Here are the stats for the two publications I review most frequently for:

Publication                   Percentage Male       Percentage Female
Chicago Sun-Times         64.46                      35.54
Philadelphia Inquirer       59.49                      40.51

The average for all the publications they track is: 56.23% male, 43.77% female.

My personal stats for 2006 were: 61% male, 39% female.
My stats for 2005 were: 55% male, 45% female.

I always make a conscious effort to review as many books by women as I can -- not because of statistics like this, but because I try to provide the best service possible to my readers, and reviewing books by only one sex or the other wouldn't do that.

Something about the whole project makes me uneasy, though. I recognize the importance of overcoming biases whenever possible. If those biases exist regarding review coverage, we need to identify them and figure out ways to overcome them.

But is it important that we have a rigid breakdown where half of all books reviewed are written by men and half by women? (Several of the publications they track have a precise 50-50 split between the sexes, which hardly seems like it could be accidental.)

Should the books themselves be the determining factor, or is the sex of the author a valid criteria for deciding what gets reviewed?

Since I do consider the author's sex when deciding what the write about, I suppose that's my answer. But I'm not sure it's the appropriate one.

Publishers Marketplace's Top Reviewers

Publishers Marketplace has launched a new feature listing the "Top Reviewers" -- those reviewers with 25 or more reviews in their database. They note that they began tracking reviews in October 2002, and they include primarily full-length reviews in major newspapers that post their reviews to the Web.

You have to be a subscriber to see the listings, so I'll share some stats with you here:

David J. Montgomery
28 reviews : 23 positive (82%), 4 neutral (14%), 1 negative (4%)
Philadelphia Inquirer (17); Chicago Sun-Times (5); Boston Globe (4); South Florida Sun-Sentinel (1); Washington Post (1)

(Since they only include full-length reviews, much of my work, which comes in column round-ups, is not included. They also seem to be missing a few that I thought of.)

Here are the stats from some other prominent crime fiction reviewers:

Janet Maslin
382 reviews : 189 positive (49%), 159 neutral (42%), 34 negative (9%)
New York Times (378); Boston Globe (3); Los Angeles Times (1)

Oline H. Cogdill
246 reviews : 189 positive (77%), 28 neutral (11%), 29 negative (12%)
South Florida Sun-Sentinel (246)

Patrick Anderson
191 reviews : 107 positive (56%), 58 neutral (30%), 26 negative (14%)
Washington Post (190); New York Times (1)

Carol Memmott
62 reviews : 50 positive (81%), 8 neutral (13%), 4 negative (6%)
USA Today (62)

Adam Woog
48 reviews : 40 positive (83%), 8 neutral (17%), 0 negative (0%)
Seattle Times (48)

Tom Nolan
44 reviews : 35 positive (80%), 9 neutral (20%), 0 negative (0%)
San Francisco Chronicle (16); Los Angeles Times (16); Wall Street Journal (10); Boston Herald (2)

Betsy Willeford
33 reviews : 11 positive (33%), 22 neutral (67%), 0 negative (0%)
Miami Herald (31); South Florida Sun-Sentinel (1); Houston Chronicle (1)

Paula L. Woods
29 reviews : 23 positive (79%), 3 neutral (10%), 3 negative (10%)
Los Angeles Times (28); Washington Post (1)

I'm pretty high up there on the positive/negative ratio, which is not surprising, since I tend to select books for full-length reviews that I have something good to say about. If the data were included from my round-up pieces, I imagine that percentage would drop.

Even so, I wonder if I write too many positive reviews and not enough negative ones.

Article on the decline of book coverage

Cheryl Reed, my editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, has an excellent article in the paper today about the decline in book coverage. I don't have much hope that all the attention this subject has been getting recently will make much difference. However, at least one newspaper executive still gets it.

Reed writes:

Concerned about the security of the book pages here, I asked Sun-Times Publisher John Cruickshank, a bibliophile and frequent reviewer in these pages, whether there were plans to cut books coverage here. His response: "The Opinion and Books sections of the paper have never attracted much advertising, but they are at the core of any paper's identity and the engagement a paper has with its community. We are committed to these sections because they are integral to the basic character of the Chicago Sun-Times."

Another book review section gone

Critical Mass, the blog of the National Book Critics Circle (of which I am a member), reports that the Atlanta Journal Constitution has eliminated its book editor position, possibly signaling the end of their independent book coverage.

What often happens in situations like this is that paper will continue a modest amount of coverage with wire stories or reviews pulled from other papers like the New York Times. Either that, or sometimes they just stop writing about books altogether.

Whenever newspapers make decisions like this, it always strikes me as being not only penurious, but short-sighted. Even if the powers-that-be don't believe that coverage of literature is worthwhile as a public service, you would think they would support it as an investment in their own future profits.

If newspapers don't help to promote a culture of reading, who do they think is going to read newspapers in the future? On the other hand, by fostering and encouraging a love and respect for reading, they're creating additional consumers for their product.

People buy the newspaper for the sports section, comics, horoscopes and Dear Abby. They don't buy the paper for the editorials, the international reporting or the book reviews. But cultural coverage, like international reporting and editorials, is still a valuable part of the product that newspapers provide.

Most newspapers generate significant revenues and many are quite profitable. Yet somehow too many of them can't seem to devote even a couple of pages to reviews of books. And that's a damn shame.

Books I can't review

I receive daily emails from authors requesting book reviews. I wish I could say yes every time, but unfortunately, the answer is more often no. I receive a couple hundred books a month and review maybe ten of them if I'm lucky.

Most of the time, I don't end up reviewing a book because I ran out of space, didn't have time to read it, didn't have anything to say about it, didn't finish it, didn't like it, or assorted reasons like that. There are some books, however, that I simply can't review.

In order to save all of us some time, here are some examples of the types of books I can't review:

• Books that have already been released. If your book is available by the time you email me, it's too late. I'm always reading at least a month ahead.
• Self-published or vanity press books. This includes anything from PublishAmerica, iUniverse, Lulu, Author House, Xlibris, etc.
• Books from publishers I've never heard of. This is a more flexible rule, but if the publisher isn't included on the approved list from either MWA or ITW, chances are I can't review it.
• Books available only in electronic form.
• Books that are reprints.
• Books that aren't mysteries, thriller or suspense novels. Occasionally I do review something outside the genre, but it's rare enough that you probably shouldn't get your hopes up.
• Although it's not a rule, the chances are slim that I can review a paperback original (PBO). I review more PBOs than more critics (I think), but it still only amounts to a couple a year. So you can query about them if you want, but be prepared for me to decline.

I've dealt with many of the reasons why I can't review these books in the past, but if you have a question, feel free to post a comment and I'll try to respond.

Does crime fiction have lousy characters?

In her New York Times review of Benjamin Black's Christine Falls, author Kathryn Harrison writes:

Mainstream literary novels succeed or fail on the strength of characterization, but noir fiction is less concerned with building complex and believable characters than with creating a medium in which murder and mayhem can thrive. Place is essential to noir, character less so.

That strikes me as nonsense, as the last thing I'm interested in reading is any kind of book (literary, crime, science fiction, picture book) that has weak, undeveloped characters.

If a novel has a great sense of place, or a cool plot, but it has flat, uninspired characters, that's not a very good book. It doesn't matter if it's "genre" or "literary" (whatever those terms actually mean).

I've been seeing a lot of this genre bashing going on lately (and posted about it a week or two ago). Just yesterday, I moderated a panel at the Virginia Festival of the Book that had 5 thriller writers on it. (Barry Eisler, MJ Rose, Lisa Unger, Matthew Jones, Robert Walker)

During the Q&A session, a guy in the audience looked at the panel with what I can only describe as aghast incomprehension and remarked "Listening to you 5 authors talk about the importance of creating characters, it sounds like you're literary writers. But you're supposed to be genre authors!" (I'm paraphrasing -- I think it was even more insulting than that.)

Perhaps the so-called literary folks are feeling the heat. Could it be that the massive sales of crime fiction novels are starting to get to them?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that these snobbish attitudes have more to do with fear and jealousy than anything else.

Advice for the aspiring book reviewer

One of the questions I get asked the most often is "How do I break into the business as a book reviewer?" The idea of getting paid to read books and write about them – coupled with all the free books you receive – is clearly something that interests a lot of people.

Unfortunately, the truth is that it's damn near impossible to get one of these gigs. Even once you do, there's not much work available and the pay ain't that great. (Typical pay for a book review is around $150-$200, unless you're writing for one of the largest papers.)

This is a very odd business. The smaller newspapers – which would be easier to break into – don't run book reviews. Only the larger newspapers – which have the most competition – run reviews. So the whole set-up is bass-ackwards.  (In my case, the first newspaper review I ever wrote was for the Washington Post.)

So if you're thinking about book reviewing as a job, you should probably think again. But it can still be a fun and rewarding pursuit (hobby? avocation?), assuming you've got the talent to make it work.

The first thing you need is some top-quality clips of reviews that you can show editors. These need to be well-written, insightful, professional and written in a journalistic style. Basically, they need to be of the same quality and nature as the majority of the reviews you read in the publication you hope to write for. You should have a handful of different reviews, including both raves and pans.

(Most of the reviews I read online would never hack it in a print publication. In order to succeed as a print reviewer, you have to demonstrate that you're as good as the people already doing the job, so your clips have to be excellent. Work on them until they're as fine as you can make them.)

It would also be helpful to have a compelling hook to get people interested in the first place. Something that you can set you apart, like you're a well-known blogger (some of the more-prominent bloggers have had success breaking into reviewing lately) or you're a published novelist or a professor of literature or an expert on medieval France. (Your hook, of course, should be related to the type of books you want to write about.)

When I started out, I didn't have much of a hook. I ran a mystery book review site (Mystery Ink), and I used those clips as samples of my work when talking to editors. Frankly, it seems like a miracle that anyone was interested – so maybe there's hope for others yet.

Once you've got your clips, here's what I recommend you do: Find out who the book review editor for the publication you're interested in is. Email him/her saying briefly who you are and what you do, and what your credentials are. Tell him/her you're interested in writing book reviews and ask if you can send some clips. Be prepared to hear no, or, even more likely, to hear nothing.

There might be a better way, but that's what I've always done. Chances of success are very low. Most of the time I get turned down, too, even with my track record. But it is possible. I see new names popping up all the time. You've got to be good, though, and you've got to be persistent.

On the other hand, if all you're interested in is reviewing books, you can start your own website or blog, or join up with one of the existing ones, and contribute that way. Granted, you're only going to be one quiet voice in the midst of the cacophony of crappy reviews that fill the internet. But if you're good, and if you have something interesting to say, people will pay attention. There is always a shortage of quality book reviews.

Mail call

I've mentioned often on this blog that I get a lot of books. Well, yesterday was a banner day here at Crime Reviewing Central. I got packages from the USPS, UPS, FedEx and DHL. Here's the breakdown:

Hardcover books -- 10
ARCs for hardcovers -- 4
ARCs for trade paperbacks -- 1
ARCs for paperbacks -- 2
Manuscript -- 1
Total books: 18

Here's what I plan to read:

Hardcovers -- 3 (Including 1 I've already read)
ARCs -- 2 (Including 1 I've already got)
Manuscript -- 1 (If I have time)
Total books planning to read: 6

That's actually a fairly high percentage of good stuff for this batch. The book I'm most looking forward to reading of these is Lee Child's new one, Bad Luck and Trouble.

Reviewers over-praising books, Pt. 2

In response to my post below about "Why reviewers over-praise books" there were two comments I wanted to highlight and address.

Brian F. asked:

Do you think gushing reviews come from a "need" to create a pull quote? When you're writing a review, do you ever say to yourself "If they decide to use this to publicize the book, how will this sentence look?"

Alexandra Sokoloff wrote:

Maybe this is just a Hollywood thing, but there are film reviewers who are known to hyperbolically praise everything because that guarantees they'll get their name and quote in the ads. Is there maybe some similar motivation with some book reviewers?

I'm cynical, but practical: a lot of reviewers also aspire to writing careers, and widely-read reviews are a good way for them to build a name and connections.

I think this might come into play to a certain extent. But I'm not sure it's a predominant cause, since pull quotes from book reviews almost never mention the reviewer's name. I get blurbed all the time, but the quotes always just say "Chicago Sun-Times" or "Philadelphia Inquirer" or whatever.

My name has only appeared on blurbs a few times that I can remember, and that's out of dozens and dozens of quotes of mine that have been used.

There is still an ego boost that comes from seeing one's review quoted, even if it's not attributed by name. No doubt. But I do think that the anonymous quality of them lessens the motivation.

Pull quotes are something that I do warn myself about in the back of my mind when I'm writing reviews, and I try not to write anything that would be an obvious blurb.

On the other hand, I do try to write active, engaging reviews with positive, punchy phrasing in them (assuming, of course, it's a positive review). That's what my readers are looking for, I think, so that's what I give them. But I am aware of how it can be used for promotional purposes.

I still think that the best way to get attention as a reviewer is to write thoughtful, sincere, quality reviews. That's what you build a career on, not heaping unwarranted praise. Granted, some folks might not be savvy enough to realize this.