Why don’t we review every local author’s book?
We don’t review every local author’s book. We can’t - we don’t have the space, time or freelance budget. Plus, there are more books published now than ever before.
I’ve been book editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for 13 years. In that time, the number of books published in America has gone from approximately 60,000 per year to 175,000-200,000. In that time, we increased our book coverage, in part through the creation of an A&E section.
But we no longer have an Everyday section, where we also used to run feature stories about local and national authors and even book reviews. This is disappointing to everyone. However we have written stories or reviews about dozens of books by local authors and continue to publish them. I am constantly amazed by accusations that we don’t review local authors - I can call up from archives a lot of evidence to the contrary.
However, we don’t review every local author. The P-D has run book reviews for some 60 years. The policy has long been that we don’t review self-published or paperback books (although we have ‘violated’ that policy several times in the last 10 years).
We usually look for the best books - the most interesting, important or well-written that will appeal to the widest number of readers.
We try to find books that St. Louis readers will be interested in - or should be interested in. Some reasons we (and most book editors) choose not to review a book: poor quality, poor writing, little new material, obscure or boring subject matter. For first novels, if a reviewer doesn’t think much of it, we’ll usually decide not to review it rather than smash a young writer’s ego.
Some local authors don’t let us know about their books or don’t communicate in a professional way, indicating that the publication may not be well done either.
We can’t return review copies. Despite all those warnings, we do like looking at, considering and finding wonderful books by local authors.
If you want to submit a book for possible review, mail it to Jane Henderson, Post-Dispatch Book Editor, 900 North Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63101.
Jim raises many of excellent points. As does Kay. Simply put, writing is one of the most frustrating things I’ve ever done. It’s also one of the most rewarding things. The subjectivity of it is frightening. So, as I submit my new novel for reviews, I’m feeling both emotions at once.
As far as book signings go, Vickie Erwin at Main Street Books is fantastic. She opened her doors to me, put up a fantastic display and treated me like royalty. Helen Simpson and Ed King of Big Sleep Books did the same. I’ve found that Borders Books is willing to give local authors a shot, even with a small traditional press. I’ve had no luck with the other big booksellers in St. Louis.
Just to prove how odd the publishing business is, I had to use every ounce of persuasion I could muster to get St. Louis County Public Library to get in a couple copies of my books. (BTW, I just noticed by mid-October all the branches will have a copy. Which is fantastic.) However, St. Charles City/County Libraries were pleased to order it and even asked me to do some panels, which were fun and rewarding.
I do have a question, Jane. My book was published in both hardback and trade paperback, not yet in mass market. Yet a world-class author like John Lutz (a local author) is published in mass market paperback only. Now I know you’ve reviewed John, but I’ve heard there is a reluctance to review books that aren’t available in hardback. Why is that?
Willybegolfer: Traditionally we passed on paperbacks because they were usually reprints or were mass market genre books that weren’t of the quality we look for.
Today, many good books come out as original paperbacks. We do review some of them. We have even reviewed John Lutz in paperback because of his experience and reputation and because one of our reviewers is a big fan!
Keep in mind that it’s always about what is likely to appeal to readers - it’s usually not about doing an individual author a favor. And yes, many readers veer toward authors they have heard of and have read before. Should they take a chance on new authors - sure. But it’s really their decision. I think book reviewers want to do both: Tell readers about authors they really care about and find authors who nobody’s heard of but who have written a good book.
As I say every fall for our end-of-the-year roundup: We don’t have space to review every good book. Just because we didn’t review it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a worthwhile book.
Perhaps we need more book review pages, web sites?
On “Church Booty”: I have a reviewer who is reading - and loving - “Church Booty.” Look for a review to run in October.
And the only way I heard about this was from a reader. I don’t remember receiving a review copy. I believe it’s a paperback original.
On everyone getting a chance: Sure, that would be great. It’s a matter of logistics. One thing review sections complain about is advertising: Do publishers and authors support daily newspapers’ review sections with advertising? For the New York Times, yes. For many others, no.