Full disclosure, or why I sometimes wish I were Marilyn Stasio

I was just about to post about the Washington Post's apology for Marianne Wiggins' review of John Irving's new novel on my own, but David Montgomery beat me to it. In a nutshell:

Irving's Until I Find You, an 824-page novel based partly on the author's relationship with his father, was panned in a July 10 review by Marianne Wiggins as a "mass of lazy, unrefined writing."

Wiggins, herself a novelist and National Book Award finalist, also declared that "The story reads as if Irving woke from a recurring nightmare and started dictating compulsively."

Wiggins wasn't the only reviewer to dislike Irving's book, but she was likely the only one once married to author Salman Rushdie, a longtime friend of Irving's. Noting that he had a personal relationship with Wiggins, Irving complained to the Post, which requires critics to sign agreements that "any contact, friendly or otherwise, with the author of this book" should be disclosed to the paper.

In an "Editor's Note" published Sunday, the Post stated: "Had we known that Irving had dedicated one of his earlier novels (A Son of the Circus) to Marianne Wiggins' ex-husband, Salman Rushdie, and had we known that Irving and Wiggins had socialized with each other in the past, we would not have made the assignment.

"We apologize to our readers for this misstep."

Like David, every time I have reviewed for The Post, I've been asked to sign a contract that indicates whether I've had any conflicts of interest. And so I also have to wonder how this could have been overlooked when the review was assigned, and why no one bothered to check until Irving himself complained.

But full disclosure -- or often, the lack thereof -- is too often a dirty little secret in the world of reviewing. How transparent should reviewers be? What constitutes a conflict of interest? These are things I think about constantly, and some of those thoughts appear after the jump.

In a perfect world, a reviewer could completely divorce his or her feelings about a book from everything else. Put it in a vacuum. Isolate it from the larger context of a genre, a literary ouevre, whatever. And make sure that he or she is only judged by the words appearing on the page.

But of course, that's not the case. In the mystery world, I think reviewers can be divided into two categories: those that mingle, and those that do not. It's a no-brainer as to which one I belong to; I don't believe I would have been able to write any review whatsoever had I not already been an active fan, participating on various internet message boards. And even when there are times when I wish I could drop back, I can't -- nor do I particularly want to. Also, here on the blog, I can be as subjective as I like -- the URL does bear my name, after all.

Yet it makes things difficult, especially in regards to my column. Luckily I only have 5 books a month to review, and so in theory, I can endeavor to pick books by people I've never met, never exchanged an email, never socialized with in any way, shape or form. But with every book I view for potential inclusion, I have to ask if there could be any sort of bias involved, things like:

If they've posted comments on my blog or we've exchanged emails

If we both frequent the same message boards or blogs (public or private)

If I've been on a panel with them, as moderator or fellow panelist

If I've gone out for drinks and the author has bought me a drink or food or whatnot

If a publicist or editor has taken me out to lunch or drinks and we talk about authors at their publishing house or list

If an author or publisher has placed an ad on my blog

Some have obvious answers, others less so. And one easy way to get around it is to review as many new authors (or at least, new/unknown to me) as possible, or not to review the same author twice in a row, or something like that. Another way, which is not really possible for me, is to take off some of the hats. Can one really be an effective book reviewer if one's also writing and editing fiction, blogging, freelancing, and socializing? Or does it work the other way around, and the reviews are enhanced by doing all those things?

That's why I titled this post the way I did. Sure, I have issues with how Marilyn Stasio reviews some books, but she's chosen (at least to the best of my knowledge) to keep herself away from the mystery world. Say what you will, but at least doesn't have to struggle with the kinds of questions I do.

It's possible I'm making a bigger deal of this than I should, but there are two things at work in my mind: first, I grew up with the concept of marat eyin, or making sure not to do things -- no matter how innocuous -- where others can obviously judge you to be a worse person than you are. Sometimes I don't care what others think, but it's usually a conscious choice made after weighing pros and cons. But when your actions affect others -- and in the case of book reviewing, your words definitely affect others -- I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Second, when I see a review -- literary, genre or otherwise -- written by someone who has such an obvious conflict of interest, or even a less obvious one (like the time a review roundup by one noted critic included the book of his on-again, off-again significant other) -- it annoys me. Because with so many books out there that merit attention, why put yourself in the position that someone can judge you about conflicts of interest?

So let me put it to you: do any of these things even come into play when you're reviewing a book or more importantly, reading a review? Is it even fair of me to make distinctions between what I post on the blog (obviously subjective) or what's in my column (objective by appearance)? Or is there a reason hardly anyone else asks these particular questions?

Comments

[John Kenyon]

A personal relationship shouldn't always be a deal breaker, but if it exists, it should always be made known. For newspaper reviews, those with a personal relatioship (one or two degrees, perhaps?) are probably best disqualified. But elsewhere, such as online or in a magazine piece where there is a bit more depth and a chance to more fully explore things, a review from a friend of the writer (or enemy, for that matter), if the relationship is out in the open, could be quite enlightening, bringing a perspective to the review otherwise unavailable.

[Natsuo]

As a reader of reviews, I sure would like to know if a review is biased or not. At the same time, I wouldn't belive a 100% objective reivew exists. Maybe this is why there is hardly anyone asking these questions? Maybe most of the people have already seen reviews as subjective opinions?

[Jenny D]

I think the question of propriety/appearances is an important one, but I also think this may be overly scrupulous. A personal relationship like the Wiggins-Irving thing should be signaled in the text of the review, either by the parenthetical "(full disclosure: ...)" thing, which is annoying stylistically but necessary; or, if the review is written in a more personal voice, in the form of an anecdote or a recollection or whatever that lays out the relevant connection. But these worlds really are small. I wouldn't review a good friend's book, but I'd review a book written by someone I'd met a few times or, say, gone to university with but didn't really hang out with there. In academic book reviewing, it is much more standard to review books of people you know quite well, without any official disclosure. The same questions of propriety arise, but on the whole, as long as you're not writing about someone who is either a teacher or a student of your own, or a very close friend/colleague, other kinds of connection wouldn't usually be an obstacle to assigning a review.

[Mary]

Yeah, in academia they often ask you to recommend people to review your stuff (proposals, books, etc.). In part that's because everything has gotten so specialized.

[Sarah N]

Hi Sarah W! off topic comment here; just thought you might be interested in this: http://writersblogalliance.com/ some sort of networking site for writers who blog (rather than a resource site for writers, or a community blog about writing, its just for writers who also blog, as opposed to the usual poltics and tech blog networks.)

[MissSnark]

The "aha, that explains it!" of personal connection first came to my attention when a medium size market daily paper's mystery reviewer seemed to REALLY love books from St Martins. He was published there. SMP does publish a lot of mysteries, but 2/3? Not hardly.

The now famous Jorie Graham incidents--selecting poetry contest winners who were not only known to her but romantically involved with her--another "this isn't kosher" revelation (thanks to a blogger by the way).

As blogging increases, and the number of places posting reviews increase, it's harder to avoid some contact but high on the list of people I don't reviewing MY client's works are the ex-spouses of their best friends. Not even if everyone says they're all friends.

I think Sarah's list should be two strikes you're out: you can review the book if you have one yes answer/connection, and it is disclosed, but anything more than that, no way.

[Jon Jordan]

If I had to stop reviewing people I know, I'd review three maybe four books a year.

I write honest reviews, if the book is good I say so, if I didn't like it, I don't review it.

[Donna]

As a reader, it doesn't bother me if reviews are subjective. And in a lot of cases I know that they are to some degree, because I am aware that the reviewer and reviewee are at least acquainted(there are limits of course - I don't think someone with particularly personal knowledge - a bitter ex-spouse of, or the mother of the author, etc etc should be given the task of reviewing books by that author (or if they do it should be disclosed in the review - and maybe the criteria for disclosure should be "I have seen this author in his/her underwear" :o) )).

There's always going to be some element of subjectivity in a review - it's a personal reaction to a book. The reviewer might have had a childhood altercation with a rabid squirrel and come off worst, and any scene in the book involving squirrels, no matter how small (the scene, not the squirrels), could colour the review.

I think most reviewers (and I say MOST) - whether amateur or professional - tend to review as honestly as they can and, well, if they don't, after being burned a couple of times then I just don't bother with their reviews any more. For me, reviews are generally a heads up about a book I may not have known aboout and anything that brings crime fiction to the notice of a wider readership is OK by me.

What was the question again?

Donna