An article by Mary Hoffman
At a recent conference of the SAS (Scattered Authors Society) I carried out a mini-survey to see how far people were influenced in their reading habits by reviews. It was very unscientific, of course, and my sample was far from representative: all children's writers. But it was interesting to see that nearly 100% ticked ørecommendation from a friend," and øanother book by an author you like." 22 ticked øreview" though and 14 marked øquotations on jacket from reviewers," (though one person put a vehement øno!" by that one).
Very few people were influenced by advertisements, or by books being piled high on bookshop tables or the fact that a film was in the pipeline. Interviews with or articles about the book influenced 21 of the sample, though again the same person said øno" to this one. The genre of book and the impression made by the first few paragraphs were almost as important as reviews and scored 20 each. The jacket design, jacket blurbs and having been on a prize list were all strong factors with most people, scoring 16 or 17 ticks.
So from this very limited survey it would seem that reviews are one of the reasons, even if not the main one for buying or reading a book. We talked about what effect they had on sales or a book's popularity. One member said the sales for her latest book on Amazon went up after a good review in the Daily Mail. And sheer volume of reviews can have an influence.
Most people felt it mattered who had written the review and some were put off by a bad review, though a controversy like the one stirred up by Anne Fine's attack on Melvin Burgess's Doing It tended to make sales go up. The general consensus was that publishers place a higher value on a good review than anyone else.
Many SAS members have been exercised about actually getting their books reviewed. With ten or twelve thousand children's books still being published every year, there are a lot of titles fighting for space on the review pages. Children's books are reviewed regularly in the TES, TLS, the national broadsheets and some tabloids, and in the specialist press, like Carousel, Books for Keeps and School Librarian. People drew attention to the importance of the local press, who will often carry reviews ¨ do your own Press Release if your publisher hasn't already contacted them.
Reviews online, such as at Achuka, Wordpool newsletter, Reading Zone and of course Armadillo, are a growing source of influence. There was quite a discussion about the value of reviews on the Amazon sites. Amazon will not withdraw an adverse review, however biased or unsupported by argument, but since the most recent reviews are listed at the top, if you get one, the thing to do is to encourage fans to write their own and push the negative one further down. Quantity of reviews is also another consideration on Amazon.
There was a general agreement that publicity material by publishers ¨ sweets, paperweights, even a bun in one case ¨ did not encourage reviewers to take notice of a book they would otherwise not have selected for review. Personal contact and writing your own Press Release were mentioned again, though I'm not sure how keen publicity departments would be on this last.
As someone who does actually select what to review and what not, let me just give you a few of my criteria:
When we get down to the last few cuts, I think I am as susceptible as anyone else to a fabulous cover, intriguing title or really intelligent blurb and a stunning beginning will do it every time. But an author's track record will also influence me. I thought neither the title or cover of Ann Turnbull's No Shame, No Fear particularly gripping. But she is a fine writer and I was soon hooked and reviewed it myself.
I must admit to a crushing weariness of pink, glitter and anything with a fairy on the front but I try not to let that influence me too much. I also have a resistance to jokey, comicky, graphic jackets, though the style used on Hilary McKay's Casson family jackets (Saffy's Angel etc) gives an recogniseable brand image to the undoubtedly fine books.
The award for this goes to the person who sent in an uncommissioned review on the Armadillo website template. Let's say the book was called øTwerp" since I don't want to give the real book any publicity. The øreview" read like a Press Release and the øreviewer's" e-mail address was, as it were, twerpster@hotmail.com. When I sent a polite refusal to publish, it bounced back immediately; the writer had clearly set up a free webmail address in order to submit the review. I'm assuming she was the publicity officer at a small publisher or perhaps the wife of the author of a self-published children's book.
The most difficult balance has to be struck between plot summary and evaluation. Look carefully at the reviews in this issue and you will find that Armadillo reviewers do a good job of this. It's also useful to have something about the author's previous books and career and a comparison with other books or writers may be helpful. I also like to see some direct text quotation.
Examples are always invidious but I commend you to Julia Jarman's review of Happy Birthday to you, Blue Kangaroo and John Dougherty's of I want to go home, Douglas Hill's of Dragonfire, Cindy Jefferies' of Leaving Poppy and Celia Rees's of Pirateology in this issue.
These are random examples and by no means indicate that the other reviewers aren't doing the job equally well. But I have to pause to enjoy a warm little glow that Armadillo can get its pirate books reviewed by Celia Rees, the pirate queen and its dragon books by Douglas Hill the dragon master. Not to mention that our poetry is usually reviewed by Adele Geras and we boast such fine writers as Linda Newbery, Catherine Johnson and Lee Weatherly. But not just writers ¨ also teachers, librarians, parents and children and teenagers (in this issue Hannah Winterton, Charlotte Davidson, Adam Catlin, Patrick Barry and Seb Goffe).
By far and away the most work I have to do on reviews is correcting the punctuation! Reviewers please note the non-fiction review in this issue or get yourself your own copy of the adult version of Eats, Shoots and Leaves. So imagine my chagrin at seeing the Guardian sub-editor had this month made a øcorrection" in my review of The Medici Seal. The possessive plural form of øde' Medici's" had been changed to øMedicis'." If you are not a Stickler (to use Lynne Truss's coinage), this will mean nothing to you. Otherwise you can share my pain.
Another common problem is the dangling participial phrase. For a fictitious example: øOozing gorgeousness from the jacket, the writer has created a glamorous world €" In other words, the writer is doing the oozing, not the book. You find this sort of thing in published reviews all the time. But not in Armadillo.
Nor will you find people øpouring over a book", or expressions like ødifferent than" and ønauseous" (of people) even if that's what the reviewer wrote. Autocratic I know, but there have to be some rewards for editing a review magazine pro bono for eight years!