Leopold McGinnis dot com

I HOPE YOU’VE GOT A GOOD LAWYER!
Why indie artists can’t get a fair shake from the mainstream.

* originally written for the ULA's Monday Report, August, 2006 *

In the Case of The People (represented by the ULA) vs. the Conglomerate Newspaper Book Reviewers

The Issue at Stake: Why independent authors can’t get a fair shake from ‘mainstream’ book reviewers.

Arguments of the Prosecution, presented by Leopold McGinnis of the ULA.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I’m going to talk to you today about justice. Or the lack of it for independent authors and zeensters. Now, many of you might suppose that a book reviewer’s job is to find good books or bad books and review them. And nobody would blame you for supposing this since it is the impression given by the papers themselves, by the television shows and the teachers and the conversations you overhear on the subway. Yes, this information floats in the ether of generic public knowledge. Many of you might also imagine that the book reviewer’s importance in society is their expertise on books, in fact their only importance. We read them solely because they point us towards the good and steer us from the bad. Or, at the very least, give us an idea of what’s out there.

Now some of you who might have a little bit of expertise in the matter are snickering. Why? Because you know this isn’t true. In fact, as any indie author can tell you, book reviewers regularly refuse to review independent books, let alone even acknowledge your inquiries. But it goes much deeper than that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have a couple experiences I’d like to share with you. I bring to the jury’s attention Exhibit A: Game Quest.

I am the independent author of this novel, a comedic look about the hostile takeover of a computer gaming company in the mid 90s. I may be small fry, but so far I’ve managed to sell 60 copies of my book (in 6 months) with help from other independent authors, small time reviewers and people adventurous enough to try it out. My book is sitting on the shelves of several big name bookstores and has received consistently good reviews. As you can see, my book is professionally made and looks as good as any out there. I have convinced several small zines and internet communities to review it. Yet I have been able to generate no interest from everyday papers in reviewing my book.

In fact, one newspaper reviewer I was in contact with stated that he ‘never reviewed any independent book on principle.’ When pressed further on the matter, he claimed that the reason lay in that if he reviewed one independent book, he’d have to review them all. Let’s shy away from the obvious flaws in this logic for a brief moment, and get to the net effect. Although this reviewer (at a Canadian paper) would never see it this way, he was confessing to being a corporate shill. In other words, he’d only review books that big name publishers put before him. He was, like it or not, a paid employee of Random House. Sure, he can give Random House books bad reviews, but in only reviewing corporate books (which are, let me remind you, all run by a narrow conglomeration of 8 corporations who also own the papers) he is doing the exact opposite of what a book reviewer’s job should be, to hunt around for good books, do the legwork, and review them. Not only is he the owner of hair club for men, but he is also a member - hawking the books of the people who pay his bills.

Another book reviewer, this one local to my city, further reinforced this information, saying that ‘no mainstream newspaper will review an independent book.’ Why? Since this information came through a friend who knows the reviewer, I wasn’t able to get the information. But just let me say this, refusing to even look at a book merely because of the way it was published smacks a bit of…prejudice! Book racism, perhaps.

Now, having jumped into this independent authors game myself, I can see some points for not wanting to review independent work. There is little point in reviewing a book that isn’t available in bookstores. I’d argue that with the advent of Amazon on the web, there is little reason why a book reviewer can’t review an indie book and point their readers in this direction (or to the author’s website), instead of reviewing a book that surely every other book reviewer in the country has reviewed. However, as mentioned, my book is in several local bookstores and I have yet to be told that lack of availability is the reason behind not reviewing indie books. The answer would lay unspoken. But not for long.

Not long after this it so happened that a book reviewer from the Dallas Morning News, Jerome Weeks, wrote about literary journals in Texas. Remarkably, he also mentioned Tom Hendrick’s zine, [link to the site]Musea in the piece. In the underground literary world, in Texas, particularly, which has next to no bookstores that will carry independent books, the earth shook. I sent an email to Mr. Weeks commending him on his article and further asking why, if he was concerned about the state of literature in America, he himself (and other book critics) didn’t start reviewing outside of the box? The only interesting things happening in lit these days are outside the conglomo circle-jerk. And even if you don’t believe that, why not at least review ONE indie book and see if it’s so bad. After all, it’s what people expect book reviewers to do!

I have to give a good round of praise to Mr. Weeks because he actually responded to my letter and told me why not. In a world where the mainstream often pretends you don’t exist at all, this was a breath of fresh air. Mr. Weeks had this to say:

It is the policy of[…] every major daily newspaper I know of, every national magazine not to review self-published or print-on-demand books. […]Our legal department has advised strongly against it.

This is why: If we print a review of a book that has libelous material in it, we open ourselves to a lawsuit -- we helped spread the libel. If that book comes from an established publisher, it has been vetted by their legal department, so such a likelihood is considerably lessened. Even if a possible libel gets through, their vetting process is our defense. We can't be expected to vet every film, every book, every music CD we review. Moreover, if someone is keen on going to court for damages, who are they likely to sue -- us or the big media conglomerate in New York?

Now, consider an 'independently published' book. We have no defense whatsoever. No one has vetted the work. In all likelihood, no one has even edited it. And in the case of a libel suit, who will be the probable target -- the author, who has no money, or us?

It is very commendable for Mr. Weeks to pass this information on, but the prosecution contends that this excuse won’t cut the mustard for several reasons:

An important question: Should legal departments be in charge of what constitutes read-worthy culture? No wonder the state of popular literature is in such a mess! It’s the best of what the lawyers like!
Statement: Print-on-demand is a book-printing process and has nothing to do with the quality of the book itself. A lot of university and small presses (who could be considered ‘legitimate’, unlike myself) use this method. It produces the same quality (often higher) than a paperback, but makes small runs more affordable. This argument is akin to saying we don’t review books with red covers.
Considering the recent controversy surrounding James Frey, Nasdijj and others about ‘truth’ in literature, the conglomo presses are FAR from covering their asses. Considering the plagiarism cases cropping up against books like How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got A Life, the conglo-8 are far from keeping legal issues outside of their books.
Libel, the most contentious (and ridiculous) argument for the abject refusal to look at independent work. Newspapers take quotes, stories and press releases from the general public all the time. These are more likely to be libellous than an independent’s work of fiction! Newspapers and magazines do things such as fact checking. When they print a mistake they print a retraction several days later in the back of the paper where no one will see it. Reporters take Press Releases from organizations and print them verbatim, ad nauseam as news. It’s hard to understand how one independent book, if by some stroke of miracle it gets reviewed and people read it, could cause this type of trouble. I’m no lawyer (though my mom is), but I find it difficult to imagine that there’d be much of a case here. I also know that libel suits are notoriously hard to win, particularly in the case of fiction.

Book reviewers are, after all, allowed to use their discretion. Saying book reviewers can’t be expected to ‘vet’ every indie book, cd, etc. that comes across their desk is ridiculous. They only have to ‘vet’ the one they review. Reporters (supposedly) go out, do research, find facts and report the truth. What they’re saying is that they can’t be expected to do their jobs.
‘In all likelihood no one has even edited [the independent book].’ Spoken like a true reviewer who has never read an independent book! Mr. Weeks isn’t alone in this belief, and it could have come out of the mouth of any book reviewer across the country. So now we get down to the truth beneath the matter. Independent books aren’t taken seriously. They’re not legitimate or worthy of reading. The are amateur vanity-presses, stories by little old grannies who don’t know the first thing about writing a good story, let alone what an editor is. Hey, they just had this money sitting around and suddenly managed to turn a self-indulgent, lazy Sunday fart into a professionally designed book and distribute it to bookstores and get favourable reviews in several independent publications. It takes no skill, dedication, vision or work at all! As everyone will tell you, doing something a different way from everyone else takes no skill at all!

silence…

read comments (0) / Comment!

...return to the non-fiction! page