THE TEN COMMANDMENTS III

Ten Commandments of Getting a Book Reviewed
By David J. Montgomery

1. Thou must send the the book to the reviewer. This is the most important point, and it's something you'll hear me say repeatedly. There simply is no way around it. If I don't get the book, I can't review it. And, unfortunately, that happens more often than you'd think.

2. Thous must make sure the book arrives in time. Usually this means 6-8 weeks prior to publication date. If I don't get the book until it's available in stores, there's very little chance that I'll be able to review it.

3. Thou must tell the reviewer when the book will be published. Sometimes it seems like it would be easier to get the formula for Coke than to find out when a book is actually going to be available. It's very time consuming to scramble around, trying to nail down the
publication date of a book. So please, spare me the trouble and just tell me. That way, I know how to time my review.

4. Thou must learn who the reviewers are. In any genre or area of publishing, there are certain reviewers who write most frequently about your kind of book. Learn who those people are and get them the book. Have I made it clear yet how crucial it is to get your book in the right hands? There are no reviews without achieving this. None.

5. Thous must put your name in the mind of the reviewer. If a book arrives on my desk and I've never heard the author's name before and never heard of the book, all I have to go by is a press release and the jacket copy. It's very hard to make an impression from such a cold start.

6. Thou must make the book stand out from the crowd. I can't tell you how to do this -- that's why I'm not a publicist. But if the book arrives as just one of a pack of dozens, the chances of it getting noticed are rather slim. There are just too many books and too little review space.

7. Thou must print and distribute your own ARCs if the publisher doesn't do it for you. This is especially true of PBOs (paperback originals). Some critics won't review PBOs, but some will. I do. But if I don't get the book until it's already in the store, it's probably too late.

8. Thou must not alienate, infuriate or otherwise piss off the reviewers. I know, it's not fair. They can write whatever they want about your book and you aren't allowed to respond. It sucks -- but who ever said that life is fair? A review is just one person's opinion, even if it is printed in the New York Times. It's not worth getting in a pissing match over. Authors never win pissing matches with critics.

9. Thou must be persistent. The harsh reality is that the chances of any given book being reviewed are slim. I get a minimum of 100 books every month, and the number is usually closer to 200. Out of those, I review 6 or 7. That's why you have to plan for the long term. Maybe this book won't be reviewed, but if you're able to build word-of-mouth, you've got a
better chance with the next one.

10. Thou must write a book that's worthy of being reviewed. This is the hardest commandment of all to follow. Most books are very similar to other books. They tell the same old stories in the same old ways. Critics want to write about interesting books. They
want to review books that are new or different, books that excite them, that move them. They want to write about books that cry out to be read. If you write a book like that, your chances of being reviewed increase substantially.

David J. Montgomery writes about authors and books for several of the
country's largest newspapers. He recently completed his first novel, a thriller called Counterstrike.

Comments

[Jennifer Jordan]

Completely agree and wonder how these simple commandments are not considered just common sense. Especially getting the book out in time for the reviewers deadlines and... wait. I sense a rant that would contain all the information you listed so nicely. I'll stop now.

Thank, Mr. M.

[Roddy Reta]

As a reader, I agree completely with Commandment #10.

[Rachel Kramer Bussel]

This is very interesting, from the perspective of someone who both reviews books, and has my books reviewed.

In light of #8, I'm curious what he'd (or you, MJ) think about Katha Pollitt's response to Ana Marie Cox's review of her book Virginity or Death! in the New York Times Book Review.

There's an interesting interview with her about it at the Huffington Post. see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-feige/feminist-smackdown-how-k_b_28286.html

Clearly, she did the opposite. I'm inclined to think that even if it boosted sales, by breaking this rule it still made her look like she cared too much. Even though I can see where she would take issue with Cox, she seems to make some of the same personal attacks, and it makes the level of criticism just further descend.

[Lorra Laven]

Hi David -

Congratulations on completing your first novel; a great accomplishment.

Also, thanks for these useful tips.

[David J. Montgomery]

I hadn't heard of this dust up, but I just clicked over and read the author's response. I thought it was funny and self-deprecating, and not insulting to the reviewer at all. (I'll confess, I didn't pour over it, so I might have missed something subtle.)

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I once ran into a thriller writer at a conference whose book I had recently reviewed. I gave it positive marks, but did quibble a bit on a couple of points. When she saw me, she raised an eyebrow and, in her charming and reserved British way, quoted one of the negative lines from my review. I laughed and was a bit chagrined -- but mostly I was just flattered that she'd read the review and remembered.

It's all in how you handle it.

The kind of thing I'm talking about in the Commandments is really more along the lines of publicly griping or whining about a bad (but fair) review. I think that makes the author look petty.

You wouldn't think it would happen among professionals, but it does. I've even had authors I've reviewed send me nasty notes by email, complaining and insulting me. (And I'm hardly known for my poison pen. I'm generally considered to be a pretty positive critic.)

In almost all cases, I don't think there's any profit in it for the author. I know it must be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything. (What is the author hoping will happen?) If anything, I think it just attracts more attention to the bad review, something which you'd really prefer to just fade away.

However, if you do insist on responding to a bad review, you might as well go all the way and do a Stanley Crouch. :)

http://www.gawker.com/topic/stanley-crouch-punches-critic-the-literary-wars-turn-violent-017590.php