Blurbersion

Barry Eisler here... MJ has generously offered to let me guest-blog for the next few days at BBH while she takes a well-deserved break.  So for today, tomorrow, and Wednesday, I'll be offering a few thoughts about the biz... and not, for a change, about politics, language, and international goings-on. 

When I was first published a few years back, I thought blurbing was just a favor an established author might do for an unknown.  You know, a way for a known writer to generously give her imprimatur to an unknown writer and introduce the unknown to the known writer's readers thereby.

I was wrong.

We think of blurbing as a favor because we assume:  (i) the established author will actually read the unknown's book; (ii) the established author is getting nothing out of this, and in fact is even putting his reputation on the line; and (iii) there are no other incentives or disincentives at work.

Let's examine these assumptions.

How does it feel to get asked for a blurb?  First, you're flattered.  It wasn't so long ago that I was the unknown; now my imprimatur is recognized as having some value.  That's a nice compliment.

Second, you're conflicted.  Because... what if I try the book and don't like it?  Sure, blurb requests are almost always accompanied by a "If you don't like the book, no problem at all" type disclaimer, but I don't think we need to commission a study to know that when a writer says, "Sure, I'll take a look," the book will very likely get blurbed regardless of the writer's true critical reaction.  It's just too hard to say to someone, "You know, I gave the book a try, and realized it's not something I want to associate my name with.  Thanks for thinking of me."

Third, you're concerned.  Will I seem selfish if I say no?  Am I in fact being selfish?  People helped me along the way... shouldn't I give back somehow?  And if the request came from your editor or agent, don't you want to do them that favor, in case you need to ask for a favor of your own down the line (or if they've already done one for you)?

Fourth, you're calculating.  How big is this writer, how big is she likely to become?  Maybe she'll blurb me, too?  Or maybe we're friends... let's blurb each other!  (In politics this is known as "logrolling."  See also, back scratching.)

Let's pause for a moment.  Do you see how all the inherent dynamics tend to create momentum for the blurb, yet have nothing to do with the ostensible purpose of the practice?  So far it's all about feeling guilty, not wanting to hurt someone's feelings, not wanting to seem or be selfish, and trading favors.

All these perverse incentives and disincentives divert blurbing from it's ostensible purpose, true.  But there's something more insidious going on here, something that makes the institution not only misleading, but actually corrupt.  And that is:  blurbing benefits the blurber as much as the blurbee.

When an established writer blurbs an unknown's book, what's implied in the blurb is always that the blurber is an authority, an established presence, perhaps even a master.  Otherwise, why would she be qualified to give the blurb in the first place?

Let's say you get an average of one blurb request per month over a five-year writing career.  That's sixty requests.  Let's say each of the books in question has a print run of 20,000 copies, hardback, softback, or both.  If you blurb them all, you just got your name, with accompanying implication of your status as a writer, onto 1.2 million advertising surfaces that will appear in bookstores all over the country.

Hmmm... maybe blurbing isn't such a clearcut favor, after all.  In fact, it sounds like a pretty good deal for the blurber.  This could get out of hand, unless there are some natural counterforces at work.  Are there?

Well, reading a novel takes eight, ten, or more hours.  That's a substantial time commitment.

But... if your goal is simply to get those 1.2 million advertising impressions, why even read the book?  Just say, "Joe Blow is my kind of writer."  "Jane Blow is a writer to watch."  Or some other generic nonsense.  And you're done.

But what about your reputation, you're thinking?  You might have just associated your name with a low-quality book.  If your fans read it on your recommendation, won't that cost you?

Cost you what, exactly?  How many of your fans will feel so betrayed by the misleading blurb that they'll actually boycott your books, or stop telling other people they enjoy them?  Not many, I would guess.  Versus, how many new readers will you acquire out of those 1.2 million advertising impressions?  In strictly cost/benefit, cold-blooded business logic terms, you'd be crazy not to blurb as much as you possibly could.

It seems the only thing left that could prevent a complete blurbing metastasis is... individual integrity.  The rather quaint notion that we shouldn't recommend things we think unworthy, or of which we have no relevant knowledge -- even if the recommendation avoids discomfort and offers material gain -- because doing so is misleading, deceptive, and dishonest.

Hmmm... individual integrity, on the one hand, vs. guilt, worry, and logrolling and other material gain, on the other.  Anyone want to place bets?  Or even just hazard a guess about the percentage of blurbed books actually read by the blurber?

What's the solution (assuming you believe any of the above is even a problem)?  I don't think there is one.  It's not as though the industry is going to ban the practice, or even introduce some regulatory guidelines ("Disclaimer:  The blurber blurbed this book at the request of her editor."  "Disclaimer:  The blurber stands to profit personally by offering this blurb.").

But even if you're willing to bullshit readers, don't bullshit yourself.  Sure, honest blurbing is possible in theory.  And certainly there are some honest blurbs out there.  But most of them are anything but.  So next time someone asks you for a blurb, ask yourself why you're inclined to do it.  Then measure the value of your own integrity.  Compare.  And proceed accordingly.

For a terrific and sometimes contrary view on this subject, check out the February 9 post on J.A. Konrath's A Newbie's Guide to Publishing.

Comments

[JA Konrath]

Barry brings up many valid points that I simply don't agree with. :)

The fact is, publishers want blurbs. The more blurbs an author can get, and the bigger the blurbing names, the more excited the publisher is. That excitement transfers over to the sales and marketing department. In-house enthusiasm is essential to have a career in this business, and getting some good blurbs is one more feather in your cap.

Your publisher believes--and I tend to agree--that blurbs help sell books. In fact, I believe a blurb on a book has more value than a review snippet or an award mention.

Readers are looking for books they'll enjoy, but are hesitant to give new books a chance. That's why bestsellers continue to stay bestsellers--brand loyalty. But a blurb can make it safer for a reader to try a new writer, because it is endorsed by someone they already enjoy. It's like a word-of-mouth recommendation.

And if the reader doesn't like the book you blurbed? They'll forgive you, because everyone has different taste. My wife has dragged me to some really awful movies, but I still love her. My friends and family have recommended things that I didn't particularly enjoy, but I never questioned their integrity or thought less of them.

The blurber can benefit, in all of the ways Barry has mentioned, and the blurbee certainly benefits as well.

Is the system perfect? No. It's riddled with lies and corruption. But then, so is publishing.

As crimes go, blurbing may indeed be one, but it's as victimless as a crime can get. No one gets hurt and everyone is helped.

As far as integrity goes, I don't think it is as black and white an issue as Barry does. Every book has some redeeming quality--that's why it is getting publishing in the first place. It's possible to concentrate on the good when blurbing, even if you didn't love the book.

I think it's odd that some authors blurb without reading the book (I've never done this) but I can even understand that. The fact is, if Clive Cussler or James Patterson or Stephen King said some nice things about my work, I wouldn't care if they read it or not. I personally wouldn't do the same, but I'd never look a gift horse in the mouth either.

The blog entry Barry referred to is here:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2006/02/secret-world-of-blurbing.html

Blurbing is one way that writers really can help each other. If you feel that you can't endorse anything unless you truly love it, that's fine. I'd suggest telling authors that they're free to send the book, but your schedule is really backlogged and you probably won't be able to get to it. Then, if you don't like the book, tell them you're sorry but you don't have time.

You can still help writers, benefit yourself, and keep your integrity.

[David J. Montgomery]

One thing I know for certain is that blurbs work. Hell, they even work on me sometimes, as jaded and cynical as I like to think I am.

If I get a galley of a new book, and it's got a blurb from Barry Eisler on it, I'm going to at least give it a try.

(Of course, I did that once before, and I hated the book... but even so, it got me to pick it up.)

[Katharine Weber]

It seems I am among the rare few authors who read the book all the way through, and I do that before deciding if I can give it a blurb. (And I do at times say I may not get to it and may not be heard from, so I don't have to come back with a negative response.) Yes, there is pressure from editors and agents and friends, and friends of friends, amd there are all kinds of blurbs for all kinds of reasons...but there are also genuine words of praise sincerely meant.

I volunteered to give Emily Barton's Brookland a glowing blurb because I really loved the book and wanted it to get as much attention as possible. It's a brilliant book! Yes, we had the same editor, and yes, she reviewed my third novel favorably in the New York Times Book Review. So you could call it logrolling -- but it would be a misrepresentation to think the blurb was about favors or payback. Have you read Brookland? You should.

I have received blurbs from writers I don't know, writers who had no reason at all to offer a blurb unless they had a positive response to the novel. Muriel Spark offered a thrilling blurb for my second novel, which I sent her in galleys without asking for a blurb. I did ask May Sarton for a blurb, and she called me up and harangued me about my first novel for twenty minutes, and then she sent a lovely blurb for it in such microscopic cramped handwriting that my editor and I practically needed to do a forensic analysis to puzzle out the words, one at a time (we succeeded finally by enlarging her note on a copying machine).

It is tempting to regard all blurbs as puzzles to solve, relationship clues. Lots of them are just that. But there are also genuine endorsements here and there, and it would be a shame if their value to readers is ever more diluted by the social blurbs that surround them.

[spyscribbler]

I can only speak for myself, but as a consumer, blurbs don't really work for me. Blurbs once did factor in my buying decisions, but in the past couple years, books have gone blurb-crazy.

Now it seems that every book has blurbs.

Back a few years ago, that wasn't so. And seeing an author's name blurbed on a ton of books has made me seek out his books only one time, and I swear his name was on a thousand books.

When a favorite author blurbs AND they very rarely blurb, I sit up and take notice.

But like I said, nowadays it seems like most books are blurbed, and I don't even bother looking anymore.

And if I do look? If I see a bunch of blurbs from authors that I don't know? The first thought that pops into my head is "What? This author isn't good enough to be blurbed by a recognizable name?"

In my mind, it's a strike against them. How is a blurb a good thing, in that case?

I don't fault anyone for blurbing or being blurbed. It's a hard business, and whatever helps keep authors in business is a good thing. I'm just wondering: with all this over-blurbing, when is that technique going to start going sour?

[Roddy Reta]

One thing I know for sure is that I've never bought a person's book just because they happend to blurb a book that I enjoyed.

[Carla Arpin]

Dear Barry,

What an eloquent and informative blog. MOST helpful for piddly little online promo and publicity person, me. ; )

I thank you so much for sharing!

Carla : )

[Patrick Balester]

I'd be flattered to be asked for a blurb on someone's book. And I don't think it harms one's reputation if the readers don't enjoy it.

If the author is unknown, and I see a blurb from an author I know, and have read, it does influence me to buy the book. So I think they are helpful.