Those who are frequent readers of my blogs, especially my book reviews, will no doubt be at least somewhat aware that the FCC (one of the many components of American bureaucracy) requires a statement in a published book review to note that a book was provided free of charge from a given publisher in exchange for an honest book review. As someone who takes my reputation as an honest man very seriously, I usually post this note at the beginning of the review, rather than hiding it at the end as is customary, to make it perfectly clear that I received the book for free before the review begins.

Most of the books I review receive positive reviews and no bribery is generally required for that. Books take a certain amount of time to read (usually at least a few hours, sometimes much longer), and in this particular area of life at least [1] I do not like to torment myself. While there are some books I will read for background context without any particular expectation of enjoying the read on its own terms, the vast majority of books I read with a desire for enjoyment or some sort of encouragement or education on matters of personal concern. There are enough books around that one does not need to go out of one’s way seeking bad books, as there is not enough time to read even all of the really good books that are available from the publishers I work with.

That said, every once in a while a book has far better marketing in terms of what its summary says than it achieves as a complete work. Part of taking honesty seriously means being willing to speak negatively about a work when it deserves it. Although, for the most part, publishers (and authors) look for positive (even glowing) reviews, the occasional negative review is a reminder that someone is being honest and is not simply a shill for a company. Not everyone cares that much about honor, but I suppose I am not like most people in that regard. There are even times when a negative review may help out sales of a book, especially in the case where a book is a partisan one and where its popularity may be gauged by the identity and viewpoint of those who disparage it.

Almost 15 years ago, Sony invented a fictional movie critic to give positive comments to some of its movies. The critic’s name was David Manning, named after a friend of the Sony marketing executive responsible for the fake reviews [2]. Among the movies that this “reviewer” promoted were the films “Hollow Man,” “The Animal,” “The Patriot,” “A Knight’s Tale,” and “Vertical Limit.” Two of these films, both starring the late Heath Ledger, happen to be movies that I like, that were relatively popular, and that did not need a sock puppet providing bogus reviews. Interestingly enough, some years later Sony had to pay $5 each to dissatisfied customers who saw those films as a result of the bogus reviews, a fraud that was so advanced that interviews were conducted with the fake reviewer using a computer voice synthesizer.

There is always a danger that authors and publishers will put a chilling effect on honest reviews, seeking only praise and not accepting any kinds of critical comments about books. One time, for example, I read a book by a former pastor in the organization where I attend, a book that was interesting in terms of its content but that had a great deal of very distracting errors which could have been fixed with some proper copyediting. However, this particular author, rather than seeking to gain the services of someone who would be good at copyediting (and I know several people skilled at that task), got upset at any kind of implication that he made errors.

As a writer, I can understand that writing is often a deeply personal mater, in which we make ourselves vulnerable to criticism and rebuke by placing our thoughts and beliefs in public. Not everyone can accept the scrutiny that comes from being a public figure, and all too many people seem to wish to make a name for themselves or to make money as a writer but do not wish to accept the fact that not everyone is going to like what one writes. Certainly, I have made plenty of enemies with my pen and keyboard, and it was been that way since I was young. I do not expect it to cease as long as I have the strength to write or breath in my lungs. Yet the fact that someone may disagree vociferously with what one says (as happens from time to time) does not make one’s own views illegitimate, but rather it suggests that one has taken a stand on one of the many controversial matters in this world and someone else has taken an opposing stance. At times we can learn from our enemies and use the existence of criticism and disagreement to hone and sharpen our own positions and the way we express them.

In a sense, nothing is written or created at all without a purpose or motive. That purpose may be hidden even to ourselves, but the act of creation involves a decision to turn one’s internal pressures into art, to make public one’s own longings and frustrations, so that one is under less internal pressure, or creation comes about with the goal of influencing other people through words or sounds or images. We may seek some sort of favor from someone or some group of people or we may wish to show our disfavor of the behavior of others. At any rate, no one takes the time and effort to create without some purpose behind it, even if they are not reflective about it.

Therefore, a reader must be at least somewhat cognizant of the existence of a motive in the part of a writer. So long as a writer is sufficiently transparent about their motives and open about their purposes in a work, this is not usually a matter of any difficulty. The same is true in the case where a motive is fairly irrelevant to one’s appreciation of a work, because it represents love of a subject rather than any particular ax to grind. However, there are cases where motives may be hidden from the conscious understanding of the writer themselves, because they speak out against their own behavior without showing any sort of repentance or cognizance of that behavior with themselves, nor are welcome to having others point out unpleasant truths to them. We would do well to note such people, and avoid dealing with them beyond what is necessary, lest they overly complicate our lives and provoke us to wrath, rather than love and respect. Who wants a life of hostility?

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/because-i-like-tormenting-myself/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_%28fictitious_writer%29