Reviewing Authors Who've Given You Blurbs

[Megan Blocker]

Most of you probably remember the brouhaha that broke out over Amanda Hesser's 2004 review of Spice Market. She gave the restaurant three stars while serving as the interim food critic at the Times. It promptly came to light that Jean-Georges Vongerichten, the chef and owner, had given Hesser a very positive blurb that appeared on the cover of her book Cooking for Mr. Latte.

Well, it's happened again. On Sunday, June 3rd, Hesser's review of Patricia Wells' new cookbook Vegetable Harvest was included in a larger piece called "Cooking Roundup." What did not appear was a note disclosing the fact that Wells, like Vongerichten, had contributed a blurb for another of Hesser's books (The Cook and the Gardener this time around). (A correction was subsequently printed on Sunday, June 10th.)

My gut feeling is that it was definitely unethical for Hesser to publish both pieces without disclosing her relationships, and that it seems especially dim of her to do it a second time, given the fallout from the first occurrence.

Here's the text of the most recent correction:

The Cooking roundup last Sunday, written by Amanda Hesser, included a review of Patricia Wells's ''Vegetable Harvest.'' In 1999, Wells contributed a jacket blurb for Hesser's book ''The Cook and the Gardener.'' The Book Review has a policy against assigning a review in those circumstances, but by the time Hesser told editors about the blurb, the issue had already gone to press. Had the editors known of the conflict, Wells's book would not have been included.

Here's a link to the Gawker item about the whole thing. What do you guys think?

[Nathan]

well, as they said, it was against Times policy so there's not really a controversy per se.

the only conceivable defense of Hesser is that she may well have forgotten about a blurb from 8 years ago.

the publishing industry being what it is...many/most blurbs are written by people who haven't even read the book they're contributing a favorable blurb for.

[TAPrice]

I was surprised to see that, since it seems like exactly the mistake that got her in trouble before. If I'm remembering correctly, the Times book section tightened its rules recently due to questions about reviews of staff written books (does someone else remember the details?).

Personally, I don't see the incident as a major problem, but the rules are the rules. No matter the ethics of this particular situation, the Times decided to impose a uniform policy.

Do you think these kinds of ethical conflicts are more common in food writing? Is the food world more cozy than other groups?

[kpurvis]

Do you think these kinds of ethical conflicts are more common in food writing? Is the food world more cozy than other groups?

←

I don't think it's cozier. But I do think it's smaller. Most people in food writing either know each other, or know of each other, or know someone who knows someone else. And the advent of web sites like this one add to it, increasing the chances that you'll brush up against someone else.

It's like the Kevin Bacon game (although food writers would use real bacon, of course.)

But I'd also second the person who noted that many times, blurbs are written without the author even knowing about it.

[Fat Guy]

I can't imagine why the Times would make such a big deal about book blurbs. Certainly, there is no actual conflict of interest. Book blurbs are just no big deal. The people who wrote blurbs for my book don't necessarily even like me. They don't think I owe them anything, and neither do I, and neither does anybody who has ever blurbed or been blurbed. If a publisher, author or agent sends me a book and asks for a blurb, I always provide one, assuming I like the book. Most of the time I don't know the author. Most of the time the blurb doesn't even get used. Anyway, the only thing I can think of is that the Times is concerned about the possible appearance of conflict of interest, and while that's often stated as a standard it's a ridiculous, untenable, unattainable, self-defeating goal. Instead, the Times should focus on the quality and professionalism of the actual content of the writing in the paper, instead of obsessing about book blurbs. I don't even know what the policy is, because there's nothing in the Times "Ethical Journalism" policy that I can find that covers book blurbs. I also think Gawker got this story wrong. Amanda Hesser was not slated to be William Grimes's replacement. I've never heard anybody say that. And was the Magazine position seriously a demotion? If so, it was a strange one, because it put her in a position of greater influence than before.

[TAPrice]

I'm coming around to Fat Guy's way of thinking. It does seem absurd that a blurb for a book published 7 years ago would have any real impact or importance for the author today.

Journalists sometimes look silly in their extreme ethics, and it can be a disservice to the reader. Would we have been better off not knowing about Wells' book?

My wife clerked for a federal judge. He recuses himself when one of his clerks argues before him, but after the clerk has been gone for two years he no longer recuses himself. Should book reviewers be holding themselves to a higher standard than people who truly do make life and death decisions?

Edited June 13, 2007 by TAPrice (log)

[Megan Blocker]

I'm coming around to Fat Guy's way of thinking. It does seem absurd that a blurb for a book published 7 years ago would have any real impact or importance for the author today.

Journalists sometimes look silly in their extreme ethics, and it can be a disservice to the reader. Would we have been better off not knowing about Wells' book?

My wife clerked for a federal judge. He recuses himself when one of his clerks argues before him, but after the clerk has been gone for two years he no longer recuses himself. Should book reviewers be holding themselves to a higher standard than people who truly do make life and death decisions?

←

I, too, am not necessarily in disagreement with Fat Guy; certainly, on the radar of unethical goings-on, this is a tiny blip.

I still think she was dumb not to be more careful, given the history.

[russ parsons]

i think most authors would be hard-pressed to remember who had written blurbs for them (though they can probably tell you those who refused right off the tops of their heads!). it's really not that big of a deal.

[TAPrice]

I still think she was dumb not to be more careful, given the history.

←

Agreed. In the end, these are the rules of the Times. Even dumb or silly rules at work have to be followed, and I would think this goes double for an editor. That doesn't necessarily mean that breaking one of the Times internal rules has larger implications.

If nothing else, this whole small incident caused me to reread Eurotrash's takedown on the original infamous review (linked to on the Gawker comments). It "made my teeth want to vomit" is a turn of phrase that deserves to be preserved.

[Fat Guy]

The strange thing to me about this purported policy (again, I've not been able to find it in the Times ethics policy) is that the Times has no trouble assigning book reviews to the enemies and competitors of authors. Apparently, there's no conflict of interest in having the author of a competing book on a subject review another book on the same subject, or to have political enemies review each other's books.

[Fat Guy]

I'm trying to remember the blurb process for my book -- it's such an insignificant part of the publication process that it doesn't really stand out -- and I think there were some blurbs I solicited and some my editor solicited, and then she chose the best ones for inclusion on the book jacket, whereas some others were used in marketing literature (press releases, etc.) but didn't appear on the book jacket. I think the paperback may have had different blurbs from the hardcover. Regardless, I can't imagine how any of that would impact my ability to review a book by John T. Edge, Mimi Sheraton or Anthony Bourdain.

[mzrb]

Way back when, when I was little (!!) and worked at SPY magazine (the original, "funny years"), we had a feature in nearly every issue called "Logrolling in Our Time" which featured just this sort of back-of-the-book-blurb-backscratching.

It's always been this way and always will be.

and hopefully, one day, one of your friends will do it for you! it is, indeed, the way it is often done.