|
HELP WANTED: Submitting Books For
Review - The Formalities
Note: this article was published in
Small Press Magazine in 1984, yet aside from the names of editors,
it remains as important and relevant today as it did when it was
first published.
ANY NUMBER of times, I've listened
politely while a publisher complained that his books were not getting
attention in national publications, while those same publications
have been known to review books from other small presses. Not only
that, but one can look at the books reviewed by different newspapers
and magazines and see that they tend to choose books from the same
small presses. One could be idealistic and reply that these presses
are publishing the most interesting books. But I doubt this is necessarily
the case. The simple fact is probably that these presses know the
most professional way of presenting their books to the reviewers
and are, if nothing else, insuring that the books will be carefully
examined. It does not require a great publicity director or a lot
of money spent on promotion: it simply necessitates that the publisher
take care to avoid pitfalls that tend to confirm certain ingrained
prejudices among reviewers about "small press" books.
Most presses regularly send review
copies to those publications devoted almost solely to reviewing
small-press books. But there is no reason to limit copies to such
markets when you have a book capable of attracting wider attention.
The guiding rule should be: Don't be stingy with review copies,
but don't waste your money either. To follow this rule, you
must be aware of the market. If a magazine regularly reviews political
books, obviously there is no point in sending it your recent book
of children's literature. But always send books, not return-addressed
announcement cards.
Some of the most accessible markets
are newspapers. Larger newspapers often have a regular columnist
who is generally responsive to small-press titles: Andrei Codrescu,
for example, writes a column for the Baltimore Sun; George
Myers, Jr. writes for the Harrisburg Patriot News, and Kenneth
Funsten and Holly Prado write regular poetry columns for the Los
Angeles Times. These columnists are left pretty much alone to
choose the books they want to cover. About half the reviews in New
York's Village Voice Literary Supplement are of small-press books.
And never overlook a newspaper published in a writer's hometown.
Such a newspaper might not normally be receptive to small-press
books, but would perhaps cover a local author. It is up to the press,
in a cover letter, to make sure the editor knows the author is local;
don't expect editors to gather this information on their own, even
if it is noted in the cover blurb.
Anneliese Schwarzer, who assigns
poetry and fiction for Library Journal, suggested that presses
be selective: "Don't routinely send everything, don't deluge
the market. Maybe send your few most important books, possibly with
a cover letter saying we don't usually send books to you, but this
one book we're especially proud of, and why." Schwarzer also mentioned
that she "would like to see more accessible material published by
small presses. "Particularly in fiction books, so often small
press becomes synonymous with esoteric experimentation." Sam Cornish,
one of the editors of Fiction, Literature, & the Arts Review
commented that "poetry, and sometimes short fiction (particularly
that in magazines) is often full of self-regard that is limned in
scope, and our readers tend to demand a larger scope." At the same
time, Ron Nowicki of the San Francisco Review of Books said
that he "sees the experimental poetry any fiction being published
by the small press as refreshing." Nowicki also said that his "impression
of the small presses over the years is that they, publish mainly
poetry, then fiction. "We don't see that many other books from
the small presses, but would certainly be receptive to them."
Just getting the books out to the
media is not enough. The most frequent complaint from editors is
that a book doesn't include the necessary publication information:
address of press, price, number of pages, month and year of publication,
ISBN, LCC number, editions available. More than one editor allowed
that failure to provide all of this information will often be the
deciding factor in not sending a book out for review. You are wise
to include ail this information on the printed "review slip" that
should accompany each review copy. But remember, review slips are
easily lost, so make sure that the book itself includes the price
and the address of the press in a clearly visible spot, as well
as page numbers on each page. And if you are sending out advance
galleys the information is not included in the book, so some sort
of review slip is a necessity. Genevieve Stuttaford, Forecast Editor
of Publishers Weekly, suggests including a telephone number
especially if your address is a post-office box. If the information
you sent is incomplete, having a phone number is crucial.
As Pat Rose pointed out in "Getting
the Word Out--The Press Release" (Small Press, January/February
1984, p.11), galleys can be simply a bound photocopy of the typeset
copy. They are essential for many magazines that review in advance
of publication or time the review to coincide with publication,
and should be sent as far as possible in advance, sometimes as much
as three or four months. As long as you are preparing these galleys
for a few magazines, it is worthwhile to send them to all the magazines
you consider relatively important. (And please don't forget some
of the markets that, while they often review books more than a year
later, are still making an attempt to be as current as possible.)
One of the editors of the Village Voice Literary Supplement said
that galleys "always draw attention to the book," and I think many
other editors feel the same way. Then, when the book is available,
send a copy.
Katha Pollitt, literary editor
of The Nation, said that in early March, for example, "there
would have to be a special reason for The Nation to review
a book with a 1983 publication date." Yet many presses will let
books sit around for, say, six months before sending them out for
review. Especially if there is no publication date included, the
copyright year is the only thing the editor has to go by. Schwarzer
said: "If a book comes in two months after publication date, the
only thing I can do is send it out to Library Journal's yearly
small-press roundup. Remember. it's up to the press to assign the
publication date." At Publishers Weekly, galleys must arrive
three months ahead of publication. Said Stuttaford: "We cannot consider
a galley that arrives too late for us to publish the review six
to eight weeks prior to publication." If you know you won't get
the books out immediately, choose a date a few months later.
While most magazines that like
to review books close to the publication date will make allowances
for small-press books, the editors will make longer allowances for
poetry books, since they recognize poetry as a field that is not
properly handled by the trade presses. Several editors feel that
background information about the author is important when considering
a nonfiction book for review. "If someone's writing a political
book, for example, it's important to know if they're a political
scientist or just someone mad at Reagan," said Judith Sutton, political-science
editor at Library Journal.
0ften a small-press book will arrive
with a long letter from the writer, almost pleading that the book
be reviewed. Such a letter helps me decide not to assign the book
for review, because it indicates that even the writer does not have
much confidence in the work itself. Then there are telephone calls.
It is one thing to call to check if a book was received (though
I would recommend this only for the larger media, not for smaller
publications, which often operate out of the editors' homes); it
is another thing to ask if it was sent out for review, and if not,
to demand to know why not. More than one editor admitted that this
approach convinces them not to review the book, or not to assign
future books from that particular press.
And finally, some books arrive
with letters suggesting possible reviewers. That kind of advice
reeks of friendship and what are called "sweetheart" reviews. Few
magazines encourage such reviews, and those that do will most likely
not admit it.
Every review publication has space
limitations. Obviously, the publisher who has labored to produce
a book, investing a lot of his or her own money in the process,
wants to see it widely reviewed. But keep in mind that many other
publishers feel the same way. The book may be a labor of love, but
you cannot permit passion to overtake your better judgment when
dealing with the review media. Do not become discouraged. Calmly
continuing to send out review copies in a professional manner will
pay off sooner or later. Every editor I spoke with cares about what
small presses are doing; professional standards can help to make
such caring easier.
|
