>> the landscape has changed tremendously since i began reviewing. >> very good point. and david, you've reviewed for many different places.

and now you have a couple of semi regular gigs. so tell us what that's like. [laughter] >> yes. i've been reviewing for about 10 years, i guess. the first few years was an an online reviewer. i had my own website. and about seven years ago i started reviewing for print publications exclusively newspapers as a freelancer. i review primarily popular fiction. i review mostly genre fiction, mystery thriller expense, stuff like that. i've written for most of the big newspapers at one time or another including "the washington post." ron has been enough enough to get me some work. "boston globe," "usa today," et cetera. i do have a couple of regular gigs now which is certainly easier than pitching yourself all the time. i write a monthly column for the "chicago sun-times," which i've been doing for about six years, i guess. and i for a while a regular contributor of the daily beast

which is started by tina brown which is now in a state of flux. it's a lot of fun book loving and you better love it because as everybody made clear there's not a lot of money in it. the at least i've ever been paid -- you're right. you can write as many reviews as you want for free. the least i've been paid $50. and i think the most i was paid was $500. and that was by the "new york times" and nobody else pays that much. typical pay for a book review which is usually somewhere 600 to 1,000 words is around $150 to $200. so depending how long it takes to you read a book and write a publishable review, you can figure out how much you could make if you're lucky to get the work. which is the really depressing part of it as katherine has mentioned. in the seven years i've been writing for newspapers, which isn't really that long -- the

contraction in the industry has been significant. numerous newspapers have cut their sections completely. everybody else has downsized. i don't think anybody has not downsized during that period of time. so the amount of work that is available is much less than what it was. the amount of space that's available to talk about books is much less than it was. the flip side, of course, is that there is now a substantial amount of book review coverage given on the internet, which is somewhat of a mixed blessing in the sense there is unlimited space. as much room to print reviews as people willing to write them. but that goes hand-in-hand with the fact it's generally not paid, which means it's generally done by amateurs, which can be a mixed bag. there's some people out there who do it purely for the love ate it who are very good at it but those people are few and far

beyond. the typical review something that you would read on amswhich is not the best quality. >> and, david, i want to interject a couple of things and then ask another question to that point. and so my interjection would be, i want to echo what my fellow panelists have said. in finished two different reviews. one for a publication that actually pays $2 a word for $500 for 250 words. a lot of edits. and another for a publication that paid $300 for about a thousand words and i've never been through an editing process like this before in my life. i literally -- i think i ended up making a penny for this review. so it's not something that we're doing for the money. and so before we get to the question of what kinds of reviews are out there, let's talk about why -- all of you have mentioned a little bit about why you do it. you know, what you've learned. how it's helped you professionally, et cetera.

but let's talk about the people who are reading the reviews for a moment. what are they looking for? what have you learned about what they need? and are book reviews important to them anymore? anyone want to volunteer? shall i just go down the line? >> i'll jump in as a science person. i think there's a specific role book reviews play. for science people. and i think some of that is in a sense telling the public how much they can trust a book. and -- i feel like my role as a science -- as a reviewer of science book is often to sort of read it and say, is this conveying science to the public in an accessible and accurate way? is it telling a story that's going to be interesting to them? and give people a sense of whether -- you know, i was thinking of a review that i did for ron not that long ago. there were some sort of science issues with the book. i thought it was a really fun read.

i had a lot of positive things to say about it. but i had one issue with the way that some of the science was being interpreted. and i feel like it's my duty as a person who reviews science to be out there saying that. because i feel like it's so important to convey science to the public in an accurate and accessible way. so for me, in particular, i feel like i have an important role -- you know, i have an almost an obligation to do that. >> that's why you're on this side, the truth-teller. [laughter] >> but it's not like i know everything either. but just to be a critical eye in that way. but also to do the science reviews. and there are not a lot -- i mean, ron, i guess you do a lot of the fiction but i don't get a sense there's a huge pool of people out there doing science reviews. and as a person who writes science books, i know a lot of editors at different sections. i know sometimes i often turn down reviews 'cause i don't have the time to do them. and i wonder those science books

not getting reviewed? and do those science books vanishes because no one hears about them. i think one of the roles reviews sort of play is putting books out there. so that the public know that they exist. >> you know, all that fiction, you know, ron, it can rot the brain. but it can also -- it could also do a service for readers. so what do you see readers are looking for and that you're providing? >> we get 150 books a day. >> i'm so jealous. >> and we review 15 a week. it's an overwhelming number of books that come in. i'm really conflicted about this. i've gotten in arguments with other book people. i don't see anything wrong with providing a reader service. finding people what they might want to read. they walk into the bookstore and they're overwhelmed. they choose books according to whose told to put the book on the side. people ask what should i read. they don't ask about critical standards or theory.

they don't ask about a lot of stuff real critics think is important. i think a lot of the book reviews died because they were boring and self-indulgent and unrelated to anything real newspaper readers wanted to read. >> testify. [laughter] >> but still there's far too many book reviews out there that are plot-summary. or that are involved with the critic's own particular taste that doesn't matter to the audience at haul as a book reviewers have got to do a better job of reaching our real audience and in this case our newspaper readers. and what did they need and what did they want? we have to provide an actual service and we have been cut off from that for too long. that's all i have to say. [laughter] >> oh, no, it isn't. we'll get back to you. katherine, how about you? >> i'm feeling that much more privileged that my novel was reviewed by the "washington post." [laughter] >> given those numbers. i feel as if most book critics i know are true citizens of

literature in a certain way. good citizens of literature. and this peculiar intersection of citizenship, sort of community service and connoisseurship. and i agree that there are times when book reviews are just too disconnected and they're too personal and they're not universal enough to do anything for the reader. but i think really, really delivering the word about a wonderful book is of, you know, a tremendous service to our culture. and i think people are starved for a in, a way of finding of what's good and ways of thinking about it. and the right sort of criticism really, really enhances the experiences and wouldn't find books on their own especially not with all the placement -- you know, if you walk into a barnes & noble and you see books in certain locations, that's because of the plan-o-gram

that's received by the manager of the store. and those books are on the table he the same reason that the corn flakes are at the end of the shelf. it's all paid real estate. i find it amazing people are cynical about the corn flakes but then they don't get that about books. and i do think the right kind of reviews by a good assignment, the right sort of review, the right sort of critic can really make a difference for the books that are not the corn flakes of the bookstore. >> and we'll definitely talk more about that because figuring out how to make that assignment is something that's really challenging for everyone. but, david, how about you? especially with doing thrillers and suspense and popular fiction, stuff that people really are buying unlike some of the books that i review. [laughter] >> well, ideally what i try to do in my role as a critic is to direct people -- to direct readers to the best to what is available out there.

i review a lot of books that are popular. in some cases a lot of bestsellers but all bestsellers are not created equal. and what i try to do is i try to say these are the people who -- even if they are popular they're worth reading. they have something interesting to say. and then they're doing it in an interesting way. i also think exactly what katherine said. she's right on with the fact that good criticism, good book reviews can help illuminate the reading experience. and it can help improve the reading experience by giving context. by guiding the reader into some ways that maybe they could think about the book. for me as a genre critic, in terms of how does this facility in into the genre as a whole? how does this fit into what is being done with fiction and society right now since so much crime fiction is very much in the moment. and so i think it's critics --

these are the things we need to do. we need to make people better readers, smarter readers and hopefully be more entertained readers at the same time at least if you're doing the kind of books i do. so that people will be more willing to read. because i think that's one of the big problems we confront as critics is that our audience is shrinking. because so many people are so busy with all the different forms of media in their lives that books tend to get shoved to the side. and what hopefully we can do is we can direct people towards the kind of reading that they will guy so they'll be willing to do it more often. because i think they get so much -- i love to watch tv. but it's not as satisfying as reading a good book. and i think there's a lot of people who would be willing to read if we can remind them of that. >> if we can find them the right books. >> yeah, i was just going to me comes back to a point -- ron, you mentioned the plot summary reviews.

this is some ways with problems with criticism in a sense. it's sometimes hard to tell which reviews are actually saying go buy this book versus a review that's just -- and that there is maybe too much of the plot summary stuff. i just wanted to add from the perspective of a writer, you know, this is my first book, never been on the receiving end of reviews before. but i've been reviewing for a long time and i was national book critic board for years. we thought do people read on these and what impact do these things have on this. i have been tour from january and i've been talking about the book and not going home until june. every event that i do people walk up, holding copies of book reviews that came out a month ago saying i read this. and i had to go buy the book. and this is why. i've had people ask me to sign copies of book reviews. and as a critic i've been like. it's so refreshing.

and sort of a relief to know that people out there really do still read book reviews and really do take them seriously. in this world of shrinking sections, it's important. people had printed them online and blog reviews and i know there is blog reviews and who is doing review on the blog reviews but some of the reviews are pretty amazing complex smart reviews so i just think, you know, it's been great for me to see the people are really reading this stuff. >> there's so many different issues being brought up. and first i want to get back to something david started. it goes with your point, too, rebecca. it goes to the difference between a review and a book report. because as you pointed out, i started out as a book blogger -- when i started blogging it was for aol.

we had a book channel there which is no longer active. i was not allowed to join the lit blog co-op with our other colleagues because i was a corporate blogger. i might have been a shell for shame. and things changed. i've always been a blogger for someone. i went from aol to publishers weekly. i went from publishers weekly to pbs where i am blogging and hosting this site. and so the perceptions have changed. but what i haven't seen discussed enough and i'll just bring my everything that is labeled a book review is a book review. so let's talk about that because i think that's one of the problems about getting readers to know whether it's encouraging to you buy the book or not, et cetera. there are a lot of other things to bring up. so, ron, what's a review versus something that's a summary or just a quick report?

>> boy, that's an interesting question. a lot of book reviews are just reports. i'd never even thought about making than distinction. it's not a book review. i just thought it was a bad book review. >> those are all the things i turned in. >> you're saying it's not even a book review. we have a resumption the audience wants to write book reviews or is interested in -- >> i don't think we have a presumption. i think some people are writing reviews. and some people might want to. but, you know -- let's show hands who's interested in writing a book review? anyone? >> we all read book reviews. >> yeah, i'm talking about how to know as a reader, you know, someone says here's a book review but all you get is a plot summary that's a lot different than a ron charles book. >> that's very nice. >> you have to have good plot summary. that's a new summary. what should happen is that summary of the plot should be infused with critique of the success of that book and the themes of that book and the way

it affected you and the way it's written. it's that critical voice that so often falls away and all given a summary and a long quote and then some sort of concluding condemnation -- >> the plot spoiler. >> oh, dear. >> we've been getting lots of hate mail lately about plot spoilers. i think readers are just -- have just maybe had it or we're not editing carefully enough. yeah, readers hate that. >> at least you're getting mail. >> yeah. [laughter] >> 'cause if it's a novel, what else does have it? the way its plot can influence you and change your feelings. that's terrible thing to do in a review. >> and i would just say adding to that. i think one thing that is often maybe not clear what we mean by critical. it doesn't necessarily mean negative. >> exactly. >> i think there are two extremes of sort of these tendencies in reviews and one of them is to do a report. you know, sort of a summary, this is what the book is about,

period and there's others who say things bad. and there's this obligatory here's the summary, here's the bad thing and the good thing. and i think the really good reviews are the ones sort of weave all that together. >> and analytic. >> and they don't -- >> practical criticism, that term. >> so i think just that term "criticism" often confuse people. that it can be positively critical. >> yeah. that's why i like to use the term "review" rather than criticism. but, you know, criticism has its role to play. and i guess i want to let katherine and david respond to this question, too. but i also want to talk about well, people will say who cares? who cares if i learn about a book if i really like it? book criticism, any kind of criticism, art, film, et cetera has a role in our discourse. it has a role in life and academia beyond just getting someone to buy the newest novel. but let's talk about that, katherine. >> well, i walk both sides of the street. and i feel that, in fact, the internet has now started to blur

the boundary more and more between reading and writing so that for many people to read a book is to go -- i think amazon started it but now i think they've gone away from amazon. i think they're all at good reads library places like that. and to express some kind of an opinion about the book that actually is often quite infuriating to the author book who shouldn't go on there and read those interviews because it becomes a consumer evaluation. and they're reviewing the book the way they would review a toaster. it's a consumer decision or i liked the shiny buttons but i didn't like there were enough settings other than they are saying my worth of my books. i really liked this part or that part. if that's how you read a book, you know, you slot it into this book, this part i didn't like.

but it becomes a consumer evaluation of a product. which i think is really a pretty thin way to read any kind of book, whether it's a novel or a biography or anything else. because it becomes this consumer evaluation. that's not really all there is. but i think for many people it has become the front line of what they read about the books that other people in their social network have been reading. >> uh-huh. >> so it is now part of the conversation. part of buying a book and reading a book is then writing about it and then you read about what your friends and acquaintances have said about it. and it's this whole conversation that's going on that has nothing to do with book reviews as they existed, say, 10 years ago. >> it's a very valid point. that we have with authority. we want to break some of the

barriers down but breaking of them is difficult. >> some are brilliant and nuisanced. this jumping in it's like a metafiction. the way you read a book is you are -- you are evaluating it. and i go back the way you would small kitchen appliances. it just seems like a loss of something. >> it does seem like a loss of something. what do you think, david? >> it's interesting what katherine said. i've never thought about it in those terms before. do you suppose they're able to be part of it? >> because i think most people's interaction with the culture consists of being a consumer. >> it's one of the things that i think is -- that we're losing with the contraction of professional criticism. i always think that the best way to really study the critical aspect of whether it's film or

literature or whatever is to find those critics whom in your view are the best. they have the smartest of things to say, the most interesting things, the most thought provoking to you. and then you follow them over time. you read what they write. you get to know their tastes. you get to know their biases. so that you can really understand their review. as opposed to if you just come across a review cold, you don't know who the reviewer is. you don't know what to think about what they're saying. maybe the person is a maniac. maybe the person is the author's best friend or maybe it's the guy who hated him since the seventh grade. >> you do know it's in the "washington post." these are curated review. >> yeah, let's talk about that. i see ron furiously scribbling notes here. and actually when you do have money to spend, whether it's $350, $50, whatever, trying to get the right book to the right reviewer is a book challenge.

and this matters to the consumer because the end product hopefully is going to be heavily have helpful to you. so i'm not what you were scribbling about. >> that's close. >> that is one of the great losses what katherine and david mentioned. these new newspapers -- all the newspapers had their own book critics and you can plot your reaction to that person like you knew like you do with your town's restaurant critic and the play critic who's always wrong. [laughter] >> but that's helpful, isn't it? you sort of know where they are. or so-and-so doesn't like this kind of restaurant but i do and if he doesn't like it, then i'll go. but when essentially all the book critics around the country except a review every book review you're reading in your newspaper has been freelanced or syndicated you don't know who that person is so you don't develop that kind of relationship. we know from polls and these expensive interviews we do with our readers most people are

getting their recommendations from books from their friends and family. that's where they go first. and then long -- far below that comes book critics and npr. that's why these social network book review sites are taking off that's what people used but they have a larger circle. you talked about assignments. >> yeah. making that match and how much of a time-suck that can be? >> we spend a lot of time doing that. first just trying to find the books to review and then trying to find the reviewer. and what we're always looking for what katherine was talking to me before we began -- what we're looking for is someone who will read this book sympathetic and they'll read it with understanding and what this book may do it. but we want -- we never want what we call a setup what we call in our assignment. we get once in a week and i think it should go to these three people. no, she hates that kind of book.

that would not be fair. we would never, ever do that. what we're always looking for the sympathy or empathy. but for fiction we don't want someone who's written about that subject because it would be an overlap. but which do want a critical nol of that book. >> and that is the vetting online. there's so many weird vested interests in things. it's unbelievable pull out of a book. i had one guy write me an email just really angry because i just -- literally one word in my book which was totally really irrelevant to the whole book. just because he had a personal sort of relationship to this thing. and these things come out on amazon all the time. and people reading a lot of these reviews don't have -- it's not always clear. and there isn't that vetting going. but i have to say this social networking thing is pretty great. when it comes to the good reads and all of that.

even though i also agree that writers probably should not be reading these things. there are just some bizarre infuriating people things going on. where people just completely don't understand what they're reading or something. but what happens is that people then respond to that. and that's sort of the beauty of social networking is someone will post a review, blah this. i hated believe book because the character's names were stupid. and someone else will come on -- why would you -- why are you saying that for? or something deeper? >> or what do you mean? [laughter] >> and for science books, people with various agendas will post a certain things and someone with a different set of knowledge will say wait a minute, what you end up getting if you read all of the reviews as a big lump whole is you actually often will get a pretty clear picture. >> almost like a tag line. >> right. the trick is figuring out how to

read all that stuff and weed out all the things that are just silly and crazy. and, you know, it's not going away. this is going to be part of our culture. and there's a side of me it's great people are talking about books online and arguing about them. that's awesome. >> that's what i wanted to talk about next. >> no, i agree with you. one of the things that i noticed as people constantly as ron said earlier what should i read next? what is the best book out there? what do you recommend? you know, what would i read after this one. >> i would say "twilight." >> you're responsible? [laughter] >> a classic pick. >> you can't go wrong. >> my most popular review on the book studio that we're getting so much traffic from is one where i do a feature called read this not that. and i did one about the time traveller's wife versus -- i

don't want to bring this up again the fearful symmetry. some of us really didn't respond to it. >> that's a great feature. >> thank you thank you. it so clearly shows me as an online editor and reviewer that people really do need to know, should -- i can't buy both books. i can't spend $25 twice. i need to know which one, you know, to bother with. and we touched on this. but i think it's something with the social media aspect that rebecca and ron brought up. that we should talk about a little bit more. how do we get the midlist? how do we get those books that people want to read but never hear about lifted up when we can only publish 15 or 1 or 10 a week? >> well, we'd like to do is read all the books and pick the best ones to review. >> right.

>> we can't begin to do that. all the time we have to pick books, assign them and then run the reviews when they come in. it's a midlist book and we get a middling review. and it just seems like a wasted space but we don't have the money to throw that review how the that's what i'd like to do. >> yeah. it's true. it's really hard to, you know, choose even with the science book as you say, rebecca, that is really strong and has some problems, how do you pick that one instead of the 20 others? >> yeah. and this is one of the places where online, you know, reviewing is actually really useful and gives lives to books that wouldn't be designated worth the print space. you can do complex reviews on the sites and they will go and they'll go on twitter and facebook and get spread around in some cases a lot more widely than they would in print. i think the upside of this -- the online shift is that when the downside is often the online

ones don't pay at all? >> ours do but we can only publish four a month. that's nothing. >> but online reviews are a huge category because they are curated and edited and there's people who have their own blogs which is almost like a column, their own work they are published and they're self-selecting and self-editing and they're very, very good. and then there are other people who are also online publishing opinions about books that are not very thoughtful. there are people who just go for quantity and seem to claim to have read books very quickly. >> 500 a year people. [laughter] >> there's a big range. and i'm not sure it's fully appreciated. there's a world of difference between online reviews and online reviews. there are curated publications

online which i think you're describing about what you do versus someone who has a personal blog. and then just writes, you know, whatever he or she feels like, which could be anything. it could be anything. >> well, and i think the word -- we're not supposed to use the word curated anymore. in the online world. it's out. i'm sorry. it's jargon. i'm trying to remember what we're supposed to use. not curated but something, you know. that's gone by the wayside but i think it's a useful word because that's what we're dog about. -- talking about. it doesn't matter if it's newsprint or on glossy magazine paper. if it is on a, you know, a blog. if something is curated and edited it says so. you get something that you can trust. i think part of the problem to go back to something you talked about, katherine, is that the lines are blurring not just between off-line and online but also between things that are actual journalism and things that are commercial. and so it's not just a matter of

a bad blogger or a lazy blogger. there's paid placement and it's very hard for consumers to tell the difference sometimes and know bloggers work for amazon. it's about myself being a corporate person. it's very, very tough to tell who the real sources are. "washington post" book world we know those are journalists. i guess. [laughter] >> we spend a lot of time there is no conflicts of interest between the book and the person we assign to. they should not have worked together or entertaining or teaching each other's children in princeton or had bad arguments -- >> or married to the same person. [laughter] >> just look it up on google. [laughter] >> it will come right up. [laughter] >> i just want to ask a question, so how do you curate the book studio?

>> you know, that's something that i'm actively working on. the book studio has been live now for almost a year. got another couple of weeks to go and we're very excited about the fact we've reached our year anniversary. and i do hire freelance critics. and i do try very, very hard to make sure that they don't have conflicts when i assign them a book. and i have an associate editor who is doing the assigning. and you've had to really -- because these are a book blogger be very careful to say you can't simply have blogger x review something because they've met, you know, the author. and they really, really like her. and they went out to tea, you know, no. that's not a reason. i'm not saying that doesn't -- that hasn't happened more than once or so. these are things that i think about. these are the professional issues that i think about because i think it's really important for all of us to keep those standards going. and it would be a disservice to readers and authors if we didn't. that's why i think it's -- but

it takes so much time. and, you know, again we're not particularly well compensated. but we're trying. and i'm sure david, "the daily beast," has really good book section. they've got a robust section and another piece of jargon that i'm using yet it's hard. they're in flux right now. >> yeah. it's difficult because it doesn't bring in much in the way of advertising. and it's difficult to bring in the number of hits that a website is looking for. because, unfortunately, book coverage just does not seem to attract as much attention as we all wish it would. i'm sure at book world, it's not even called book world. >> we still call it -- [laughter] >> we imagine us still meeting somewhere. >> that's the challenge that everybody is facing to build in that audience and bring in the readers. i don't know what the solution

is. i'm not sure there is a solution. you talked about how to get more attention for this midlist authors. it isn't going to happen in print. i don't even think that's remotely feasible at this point. >> our print audiences is many, many times larger than online. >> there's not going to be more space to talk about those. -- talk about books. >> i know we want to leave times for questions as well. i definitely want to, you know, give everyone a chance to sum up. and so what is the future? you know, what happens to the book review? >> you're asking me? [laughter] >> come on, rebecca. >> you get a sort of separate the business of it from the potential of it, i think, at this point which obviously it doesn't make any sense. but, you know, i think as a writer, we do have in a lot of ways -- there's a lot of hope for different ways that books

can get out to people now. i find that very hopeful and positive. the business side of that is really dire. but, you know, i don't think people are going to stop reviewing books. and i think that in some ways there is hope for somehow these things coming together. i'm not sure what it would be. >> that's a good point about the two things sort of being separate. ron, what do you see? especially with the print audience as you said being larger than the online audience and now you're online solely. >> no we're not. >> i'm sorry. the entire section is online. you're in print on a daily basis? >> i think the upside the few surviving newspapers that run book reviews will syndicate those reviews around the country to small newspapers and people that live in small towns will be able to read high quality book reviews as they weren't perhaps in the past and that's a good thing. >> very interesting. yeah. >> and the internet also means something -- yesterday's news isn't yesterday's news. it's still today's news.

it just isn't at the bottom of the parakeet cage. if something ran to the newspaper, it gets linked everywhere. the text remains available to many people, you know, for a long time. but, you know, as a novelist, i've had to remind myself for years. writing is an art, publishing is a business. so add to that for book criticism publishing is in a state of flux. what is book criticism, you know, following along with, you know, this terrible business that is changing before our eyes. in a certain way. you know, i think book reviewing is a cross between a public service and an entertainment. >> wise words. david? >> the migration of reviews online, and that's an irreversible trend as rebecca said it has some exciting aspects to it. we're going to get a diversity of voices talking about books.

we're going to get a lot of people hopefully reading and participating in a discussion about books. and we're going to see a lot more types of books covered all of which is good and very positive. and it's good for books. and it's good for the conversation about books. the challenge, i think, is that it's going to become even tougher to find the quality book reviewing. it's going to be tougher to find the legitimate book reviewing. it's going to be there. but it's just going to be a small part of a loud diversity of voices. and it's going to be much, much more difficult for the readers to find the good stuff. and i think that's going to be hard. that's going to be a challenge because we wouldn't want people to, number one, get taken in by this faux book reviewing which is really huxsterism one reason or the other. so it has -- it has a great deal

of potential but it also has some real challenges. >> now am on time to start the questions? okay. i want to definitely throw it out. now, what i'm going to do is i'll point to you and then you'll have a microphone brought to you. this gentleman right here, second row with the blue shirt. >> question for ron charles or at least starting with you. a world of fiction you said 1500 books come in. i think you said a day. >> 150 a day. >> 150 a day. and 15 get reviewed. so describe for us the process in the world of fiction who winnows that out? what's the influence that determine which book gets the big paper book reviews that appears on the cover? and which one don't? and how is that decision made? >> the books come in in huge carts. and there's a gentleman whose job is open them and separate them for subject and genre. there's a fiction editor, a

nonfiction editor and our boss, the editor. we look at those books and we sort them and we make quick decisions what we think is interesting and what we go is not. -- what we think is not. most everything is thrown out. that leaves us with 10 or 15 books a day. we go back once a week and we look at those books more carefully. we read about them. we go online and we read about them. and we try to make decisions about -- and some of those are not based on quality. it's based on whether we've reviewed that subject or author before. sometimes the book is not reviewed because we just did that kind of a book six weeks ago and there just isn't the space to do it again. so sometimes books are missed that has nothing -- >> and favoritism among imprints. you don't want to review knopp books or crown books. >> there are holidays coming up and certain political issues we want to address. a lot of those things are external to the book's quality. then we start to think about who could review it. and sometimes we pick a book because we have a perfect reviewer for it.

sometimes the book doesn't get assigned because we just can't find anyone to review it and the book just dies it there because we don't have time to reassign it. and then once we get the reviews in we read that's compelling and we make choices of placement what will be in the paper and full page and which one will be short. >> you know, and to add to that and i know we've got other questions, the editors that i work with often -- sometimes you get an assignment and just sent a book. and sometimes they'll say pitch me three or four titles and say that one sounds like you're really passionate about it. let's get that review. you know, that has so many qualities about it. it's hard to say, you know, how -- it depends on what i've got in my galley closet, you know? it's really tough. a question right here.

[inaudible] >> no, we're recording. we've got to get the microscope. >> all right. my question is about the relationship between the author and the reviewer actually. specifically, thank you notes. [laughter] >> i was lucky enough -- i recently published a book and was lucky enough to have -- >> who are you? >> my name is kristin swanson and the book is "bible babel." >> you've been pitched for the book studio, too. >> it has been? >> it's come to you? so i read this review. wow, this is amazing. and he got the book. and so i wrote to my publicist and i said can i thank him. and she said, well, that's not usually done. yet, i feel this -- my mother raised me to write thank you notes. and i thought this is just so nice. so there's this awkwardness, i feel, and i wonder if that --

and then another publicist said no it's a really nice thing to do. so i don't -- i don't know where we are with that. >> i want to start with rebecca because she's had so many wonderful reviews. and she's probably wanted to write some thank you notes. >> i've been in that same quandary with one particular review which we probably know which one it was. and i have not written a thank you note. but i am -- i was actually thinking about it today planning to in part because i as a reviewer i've gotten thank you notes from people. >> exactly. >> and i think the key is to say i know -- authors and reviewers there is this sort of boundary that, you know, they stay separate from each other. but after they reviewed your book i think there is a way you can do it and say i totally understand you may not -- it's fine not to reply to this. i just need you to know that this was hugely important to me, whatever. to sort of say what you want to say and say, you know, if you're

not comfortable replying to me. i've got emails like that in the past. and it does mean something to reviewers to hear that. and i've heard from i'm sure other reviewers have maybe different opinions about it. but, you know, and i have often not replied to those emails because i do feel i shouldn't. but, you know, i appreciated hearing it. and i've heard that from other people, too. >> david, have you gotten thank you notes? >> i would like to answer this when you're done, too. >> my own personal opinion that thank you notes are both appropriate and very welcomed. so i have no problem with it. >> because thank you notes technically do not require any response. so i think miss manners would agree but let's go to bella and ron. >> having been a reviewer -- frankly you're writing to void. and you didn't get many changes to it and a month later you get an email from an editor offering you another assignment.

so the few times i've gotten notes from authors cherished. it's nice to get the confirmation but on the other hand you don't want somebody who's written bad throw wine in your face. >> i've actually written -- i like to think i'm particularly good at being gently critical. and several times i would say five to seven times i've written a review and said something critical and gotten a response from the author who said, thank you. thank you for pointing that out in such a constructive way and thank you -- i've learned something from that. and that was really amazing. i mean, that felt fantastic. even if i shouldn't technically have gotten that. let's hear from mr. charles. >> you should not thank a book reviewer. there should not be any contact between you and book reviewer. it contaminates your relationship. if you get a very negative review you should make a public death threat.

[laughter] >> because what you want to do is so contaminate the public atmosphere that he can never review you again. [laughter] >> but if a book reviewer loves your book, just stay in complete silence, cherish that. have your publicist thank him. >> having your publicist thank the reviewer is really -- that is absolutely the best. >> and i would say also on -- i don't know if you're on twitter and that sort of thing, reposting -- posting a review of your book saying something positive about the review, i don't know whether that crosses the line. i haven't really thought much about it. writers are not g disseminate and linking to the person who is probably online anywhere. that's something they acknowledge they've done something and appreciate it you would not be disseminating -- >> if you left a message twitter that we send amongst ourselves. no, i'm just kidding. i want to get on to the next -- let's see questions. i know we had one -- oh, she's gone. where's jenny.

right here. [inaudible] >> we need a mic. >> wait for the mic. sorry about that. >> we're pretending to be deaf until the microphone comes. >> okay. the question is, can you give us a few online book review sites that you consider to be vetted, reliable, curated i think was the word you used. >> "the washington post" book world is one. you know, i would say that's your first go-to. you know, mine is curated but i think we can -- let's all share, you know, one or two so that we don't take too much time. but i want to hear from rebecca because you've got some nonfiction maybe or paper cuts blog at the "l.a. times" is a good one. >> for me i don't know that i'm actually the right person to answer that question. i have very specific people who are often scientists who blog who do book reviews. and i tend to read their stuff

so my stuff is sort of -- stuff that most people probably wouldn't be interested in. and i do read "the washington post" book world. i read the sites for the big, you know, book review outlets. >> and i'm sorry jacket copy at the "l.a. times." >> the guardian has a wonderful book site. >> there are lots of individuals who publish something online that's blog that has reviews and also links to lots of other reviews so they function as digests. maude newton.com. she's all over the place and i end up following links and reading something in the -- maude newton.com is quite career. she has built a career from this blog where she get assignments to review for traditional newspaper sections. it goes the other way sometimes. >> exactly. david? >> "the daily beast" runs a lot

of really nice reviews. and most of the -- most of the major newspapers have online-only reviews. so they're definitely worth checking out. >> and i want to mention -- and this is difficult because we talked between the journalism and commerce. the barnes & noble at bn.com -- they completely separate church and state. they do not get -- supposedly any directives from the salespeople about what to review. and they've got some regular features including sarah wineman's column on the criminal mind is top-notch. >> and powells.com, they have a lot of really good book coverage on their site, too. >> next. right back here. >> as for reviewers i'm just curious, what in your opinion makes a book a good book versus a great book versus so-so. is there common element or

elements that you look for no matter what's the genre? >> ron? [laughter] >> i want to be moved and surprised and entertained. i want it to be expressed in language that's fresh and beautiful. it's a tough question. >> i want a book that tells me a good story. since i read and reviewed fiction, i want to be told a good story. hopefully with elegant language but in particular, i want to feel an emotional connection with the story. i want to be told something that i haven't heard 100 times before. >> katherine? >> i think ron said it. i mean, being moved and entertained. those are two really great experiences to have when you're reading a book. >> it really is. and there's so many that we could recommend, you know, each of us. but i think looking at our scientists, you know, will give you a little bit of an idea. and i also want to mention one quick thing -- how many questions do we have time left

for? >> you've got another 10 minutes. >> excellent. >> i also wanted to mention that. >> oh, please. >> i know i'm just the host. i think i can speak for most reviewers, you know, people think that we're jaded. and, you know, sometimes we get jaded by reading too much shalock. i'm always wanting to be thrilled and entranced and to fall in love with a book. i might read five crappy books in a row and i get one that takes me away. so, for example, i'm thinking of one years ago the crimson petal it blew me away and transported me. i'm so ready to fall in love with a book each time. >> you know, that's so true. and we're talking earlier about why we keep doing believe. -- keep doing believe. i talk to sarah nelson's who's the book editor at "o" magazine about a book that received "i

thought you were dead". it was a book that has a dog on the cover and it has some language and blurbs about a talking book. it's not. it's very different. have you read it yet? i was moved and enchanted. i didn't like the cover. i was kind of like a dog book. darn. and then i read it and i had that experience. and, you know, there i just blew all my journalistic cover on that. but that does happen. and the thing that i wanted to mention after bella said that, david o. stewart is with us back here. wave to david o. stewart. he is a nonfiction author. he's been a guest on the book studio. he's also associated with the american independent writers. a.i.w. it used to be washington independent writers. and he told me this afternoon in a conversation out in the mall that a.i.w. is starting an online review site. and i just wanted to mention. do you have a earl for it, you kn

know, anything? >> not yet. we're still fundraising. if i can take this opportunity -- >> oh, i'm sorry. yes, please. take the microphone. >> the one question i really am eager to hear from you folks about and david montgomery mentioned it briefly is the economics of your business has changed. the print world is of shrinking and going away. and we need online alternatives. that's one of the things my group is trying to organize. and it seems to me that's got to be the focus is figuring out how to do this as opposed to continuing to deal with what we've done for the last 150 years. >> that's like a week-long conference, david. >> you've got at least 30 seconds. [laughter] >> okay. [inaudible] >> i think you've each got about 32 seconds because i've got nothing to say about that.

[laughter] >> yeah, i'm going to give -- the gentleman from washington my seconds. [laughter] >> i don't want to speak for my publisher but the "post" believes that the physical paper will survive for a very long time. the physical paper makes an enormous amount of money in comparison to the online section of the paper. and we're fully committed to the survival of the paper indefinitely. i know that runs counter to what we're supposed to say or the current legion is but that's what we think. >> i'll just say something very quickly about that then i want to make sure we'll have time for another question or two. you know, this is a challenge that we have at weta pbs as well. you know, we know, for instance, npr is doing a phenomenal job with their book site. full of features, you know, back to the question about, you know, where to find good information. that's a great, great place. it's very difficult to get funding. it's very difficult to figure out once you've got the money, where to put it. you know, i insisted that some of the money had to go to pay

reviewers. it's not a lot. but that's something i feel on principle. i refuse to make people write for free. you know, but you also have to have programmers and designers. and producers and all sorts of other things. so it's very tough. i think we'll see another panel about this, you know, at another festival. and i hope that we continue the dialog. because too often we forget to keep talking about the nuts and bolts. let's see. right up front here. >> they're coming. >> she's coming. ron, you're looking at so many books. and other people, too. it seems to me a real critical part of your first choice is what's on that cover. the title, et cetera. >> yeah. i know. >> the artwork. >> i know it sounds trite since we make so many snap decisions it does influence us. we're embarrassingly influenced by those trade reviews that katherine mentioned.

>> we haven't even gotten there. >> that angry person, you know, writing a review for $35. i mean, if you get three good trade reviews we'll probably take a look at your book if you get three bad ones we're not just going to look it dies right there before it even gets in the crib. >> trades like publishers, library journal. >> they are tremendously influential and who's writing that it's a weak link in the critical process. >> but sometimes you don't get a cover. sometimes you get a galley way in which has the light blue cover from random house. it's not just the cover. >> there's net galley that delivers galleys to kindle and sony ereaders so we may not get all the design elements -- i don't want to say relied on but definitely were influenced by. next question, let's see, over here since i haven't come to this side too often. the gentleman in the yellow shirt and then, sir, i think we've got time for just two more.

>> how does a self-published author get their book professionally reviewed? >> i was wondering if anyone was going to go there? that's one of the things that will definitely get your books screened out is if it's self-published. it's a good question. >> it's a good question. there just isn't time. i don't want to speak for ron but i'm thinking of my mind in that book cart of what gets pushed aside immediately. it's always the self-published books because i know they have not gone through the vetting process that the books coming from the other houses have gone through. i'm really responsive to small presses and imprints. i know that ron is, too. unfortunately we tend to read the exact same books. fortunately or unfortunately. and so i don't have time to worry about the self-published ones, unfortunately. i think that this is going to be something we talk about more and more. >> we don't review any self-published books ever.

>> well, as a follow-up question, is there a process that you would recommend to an author? >> the question is, is there a process that you would recommend to a self-published author? >> we only have a minute left. and i would say you definitely just go and get yourself through the traditional publishing processing. nip got a different opinion? >> not if you want reviews. >> also go to the publishing day panels and get advice there too. >> exactly. i want to say thank you so much to rebecca, ron, katherine and especially to bella our sponsor. thank you all for coming. we have katherine's true confections and rebecca's the immortal life for immortal life of henrietta lacks. thank you very much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> ron charles is the deputy editor and fiction critic of the "washington post" book world. david montgomery is the thriller and mystery critic for the "chicago sun-times." and daily beast. he's the author of thriller 2. rebecca skloot is the author of the immortal life of hen re-etta lacks. she served on the board of directors of the national book critic circle where she served as vice president and developed the blog critical mass. her writing has appeared in several publications including

discover, the "new york times" magazine and columbia journalism review. for more information, visit rebeccaskloot.com. katherine weber is the author of several books including the novels triangle and true confections. she's currently adjunct assistant professor in the graduate writing program at the school of the arts at columbia university. for more information, visit katherineweber.com. >> all this month see the winners of c-span studentcam video documentary competition. ...