After reviewing my earlier post on negative book reviews, I realized I didn’t answer the question posted by Irene Watson: Is it ethical to ask bloggers to withhold a negative review of your book?
I don’t see this as an ethical problem for the author; I see this as a ethical matter for the reviewer. I think it would be unprofessional, tactless, and in poor form to ask a reviewer to withhold a review, but I think it falls short of a breach of ethics unless you are asking them to renege on an existing agreement. If the book was accepted by the reviewer under an agreement whereby only a positive book review would be published, the ethical issues are pretty straightfoward and nonexistent. No breach of contract exists, in spirit or letter; no harm, no foul.
Much of the discussion elicited by Irene, which is very productive and interesting, focused on questions of freedom of speech. This is an interesting take on the issue because book reviews fall in the area of civil contract (torts) not civil liberties. This may seem a bit pedantic, but freedom of speech refers to a constraint on government from infringing on individual freedom, not private parties to engage in a mutally agreed upon contract, which is where book reviews fall. The ethical issues emerge if undue pressure is put on the reviewer to behave in a way contrary to their sense of fairness or contract with the publishers/author.
That said, I believe strongly that the book review market’s integrity rests on its ability for give voice to a wide range of voices, whether their opinions are positive or negative, and I have never asked, and never will ask, a reviewer to withold a negative review of my work. (I have personally chosen not to review books because I don’t see the purpose in devoting space, time, and effort, to a book I don’t think has literary or substantive merit, but I’ve never withheld a review because the author, publisher or editor objected to the content.)
