Signed vs. Unsigned

Over on the increasingly indispensable blog of Chicago crime writers called The Outfit, Michael Dymmoch talks about why authors don’t like--or trust--unsigned reviews. Since I’ve been trying to persuade several staffs of Publishers Weekly editors to let me put my name (or at least my initials) on the reviews I do for them, Dymmoch’s words have a particular resonance.

PW’s rationale for the anonymity is that its reviews are a joint effort--not only the initial reader’s opinion, but also those of various editors who may contribute to the final product. Fine: let those editors have a producer’s credit that runs alongside the writer’s name. Readers, as Dymmoch says, need to be able to get some idea of who is handing out the praise or wielding the hatchet.

The history of book reviewing is marked by critics who went either nameless (it took the London Times many decades to let its reviewers sign their pieces) or under such coy soubriquets as “Our Special Correspondent.”

What do readers, writers and reviewers think? I leave you with two definitely not anonymous recent quotes on the art and business of book reviewing. On his terrific new blog, Book/Daddy, Jerome Weeks talks about telling Irish writer Colm Toibin how much he had enjoyed a recent book of his. “That book sold so few copies that I heard you were reading it,” Toibin replied. And in The New York Times Book Review, novelist William Kennedy said, “I used to do a lot of book reviewing--I almost made a living out of it.”