Starting out the New Year compiling a list of colleagues to review the galley proof of ‘Prescriptions’, firstly to determine how many copies should be printed. Along the way I am also looking for different folks and institutions that will review a book and disseminate their thoughts to the public. During my research I am confronting a small dilemma. In the words of Christopher J. Jarmick, Co-author of THE GLASS COCOON (with Serena F. Holder) who says:
“Many (probably most... but I know for a fact it is many) major metropolitan newspaper book editors and book reviewers (but not necessarily columnists or feature editors--take note) have a firm policy of not reviewing a self-published book. Period. End of story. Exceptions are very, very few”.
Ouch! Jarmick goes on to say that that what he does is: “I don't tell book editors or book store people the book is self-published. If I am asked directly, I tell them it's a little more complicated than that and the short version of the story is that we own most of the company that publishes the book (We do not own 100 percent of the company ourselves and so that would make us less than 100 self-published---a great justification)”.
Jarmick then ends by saying “Without a doubt, 100 percent honest is NOT always the best business policy. Honesty remains the best moral and ethical policy though. A compromise regarding being 100 percent honest may be justified and the right thing to do from a business stand-point but don't kid yourself into believing that absolutely everyone makes these compromises to be successful-- there are a few who don't”.
Is this information still relevant today? Does anyone have any advice on how to approach this dilemma?
Tags: Getting, Reviewed, published, self