Jane from Dear Author responded to yesterday's longer post with a clarification of her position on an earlier discussion at Smart Bitches:

You stated that one of the things that frustrated you was that a reviewer had no accountability.

Third: What really pisses me off about this is that the reviewer has no accountability. They can read the ARC or not, write a review or not, publish it anonymously and do a hatchet job if they so please—and to top it all off, they sell the damn thing BEFORE it’s published. This really is adding insult to injury.

I just didn't get why the reviewer owes accountability to the author if they receive an ARC. That is what I referred to with the comment about "outraged entitlement."

Let me point out that I never said that the reviewer is accountable to the author. Is it your position that the reviewer is accountable to nobody at all? Because that would be odd. At the very least I would say a reviewer is accountable to the readers. I would also argue that a reviewer is accountable to the publishing house that gives him or her an ARC, but in a different and more limited way.

There's a communal understanding about the responsibilities attached to any job. If you read job ads, you know without a lot of explanation what is meant by 'French teacher' or 'office manager' or 'hair stylist'. I'd venture to say that pretty much anybody could produce a list of responsibilities that goes along with these jobs. Some of those things are specific to the position and industry (a hair stylist needs to be licensed, and to know how to use hair dyes, for example), and some are more universal. In an advertisement for a recovery room nurse, a mailroom assistant, a cook, a garbage collector there are a lot of things that aren't necessarily spelled out. Honesty, for example. Respect for the privacy of clients or customers. Basic courtesy and manners.

So the reviewer's responsibilities depend in the first line on the nature of his or her employment. Somebody who works for a newspaper as a book reviewer is responsible to their employer to uphold the standards of that publication and is also accountable to the readers. Some of the assumptions:

• a serious reviewer will sign his or her review, and take responsibility for it;
• the reviewer provides a thoughtful commentary;
• he or she doesn't spoil things by revealing major plot twists;
• the reviewer's opinion can't be directly bought (accepting money or favors in return for an excellent or terrible review);
• the reviewer will reveal any connections that are relevant to understanding the context in which the review is written (for example, she went to school with the author, or the author once turned her down for a job, or the author is the publisher of the newspaper in which the review is appearing);
• the reviewer focuses on the work in question, and doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks.

Of course a reviewer can meet all these assumptions and still write a bad review. To me a bad review is one that provides no constructive criticism and no real point of view.

When publishers send ARCs to newspapers and magazines for review, there are some additional assumptions:

• the newspaper is under no obligation to assign the book for review;
• if the ARC is assigned it will be to a reviewer who is familiar with the subject area or approach, and can provide some real insight;
• the publisher knows, when the ARC is sent, that the review (if it appears) may not be positive;
• the reviewer knows not to publish extracts from an ARC (which is uncorrected, after all) without checking with the editor first;
• the publisher is providing the ARC for a specific purpose. If the newspaper doesn't review the book for whatever reason, they are not obliged to return the ARC to the publisher;
• the ARC is not meant to be sold for a profit, whether or not a review is published.

In my own case (but I suspect this is true of many authors), a reviewer who ignores this last point is suspect. If a reviewer looks at a pile of ARCs as a source of income, it's hard not to doubt his or her professionalism in other parts of the process. I know that was long winded, but I needed to establish that before I could make my point, which is this:

There are two kinds of freelance reviewers. Professionals whose reviews will end up in print someplace or another, and for payment; and those who review books just because they like the review process. Most of the reviews you read on weblogs fall into this last category. That is, people who most probably bring a lot of enthusiasm to the review process but little sense of the greater context.

And before people jump all over me: that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's great to have people discussing books in this new format. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and in this technological age, they are perfectly free to make that opinion publically available.

Here's the problem, though, as I see it: if a reviewer wants to be taken seriously, he or she should voluntarily follow basic guidelines that have evolved in the wider world of reviews, and that (she said finally) is what I mean by accountability. No matter if you're writing for the Washington Post or for your own weblog, a responsible reviewer:

• signs his or her review;
• reveals any relationship to the author or subject matter that is relevant to understanding the reviewer's position;
• provides honest and thoughtful constructive criticism;
• can't be bribed;
• doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks or commentary outside the scope of the book in question.

There's something obvious missing from this list: the matter of tone. In fact, a good review doesn't have to be polite, the tone doesn't have to be courteous, the reviewer doesn't have to show respect for the author. The reviewer can be angry, or enthusiastic. These are matters of personal style and tone. I have no problem with an angry or pointed review as long as it stops short of hostility; in fact, I would prefer anger and sharp criticism to faint praise or faux enthusiasm.