Reading the back of book jackets with sci-fi authors endorsing novels written by other sci-fi authors, and military thriller authors endorsing novels written by fellow military thriller authors, seems that these authors are inadvertently promoting books written by their rivals, or books that would be jostling for sales and attention within the same genre. Is this like quid pro quo?
Money. If everybody hypes each other’s books, they all get better sales.
It’s free advertising for their own books.
The authors I know aren’t cutthroat; they adopt a “rising tide” approach to writing, in which the more good fiction is out there, the more the audience will crave good fiction. Obviously not all authors are like that.
For me, I’m very happy to see reviews, as I’ve learned which ones to trust. If I see a review by Daniel Abraham, I’ll probably love the book. If there’s a review by Ursula Le Guin, it’s iffy (she’s posrepped some books I found dreadful). If Orson Scott Card has blurbed it, that’s a good book to put back on the shelf.
At least for academic nonfiction genres, one reason is that other people writing the same sort of books tend to be the people the publishers ask to review new book proposals or manuscripts.
If you say positive things in the manuscript review, publishers will usually get back to you later to ask if they can excerpt them for a blurb/endorsement.
That’s the way I see it. If you’re being asked to endorse a rising new author in a genre, you’re being acknowledged as one of the existing leaders in that genre.
Books aren’t consumed like cars or beer are consumed. Books are effectively collected. People don’t need a reason to buy one book over another, but rather one book in addition to another.
Besides all of the economic reasons, authors are people, too. Haven’t you ever told a friend “this is a good book; you should read it”? Well, authors read books, too, and enjoy them, and also like to recommend them to others. They just have the ability to recommend them to a lot more others than you do.
Generally, the publisher sends out copies of the book to other authors to be blurbed. The book author can suggest names, or it can just be the publisher’s choice. Sometimes the person giving the quote has read the book; other times they haven’t.
They’re done because they’re effective. Word of mouth is by far the best way to promote a book, and a blurb is word of mouth. If you’re a fan of author A, his or her comments are going to carry weight. Even if the author isn’t your favorite, the blurb will make a reader consider a purchase more seriously.
Authors do it to help out other authors. Nearly all authors will help out another author. They know how difficult it is to succeed.
Surely some do it just because they like books a lot. Stephen King seems to review huge numbers of books and I’m sure it’s not so the authors will review his books.
Spy magazine had a regular feature called “Logrolling in Our Time” in which they gave examples of authors endorsing each other’s books:
Hmm, why has the italicization feature of posting quit working?
Yeah, typically people who read books want to read more books. It’s not like, say, cars, where buying a Ford means you won’t be buying a Chevy.
Hmmm, I read The Name of The Wind based partly on positive blurbs by Le Guin and Card, and was not disappointed.
Books aren’t competing against each other for a limited amount of reading time; books are competing against other forms of entertainment for a limited amount of free time (which could be used for reading/watching tv/going to movies/etc. etc.). A person who is convinced to spend time reading a book and finds enjoyment in doing so is more likely to buy another book and another one, increasing market share for books as opposed to other forms of entertainment.
It’s right up there on the same line as the quote function.
I agree with all of the above. Books are not a zero-sum game. The more you like books, the more books you will buy. That’s why Amazon does so well with its features showing what other people bought and if you liked this, then… The upside is potentially infinite. I have 12,000 or so books. I buy more every week.
I want everybody to do the same. If that means mentioning a book to friends, or here on the Dope, fine. Nobody really knows how meaningful blurbs are - the publishing industry is the only industry in the world that does not study its customers - but if they do work that’s fine. I consider it an honor to be asked to blurb a book.
You gotta wonder sometimes. I remember saying to my wife once: “If Steven King actually reads all the books he has cover blurbs on, he’d never have time to write any books, let alone the huge ones he does.”
Even if pairs of authors are recommending each others’ books a lot, that doesn’t necessarily imply that there’s any sort of quid pro quo. Authors will generally write the same kind of book that they enjoy reading (or at least, will attempt to). If you have two good authors, then, who like the same kind of book, then they’re likely to honestly enjoy each others’ books.
Some authors are known as “blurb whores.” I doubt that includes King, who seems to really like everyone he touts.
The New York/Washington intellectual world is tiny and inbred. No doubt that some circles are mere daisy chains of mutual ass-sniffing.
Even so, I always thought that Spy’s logrolling articles were probably mostly unfair and uncalled for. Of course, being unfair was part of their mission statement.
Hmm, the italicization feature works again. This morning it definitely didn’t work for me. Now it does.
This thread has focussed on fiction books. I agree with the above comments that it indicates to a reader that they may like this book if they like the books of one of the endorsers.
I write non-fiction, so it is slightly different. The endorsement of a respected non-fiction author and/or authority in the field indicates how serious a book it is - does it have academic backing? Maybe fringe writers? Better known writers? It all helps the potential reader assess whether this is the sort of book they would like to buy.
I’ve endorsed books in the skeptical and scientific area because that’s a place where I am known.