Author/Publisher Bias, on a spectrum

In this two-part article, Peter Kettle reviews the various styles of book reviewing that are adopted by those contributing on this site and in a number of other forums. The focus is on how different reviewers respond to factual mistakes and also grammatical and typographical errors.

The purpose is to set the stage for those who use this site to express their personal preference for a particular style, so as to inform future reviewers.

In Part I, styles that show a bias to “reader protection” are outlined; followed in Part II by those showing a bias to “author/publisher protection”, which concludes with a formal classification of different styles and an invitation to readers to participate.

Part II

There are two sides to this coin: first, a general disposition to look favourably on an author’s/publisher’s efforts, so promoting their interests – which can, though need not, deteriorate into unbalanced protection and a self-perpetuating clubby atmosphere. Second, of relevance here, is going fairly light to very light on those who have perpetrated factual and other sorts of errors.

In the very light category is A.E. Housmann, a reviewer on this site who tends to ignore factual errors, except for books that purport to be histories, with the associated implication that they are accurate. For instance, with Mihir Bose’s book The Nine Waves (2019), there were mistakes that he feels shouldn’t have got through to the publishing stage:

“There are a couple of things that spoil The Nine Waves. The first is a lack of attention to detail either in fact checking, editing or both. Pointing out author’s errors can be seen as, and indeed sometimes is, nit-picking on the part of a reviewer. But in the case of books that aim to be histories, trust in the facts stated assumes a greater importance, particularly if the mistakes could easily have been avoided.”

He then notes eight mistakes, and is highly specific about them. For example:

• • “A photograph of Sachin Tendulkar at The Oval in 2011 describes him as seeking to score his hundredth Test match century rather than, as would be correct, his hundredth international century.”
  • “Yajurvindra Singh of Bika should be of Bilka.”

In doing a review of Ian Lockwood’s book on the life and times of Ted Peate (published in May this year), he points out there were:

“…a couple of errors that should have been picked up at the proof reading stage…”

although he doesn’t elaborate about their nature or where in the book they occur.

Housmann is being kind here as David Frith’s review of this book in The Cricketer magazine points out more than just a couple of errors.

Elsewhere:

 “…in truth they are not the sort of mistakes that cause a reader to question the overall content of this book.”

He rarely draws attention to typos and grammatical errors which may jar slightly but don’t detract from the overall product. 

”A case in point is the Bart King biography by Stephen Musk and Roger Mann (2022): “…beautifully produced, but there are a handful of inexplicable little typos.”

Which were treated as innocuous and let pass.

With self-publishers, Housmann usually prefers not mention typos and grammatical errors at all:

“Those who self-publish have my blessing, and my expectations of them are tempered by my appreciation of the challenges which they face”.

One exception to this stance being faults noted for The Tale of The Scottish Dexter by Andy Bee (2020):

“Almost by definition self-publishers do not have editors, but it is a shame that a number of misspellings could not be picked up. Similarly, there are a few passages where the grammar goes slightly awry and there are a few occasions when something that Bee tries, entirely laudably to avoid traditional clichés, does not really work as intended. The font size and spacing and the fact that the text has a tendency to run into the gutter are also a little frustrating.”

Finally, I briefly consider Georgas Letspopoulis, also a reviewer on this site. He doesn’t really go in for noting mistakes of any kind. This might be out of principle or laziness or perhaps lack of knowledge. It’s also conceivable that he has simply failed to spot any, or that none have existed to be spotted in those relatively few works that he has reviewed.

A Formal Classification 

We can now move to setting out a formal classification of reviewer styles regarding errors identified. This ranges from a fully transparent approach at one end of the spectrum, passing on via translucent to fully opaque at the other end. The hierarchical numbering system adopted is an adaptation of that employed by the famous Austrian philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein in his book The Tractatus (initially published in German in 1921 –  Translated into English in 1922. The book’s full title is The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). The categories relating to “serious” errors indicate that the error distorts the meaning of what is being said and is liable to mislead the reader. 

Fully Opaque 

1. No mention of any typos, grammatical or factual errors, no matter how many appear or how serious they are. 
2. Mention the number of typos, grammatical and factual errors occurring. 
3. Also mention where errors occur.

3.1 Mention where in the text each one of the serious factual errors appears. 
3.2 In addition, mention where in the text each one of the non-serious factual errors appears. 
3.3 In addition, mention where in the text each one of the typos and grammatical errors appears. 

4. Also provide corrections. 

4.1 Provide corrected versions for each of the serious factual errors. 
4.2 In addition, provide corrected versions for each of the non-serious factual errors.
4.3 In addition, provide corrected versions for each of the typos and grammatical errors.

Fully Transparent

A non-participating observer might well think that all, or nearly all, readers of cricket book reviews would immediately plump for the final category where all is revealed. But one shouldn’t jump to conclusions, for that would be to pre-empt the purpose of this exercise.

There are grounds for thinking that a fair proportion of the readers might, for instance, prefer book reviewers to locate themselves in category 2, and to give the book concerned a miss if a large number of factual errors are said to occur; or perhaps show a preference for category 3.1 if they are knowledgeable, so having corrections in mind; or otherwise go for category 4.1.

Dear Reader, I’m hoping that you will consider the eight options listed above and indicate your own particular preference, using the comments box below. After two and a half weeks have passed, we shall tot up the scoring for each option and let you know how the findings should guide future book reviewing on this site.