On April 23, 2009, a federal district court in the southern Russian province of Dagestan issued an unprecedented ruling, ordering a journalist of a local newspaper to pay compensation in an amount equal to US$1,000 to a writer who did not like a review of his book published in the newspaper. The plaintiff, an author whose work of fiction was reviewed in the publication’s book review section, sued the reviewer, claiming that the author and his family had experienced severe mental suffering and that his professional reputation was damaged as a result of the review. The writer stated that after reading the book review, he experienced chest pains, headache, and elevated blood pressure. He demanded to be compensated in the amount of US$150,000. Both parties were dissatisfied with the court ruling and expressed their intention to appeal.

Maybe publishers can get on this as well. . . . Start suing papers for crappy reviews, or even suing them for not reviewing the book! My health (and our financial stability, I might add) has been severely hampered by all the reviews I’m counting on that have yet to appear . . .

There’s a lot of interesting data in the survey, and Romano points out some of the highlights:

• 68.5 percent of book reviewers think anyone mentioned in a book’s acknowledgements should be barred from reviewing it.

• 64.9 percent think anyone who has written an unpaid blurb for a book should also be banned from writing a fuller review.

• 76.5 percent think it’s never ethical to review a book without reading the whole thing.

• And 52 percent think it’s not okay for a book-review editor, in assigning books for review, to favor books by writers who also review regularly for that editor’s book section.

As a publisher, here’s my favorite:

• 45.7% responded that it’s not OK for freelancers to request more books than they can possibly review and sell the extras.

Also, 54.6% of those surveyed felt that blogs should adhere to the same rules of ethics as newspaper book review sections. What I really like is the first comment—” I would hope so, but you know they won’t. . . .” I just think that’s perfect.

Overall, there’s a lot to be looked at, discussed, etc. Here’s one of Romano’s conclusions:

Third, I believe a conclusion in my comment on the 1987 survey remains valid — book reviewers are largely divided between those who believe in something you might call the “objective” book review, and those who don’t — attitudes toward specific practices in the field follow almost syllogistically from one premise or the other.

Sounds like The Nation plans on keeping up its excellent commitment to book coverage.

Some changes are afoot though, as Palatella will look to bring more essays about literature and pop culture into the section and also beef up online coverage of books and the arts.

Ah, but there’s the problem: rigorous writing—rigorous thinking—is concise, not stretched out, corpulent, flabby. I’ll take a lean review, spare as a runner headed round a quarter-mile track. I know I can’t be alone in disagreeing with the notion that it takes 2500 words to express an idea, or in feeling a little impatient with those writers who are too grand to pick the important things, say them, and then stop. Full stop.