Ten Things Readers Would Like Publishers to Know

I suspect most of us take publishers for granted. We may not even be aware of who published the book we are reading. For most of us, unless we are writers or are in the book trade, publishing is a “black box.” That doesn’t mean we don’t have opinions about publishing. That’s true of my reader friends on Facebook who recently shared what feedback they would give publishers. Here are ten of their suggestions:

  1. The biggest beef they shared was poor proof-reading. Some of the errors reflect the use of spell-check or autocorrect, sometimes resulting in a correctly spelled wrong word. If you were raised to pay attention to grammar, punctuation, and spelling, these kinds of errors are huge distractions. Also keep the convention of quotes around dialogue.
  2. Maps were a big deal for some reason. One person requested maps at the back easily folded out for reference at any time. Maps are always appreciated when there are geographic references and territory changes. Some of us like pictures as well.
  3. Covers are a big deal. People really don’t like it when you change graphic style in the middle of a series. Also, don’t make all the covers in a genre look alike.
  4. Romance covers came in for criticism for racy covers. This is particularly objectionable if you are not heterosexual.
  5. People like “soft” soft back covers that don’t crack.
  6. People do want options of both physical and e-books. Don’t release books in only one of these.
  7. Print size. Make it so that people don’t need magnifiers to read the page.
  8. One person asked for the abolition of endnotes–footnotes only. I understand. Flipping back and forth can be frustrating.
  9. Release books at the same time in different countries. It can be aggravating when friends in another country have a book months before you do.
  10. Finally, some people would love to see publishers open to new blood, to give a chance to new writers, whatever their age.

This last reminds me of what a challenge publishing is, sometimes because of the sheer number of manuscripts to evaluate and the challenge to calculate what books will do well, going through multiple printing, and which will go to the remainder sales. One person responded, “None. I believe it is hard enough to be a publisher without any additional advice and I would not like to see the end of this essential species.” There’s something to that. They take the risks, make the calls, and we get to read the finished products. We may not always like the books and have probably wondered how some made the cut. Then there are those wondrous books, sometimes from a new voice, that make you grateful that they took the risk.

How I Review a Book

I was asked a while back by some colleagues how I review a book.  I feel I am still on a learning curve about this and so would love to interact with others who both write and read reviews.

1. First of all, I really do read the whole book.  I don’t write a review until I finish the book.  Maybe I’m compulsive, but it somehow feels like cheating to review something I don’t read.

2.  I often “lead” in the review with something that particularly intrigued or interested me in the book that I think might connect with others.

3.  I usually summarize the contents.  This comes in part from my original purpose of writing reviews–providing myself with a reminder of what the book was about.  I find this also seems helpful to others in deciding if they want to read the book.

4.  Often, I will briefly engage the book–what I like (or more rarely dislike or disagree with) about the book.  This could be a matter of plot development in fiction or particular ideas in the book with non-fiction.  I do sometimes highlight good or bad writing.  I must admit to detesting writing that is convoluted and obscures what I think the writer is trying to say.

5.  Sometimes I will include a recommendation for which audiences a book might be useful.

6.  Most of the time, I keep reviews to 3-4 relatively short paragraphs.  I’m writing for online rather than print audiences.

7.  I write my reviews on my GoodReads page, which I now have linked to this blog.

I’d love to know what other reviewers and readers of reviews think about this.  And as you read reviews I post here, I would be glad to get feedback about how to make these more useful.


I originally wrote this post over a year ago. Since then there are a few things I would add to what I wrote here:

1. Since I’ve shifted to blogging, I’ve tended to write longer reviews but usually in the 800 word range. This format seems to allow me to cover at a greater depth the book’s content and my critique.

2. Reviewing in this context means that my reviews are seen more often by the authors (and sometimes editors) of the books I review. It has made me more conscious of what I think a reviewer’s responsibility is, which is to attempt to understand the book, to be honest in one’s critique while trying to be fair and generous to the author.

3. Reviewing is no longer simply my way of remembering what I’ve read. I’ve come to see it as a dialogue with readers and potential readers (as well as with authors and editors) about the books I’ve read. With rare exceptions, I hope others will borrow or buy at least some of the books I read.

4. Finally, I realize none of us can read everything. What I want to achieve in reviews is to give enough information about a book to help someone decide whether it is worth reading for them, and, even if not, to give them enough to be conversant about the book where that is useful to them. Other reviewers do this for me. Hopefully I can return the favor!

Thanks for reading and, when you like what you see, reposting these reviews and other posts on this blog!