On being paid for reviews

I read this article with disdain.  It appears Alan Baxter was reading about it at around the same time and wrote a thought provoking post. A few reviewers including me have chipped in:

Paid reviews hurt everyone, except those being paid

There’s a caveat to the title of this post, explained later, but I don’t mind a bit of sensationalism. So, this has come around again. It’s a subject that has cropped up a few times and usually makes the news cycle once in a while. It basically boils down to predatory fuckwits offering to write glowing reviews of any book (which they won’t bother to read) in exchange for cashmoney. Idiot authors jump on the bandwagon and buy those reviews in a desperate attempt to get their work noticed. [Read on]

I don’t get paid to review.  I did recently receive a gift package from a publicity agent (chocolates and a bottle of wine) but that’s the extent of the largesse and there was no obligation attached to said gift (it still makes me uneasy though).

You see I think it’s important to be as objective as possible when being a reviewer.  Now, anyone with the slightest understanding of human psychology will know that it’s impossible to be entirely objective. Aside from quite stark, obvious and conscious biases we are beset by all manner of subconscious influences that impact on our opinions and choices.

I aim to be as honest and objective as I can, to be as aware of my biases as I can and to develop a reputation around that, so that readers can come to me and know that I am not just a freelance cog in a PR marketing machine.

Introducing money into the relationship alters things, above all it alters perceptions-presuming you were honest about what you receive in the first place.

Now Alan presents a scenario where a reviewer could get paid for a “no obligation to write nice stuff” review.  Some reviewers put a great deal of time and effort into reading and writing reviews, promoting their niche/community and surely they should either get some reward, some recompense for their hard and often times professional quality work.  This is a seductive suggestion.

And in an ideal world might work.

I think what would happen is what occurred in the article above.  The reviewer lured on by desire or need for cash, would compromise themselves and begin fabricating reviews.  And even if you didn’t, others would, thereby casting doubt over reviewers as a whole.

As I stated in the comments on Alan’s blog, I don’t think the issue is a new one.  I am sure that since books have been reviewed there’s been all manner of slightly dodgy ethical situations.  From taking reviewers to lunch, or taking advantage of contacts, familial or otherwise.

Where to draw the line though?  The gift pack I refer to above, swag some might receive as part of a publicity campaign, is given without obligation but it has the potential to affect your emotions and the relationship.

But then so does being part of a community, having a good relationship with authors you interview.  Is the only safe approach to be as transparent as possible? Is that enough? Is it possible?

I have been bought drinks by authors( and bought drinks in turn), not in exchange for anything but as part of being in a community of readers, reviewers and convention goers. 

I have friendships with some authors, people whose work I have reviewed and those who I have not. Do we need to state the relationship when reviewing?  How much of authors and reviewers lives should remain private?

But returning to payment.  Should I be paid for my reviews?

Having a good honest think about it…no.

Opinions are cheap, even well informed one’s.  So my thinking is that if I were to be paid it’s not going to be worth the impact on my credibility or the obligation that it entails. 

But focussing on money as the only currency negates the other benefits that you might get as a reviewer.  When I look back at what I have gained as reviewer I am happy and continue to be. 

I get books - I have a TBR pile that breaks OHS regulations and there are books that are a chore to read, but in the end I do end up with some quality work, some of which I would have never chanced to read otherwise.

There’s the contact with people who write the stuff that my imagination transforms into stories. That never gets old.  From picking an authors brain during my Galactic Chat interviews to going to dinner as part of awards celebrations. To beginning and a maintaining friendships and acquaintances that enrich my life.

Would I love to be able to write what I do and make money somehow.  Sure, but it would be a bonus on top of the things I have spoken of.  Direct payment for an opinion, however, is not an option for me.  It may be for others, and I won’t judge them( okay maybe a little, privately) for doing so.

---

Did you enjoy this post? Would you like to read more? You can subscribe to the blog through a reader,by Email or Follow me on twitter.

Readercon Resolved

 

The Convention Committee has issued a public statement:

Public Statement by the Readercon Convention Committee

August 5, 2012

In regard to the harassment complaint brought by Genevieve Valentine against René Walling for his actions at Readercon 23, with additional relevant information provided by Kate Kligman, and the Readercon board's decision to restrict Mr. Walling from membership for two years, in contravention of Readercon's stated policy that harassment at Readercon will be met with a lifetime ban:

We, the Readercon convention committee (concom), unreservedly offer the following apologies and statements to the individual people who have been hurt by Readercon's actions, to the larger Readercon community, and to everyone who has been distressed by the Readercon board's decision and its implications, especially in the context of recent discussions about the toxicity of harassment and the need for event organizers to create safer spaces. While the original complaint and decision were handled by the Readercon board rather than the concom, we take full responsibility for correcting the board's errors, providing redress to those who have been harmed, and taking active steps to make Readercon safer and more comfortable.

Where this document says "we," it refers to and speaks for the entire concom.[Continue]

H/t Mr Scalzi

A good result for the Committee, the Convention and the community at large.

Although I think that a mandatory lifetime ban as the only tool for enforcing policy needs review ( though I certainly think it fits the behaviour in this instance).  It’s very easy in a seemingly clear cut case to say “Nup. any form of harassment- nail the offender to the wall”. 

My concern lies in the effect such a blunt instrument might have on reporting harassment that might be discounted as borderline social ineptness by the victim.

That is:

creepy guy/girl is a bit too touchy feely but the victim doesn’t want to report it because

a) they are discounting the unpleasant occurrence themselves weighing up its significance perhaps

b) the penalty is harsh, no matter what the severity of harassment might be and the victim feels uncomfortable getting someone booted from the con.¹

Best in my mind that a victim feel comfortable reporting a potential misunderstanding/potentially harassing behaviours, so that con staff can “have a word” with the offender and record the instance.

Behaviours that are not checked, might develop into something we have seen above.  The socially stunted, bumbling idiot who exhibits harassing behaviours, will curtail the behaviour.  The predator, will be on notice. We hope.

Then again cons are staffed by fans. Is the sort of response system something we can expect to get from volunteers?

---

^{1.From Barriers to Effective Enforcement of Sexual Harassment Law:  Women often do not want to hurt the harasser. This reason derives partly from the traditional saying "boys will be boys," which is used as an excuse for inappropriate behavior by males. Girls are taught to keep silent and to overlook bad behavior by boys. Carol Gilligan's research indicates that women think about the possible negative consequences to all persons involved. The negative consequences to the harasser may not be inconsequential. Since many women have little choice about where they work, they find it necessary to put up with a situation that they feel they cannot change. "What can't be cured must be endured" is too often the case with victims of sexual harassment [source].↩}

---

You can subscribe to the blog through a reader,by Email or Follow me on twitter.

Learning from Readercon

I want to talk a bit about the community, any sort of community’s response to harassment of any members.

View this summary to get you up to speed:

Sexual Harassment at Readercon

Summary
This year at Readercon, Rene Walling stalked and repeatedly harassed Genevieve Valentine. Despite an anti-harassment policy that specified a lifetime ban for harassers, multiple witnesses to the harassment, and at least one outside report establishing harassment as a long-term pattern of behavior by Walling, Readercon decided to ban Rene Walling for two years. [read more]

In some respects, unless I am missing something the process of reporting a harasser worked.  The complaint was taken seriously and investigated.

An environment existed where Genevieve Valentine felt confident in reporting.  Where the process came unstuck is in the handing down of the ‘sentence’. This consequently has undermined confidence in the part of the process that was working.

Readercon had a zero tolerance policy outlined on their website, and there is only one stated outcome, permanent expulsion.  You can argue whether or not a mandatory life ban is a wise instrument, you can still have a zero tolerance policy and deal out sentences of varying severity. 

But I don’t know that discussing anything further on the incident will get anywhere. I think that they should have stuck to the policy.

Sufficed to say I am not convinced that a different group of people in the same position (the board) would not have come up with a different result.  I wasn’t there, I didn’t participate in the process but its easy to participate in armchair lawyering/judgement. I am reminded of a law experiment where journalists who were heavily critical of “light” sentences were given the role of judging a series of cases that mirrored those they had criticised.  The outcome? They delivered light sentences.

To my mind the only thing a con can do is provide is an atmosphere of safety, ensure that people feel confident in reporting and that the complaints will be investigated, offenders warned and/or expelled as soon as possible. 

The reality of the situation is that a serious case of harassment, one that requires immediate removal of the offender is likely a case to be handled by police.  The much more prevalent, still serious, and harder to detect/verify set of behaviours carried out by experienced predators and clueless individuals alike requires that we investigate, gather witnesses and provide the accused with a chance to defend themselves- all of which takes time.

No con can guarantee zero harassment, they can only react after the fact and provide the assurance that matters will be dealt with professionally and promptly.

Let’s not forget either that these cons are run by dedicated volunteers, not individuals trained for the specific purpose that we are putting them to task on. We expect them to do the best they can.

What can we do?

Where I can see the most significant chance for a change in culture is within the larger Con going public.  It’s not just up to the Con organisers to deal with harassment but the attendees as well.

A harasser is does not generally sprout horns nor stink of sulphur.  They are our friends, people we look up to, people who we have had nothing but pleasant interactions with, people who have sacrificed time and effort for the things we all love doing. They have been in the past, famous authors.

I see in my internet wanderings, people discounting and minimising what Rene Walling has done.  Those discussions prompted a memory of some earlier training that I was required to do as part of my role as a teacher.

So please indulge me as I digress

Teachers have training in regards to reporting child abuse and even then, viewed in hindsight, trained people can fail to respond appropriately in regards to policy.

Harassment isn’t child abuse, but they are social problems of magnitude. 

I am required to be trained regularly in the reporting of child abuse to the appropriate authorities for my work as a Teacher, I and all other teachers undergo yearly training or updates. The reason? The psychological factors involved in having to report child abuse require that we are constantly reminded of the personal biases/thought processes that impede that action. 

What has this to do with Readercon or ANYcon?

There’s a model that I will outline below.  First, hopefully it highlights why we are seeing the behaviours and comments that seek to downplay the issue of harassment and second, make us more aware of our own on biases so that we have a chance to act,we will be able to negotiate them.

The Discount Model

In one of my early  training sessions we were introduced to the “Discount Model” which rather nicely explains how humans, when confronted with any social problem of magnitude will discount what they are observing and minimise their chance of taking reasonable action (action that is within in our means taking into account personal safety etc.)

We do this because generally we don’t like getting involved in messy, social/personal situations, even more so when those who are the problem are friends, have power, are well liked etc..

  Now people come to the observation of an act of harassment from different places and experiences, which is why some people can go to a Con and not have seen or experienced any issues while being in the same room as others who have. 

We have different experience, morals, genders and cultures that shape our perceptions. Those of us who have been assaulted/harassed will be hyper vigilant.  Those who have not, possibly oblivious.

The model, which presents 4 areas of potential impediment, is presented in no particular order:

Existence: the  challenge is getting around “there is no problem”.  Which might arise in situations where we are commenting on a situation second hand and espousing opinions like “women always make this stuff up”.  Thankfully I haven’t observed this in the current situation.  But there are some out there that think women are only out to trap men and make vexatious claims.

Significance: the problem is not very serious.  This I have seen mentioned in the comments section at the summary post linked above:

I’ve known René for years and years and do not understand what happened at ReaderCon. I read the Live Journal entries, and still don’t get it. He touched her elbow? He put his arm around her and helped her through a crowd? Maybe there’s a cultural difference, but in Montreal people are always hugging and kissing.

Solvability: there’s nothing that we can do about it, it’s just the way it is.  Now I haven’t observed this one directly in comments.  But we must question ourselves when we might give this excuse.  We can tackle the problem of harassment.

Self: I can’t do anything, that’s for the “insert faceless governing body here” .  It’s up to the Con committee to protect us?  Essentially it’s someone else’s problem, they should deal with it.  I’ve outlined what I think a convention committee can realistically do. 

The rest of it is up to us.

Nice people, can be “just” nice people and they can be harassers too.  We are not our brother’s/sisters keeper but we can

a) act to stop them carrying out harassment or

b) report them if we don’t feel confident approaching them directly

If we are aware of the ways in which we might discount the problem then we we increase our ability to act.

The 4 areas above sound easy to identify, but we make these considerations in the blink of an eye without conscious consideration sometimes.

Did he really pat her on the arse? Oh well she seems okay with it?  One of the Con committee will step in if something gets out of hand? What if I look like a fool saying something?

Human interaction is complex and we have to make judgement calls.  Some people are very touch feely at cons and have long friendships that allow for behaviour that might raise eyebrows.  We have to realise though when we are making excuses for not acting, have to be self aware enough to differentiate.

And if in doubt there’s no real harm in asking someone if they are okay with the attention they are getting. 

A realistically safe environment

A  safe environment requires

1. confidence in a conventions ability to promptly and professionally handle complaints and prevent further actions from the individuals shown to be harassers
2. and a Con going public who are aware and tuned into what constitutes harassment and what they can do to prevent it.

How do we achieve that?  An awareness raising vid sent to all attendees?  An explanation of your own self talk that will minimise your reaction?

A community discussion worth having at any rate.

---

You can subscribe to the blog through a reader,by Email or Follow me on twitter.