Raiders of the Lost ARC

Apparently there was some back-and-forthing on the Twit about reviewers not following through on ARCs (Advance Review Copies).

I'm not going to get mired in that discourse, except to say that if reviewers request ARCs and fail to deliver reviews ahead of a book's launching, they're screwing over the writers and publishers with their bad faith.

Simply put: don't make a request for an ARC if you are unable or unwilling to do the reviews for the book(s) in question.

It's a shit thing to do, because the only value of an ARC is for marketing and promotional purposes -- that's the express purpose of an ARC.

If a reviewer requests an ARC and fails to review it, they're getting a book to read for free -- and the price they ought to pay is with a timely review.

When they fail to do this, said reviewer reveals themself to be (at best) an amateur, a hobbyist, perhaps a charlatan, or, worse, an active con artist or huckster.

All too often indie reviewers whine and complain about all the piles of books in their TBR piles -- which is like a coal miner complaining about going underground, or a writer complaining about having to use words: it goes with the territory. Reviewers are supposed to review.

The reviewers who are making those complaints are not professionals, full stop. They want to be seen as reviewers, but don't want to be stuck doing the work reviewers have to do. They want to eat their cake and have it, too.

Simple solutions to the ARC problem, "reviewers": 1) don't request ARCs if you aren't willing and able to follow through on that request and deliver a timely review; 2) don't put your name out there as a reviewer if you don't like reviewing books, or find yourself unable to do so. That would be like a baker who doesn't bake anything.

I think what we have are a lot of hobbyists/enthusiasts out there who love getting free books, and chafe at any sense of obligation that comes with getting those free books, and use their social media platform to slag writers and/or publishers who try to hold them to their obligations. But an ARC isn't just a book; it's specifically intended to assist with marketing.

Publishers should take note of which reviewers burn them regarding ARCs and simply refuse requests for ARCs from the ones who are problems in terms of follow-through.

That'll save publishers headaches (and, let's be clear, in the case of print ARCs, there's an actual cost there that impacts the publisher). There'll be some social media whining about it, but the fact remains: the "reviewers" are the ones who failed the writers and the publishers, not the other way around. These charlatans are bad faith actors.

Reviewers: if you want to be taken seriously as reviewers, follow through on each and every ARC request you make. That'll help you build your professional reputation as a reliable reviewer.

NOTE: I'm not talking about unsolicited review copies; I'm only talking about ones where a reviewer reaches out and requests an ARC.

This may trigger some of you reading this, but a reviewer who fails on following through on an ARC request (or on multiple requests) should expect nothing else in the future. Maybe take that time to work through your ARC backlog, you slovenly shits.

And if you can't handle the above, you're absolutely part of the problem with the indie publishing world.