At MediaBistro, (UNCG alumna) Quinn Dalton denounces anonymous reviewing after her book, Bulletproof Girl, received a negative, anonymous review from trade journal Kirkus Review:

Bulletproof Girl, my second book and first story collection, received a flailing recently from Kirkus Reviews. The unbylined review deemed my writing "pat," my stories "flat" and the collection as a whole trivial for dealing with "overly familiar domestic issues." (I guess I should've seen that coming: Stories by women about women are by nature domestic, and therefore overly familiar; one might as well put the kitchen sink on the cover.)

When the Kirkus review came out, it was painful to have my work dismissed—but equally painful was the thought of orders of Bulletproof Girl from libraries and booksellers disappearing with every withering word, and the worry that few consumer periodicals would decide to include it in their review plans as a result. Since the other four leading trades, Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, and Booklist, did not weigh in at all, there was nothing to counteract that first negative review for nearly a month. In the meantime, since major Internet retailers like Amazon and Barnes & Nobles have licensing agreements to post trade reviews, I knew consumers would be able to read them as well.

While negative reviews are a reality, I didn't feel that this review was fair or accurate. So I found myself wondering about the reviewer's point of view, as I often do when reading reviews of other books. Given the "domestic" comment, was my reviewer male or female? What other books had this reviewer praised or disliked? What was his or her professional background? But of course, since Kirkus publishes unsigned reviews, I couldn't begin to answer any of these questions. To not be able to place the review in any kind of context in connection to the reviewer was both frustrating to me and a disservice to the people who use these reviews to make buying decisions for their customers.

Some really good points here, although I'm not quite sold. The editors of Kikus and Publisher's Weekly make good cases too:

[PW editor Sara] Nelson says that using signed reviews might create too cozy a relationship between reviewer and reviewee. "Over time, even the most unfamous reviewer would start to be known, and publishers and editors might begin lobbying to get (or not get) a certain reviewer, depending on his or her attitudes in the past." Also, she adds, "Many reviewers have acknowledged that not signing the review gives them total freedom to say what they really think."

[Kirkus Reviews editor Elaine] Szewczyk shares this point of view. "These days, many reviewers are authors themselves (or aspiring authors), and it's not hard to imagine a scenario in which a reviewer might deliver a soft opinion of a book for fear of alienating the book's author." Offering the does-this-dress-make-me-look-fat analogy, she explains, "Put it this way: X may think that Y's sweater is ugly, but it's not likely that X would admit as much if Y solicited X's opinion at, say, some random dinner party. If asked, X might bend the truth, responding, 'Oh, the sweater is fine.' That's human nature. Kirkus takes its responsibility to the book community seriously, and it's never been our job to be polite at the dinner party." She notes that Kirkus lists contributing reviewers' names in the inside cover of each issue—just not with their corresponding reviews.

In any event, the case against anonymous reviewing would be much better (as Jessa at my increasingly beloved Bookslut notes) if the article didn't hinge quite-so-much on Dalton's own self-interest, or on her unflailing, right-or-wrong belief in Bulletproof Girl's quality. I haven't read the book yet -- though I plan to -- so I don't know how good it is. But the fact that the author of a book thinks a negative review must have been unfair -- and its anonymous author certainly biased against her, if only we could prove it -- seems a little unremarkable, and not particularly strong evidence against anonymous reviewing as an institution.

Historical footnote: We here at Backwards City originally planned to run an anonymous blog. It lasted about a week and a half, until we the other editors got together and decided we they didn't want to be held responsible for each other's my opinions. Which is fine with me, because PClem's taste in music sucks.

(Kidding aside, what actually happened is that we decided exactly as Library Journal and Booklist did in Quinn's article: that we as individuals don't speak for each other or for the magazine as a whole, which is what anonymity implies. And this decision has turned out entirely for the good, not least of all for our plans to apply for 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in the coming months.

Speaking of which, is there a nonprofit-corporations lawyer in the house?)