Is it necessary or advisable to read a book before providing a blurb for its jacket?

This question and others have arisen in response to my July 16 post, “Truth in Publishing: Curb Those Blurbs and Syrupy Acknowledgments.”

Answer: Custom dictates that blurbing may proceed without reading beforehand and even in complete ignorance of the book. Support for this principle can probably be found in what has widely been described as an authoritative work, How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read (Bloomsbury USA, 2007), by Pierre Bayard, a best seller in France, where it was originally published.

I haven’t read Bayard’s book, but, given the title, we can safely assume that since talk about unread books is permissible, blurbing is, too.

Next comes the question of whether reading a book is a prerequisite for reviewing it. Reviewing without reading does occur. I personally have encountered this method in published reviews of several of my books. Letters to the editor by aggrieved authors show that reviewing without reading is no rarity. This is evident in reviews that deplore positions absent from the book or, more likely, in reviews that merely acknowledge existence of the book before proceeding to unrelated matters. In the latter case, the author of the review has very likely at last found an outlet for previously rejected scribbles. The writing business takes a survival cue from meat packing: Never throw anything away.

Now regarding author’s acknowledgments. A comment following the initial post brought up the exculpatory issue, which I regrettably did not address. Authors customarily acknowledge that several or many people and organizations provided indispensable assistance of one kind or another — scholarly, intellectual, editorial, emotional, financial. Without their help, advice, encouragement, and support, the book would have been further delayed or perhaps impossible, the author declares. But what are the responsibilities of these editorial Samaritans? If their erroneous advice is incorporated into the book, do they go blameless?

Custom dictates that they do, for all authors slavishly, fulsomely express gratitude for assistance while accepting exclusive responsibility for errors and failings, and exonerating others.

This practice, along with other failings, would be corrected by passage of the Truth in Blurbing and Author’s Acknowledgment Act of 2008. Thus, a truthful acknowledgment might express appreciation for a foundation’s financial support, while pointing out that the amount was fairly skimpy and far exceeded by the salaries of the foundation’s officers. Worthless advice from senior scholars to whom the author prudently deferred should be labeled as such.

As for blurbs, occasionally subjecting their worth to peer review, as suggested in the initial post, would produce pure gain and no loss for bookshop browsers and other readers.

Congressmen and senators are now preoccupied with getting re-elected, but when the new Congress meets next year, put in a good word for the TBAAA.

(Images from Photobucket.com)