Random reactions to the results of the National Book Critics Circle's survey on ethical practices for book reviewers and review editors:

⇒The fact that roughly half of the respondents believed it was acceptable for a reviewer "to regularly review books from the same one (or two) favorite publishing houses" speaks volumes to me about what is most stagnant in contemporary book reviewing. I wonder what the response would have been if the question had been more baldly stated as to the acceptability of an editor assigning reviews of books from the same houses over and over. I suspect it would be different, and I'm curious as to the perceptual mindset that would allow for such divergence.

⇒I found it mildly interesting that, among those people who could confine themselves to a simple yes or no answer, opinions were precisely divided on the question of whether it's "ethical for a reviewer to decline to review a book he has already accepted for review, on the ground that he didn't like the book and doesn't want to say negative things in print."

⇒"Given that some companies... pay bloggers for reviews of products and services, should any book reviews commissioned in that way be identified as arising out of commissions?" The obvious and overwhelming answer to that question is "yes," but given that it's highly unlikely that any bookblogger of any repute, or with any likely interest in associating with "real" book reviewers like those in the NBCC, engages in such practices, should one consider this question anything other than rhetorical flamebait?

⇒Speaking of blogs, if at least 54.6 percent of the survey's respondents believe that "iterary blogs [should] adhere to the same rules of ethics, whatever the consensus may turn out to be on them, as newspaper book-review sections," I would hope that they also believe that the maintenance of a literary blog is in and of itself sufficient to qualify one for membership in the National Book Critics Circle along with the rest of the "professional book review editors and book reviewers." If not, I really don't see that bloggers, even those who are also professional book reviewers, need to give weight to any judgment the NBCC membership passes on their blogging practices. (There are other philosophical objections one could raise to imposing ethical standards by "consensus," particularly when it's as nebulous as the Circle's, but that conversation may be too deep first thing on a Monday morning.)

⇒One imagines that all those NBCC members contributing to the Barnes & Noble Review must be breathing a sigh of relief that slightly more than half of their peers think it's okay for a book review to include links to sites that sell the book under consideration. Interesting that the survey chose not to raise the precise question of whether it's okay for literary blogs to link to sites that sell the books they discuss, given the weight that issue has been given by NBCC members in times past.