@RUTGERS.ARPA:allison@mitre.ARPA (05/08/85)
From: Burgess Allison <allison@mitre.ARPA> >>> At last able to put down _Cats_Have_No_Lord_ by Will * Shetterly, >> >> I must admit that the reviewers for the cover blurb (Brust and >> ???), put me off a bit when it was revealed that they and the >> author had cooperated in several workshops and publishing houses. > >Why does the relationship among the writers change this? >Are you aware of the extent to which authors know each other? I'm >not. Harlan Ellison recommends Heinlein's FRIDAY. I wouldn't be at >all surprised if they've met. Does this invalidate the >recommendation? Is this really a question? No, of course the relationship doesn't invalidate your opinion, but it sure does put the recommendation in a different light than if it had come from a -- shall we say -- less interested party. I'm *not* saying that your opinion and recommendation aren't both honest and sincere (I'm sure they are). Still, you should be able to see that these types of relationships have, and should have, an impact on how the recommendation is perceived. (Just as if you worked for Apple and gave an honest and sincere recommendation that people buy Macintoshes ... and certainly the same would hold true regardless of the form of relationship -- employee, consultant, dealer -- whatever.) It's not that the information *is* wrong, misleading or dishonest. It's just that the mere presence of this type of relationship introduces *a potential* for self-interest to creep into the opinion, which in turn increases the *possibility* that the information is wrong, misleading or dishonest. No, we can never know *all* the relationships between various authors/ recommenders. But we *would* like to know of any relationships that are of a business or near-business nature. Presumably, (at least some cynics would make this assumption) relationships involving business would be more likely to invoke the self-interest mechanism than would mere acquaintance. And finally, I suspect that the author of the comment was mostly criticizing the *publisher* (for failing to find someone else to recommend the book), rather than impugning the veracity of your recommendation. The implication, of course, is that they couldn't find a disinterested party to recommend it. On the positive side, it's quite heartening to see that the publisher *did* disclose the relationship. <flame off> Sorry about reacting so strongly. It's just that I'm rather intense on the subject of disclosing potential conflicts of interest. -- Burgess Allison <allison@mitre>