When I was unemployed for 6 months, I had the (entirely predictable and unoriginal) idea of perhaps writing book reviews until I could land my next library gig. It was disheartening to read the first bit of Library Journal’s (hereafter, LJ) guidelines:
=============================================
Library Journal Book Review is a selection tool used in both public and academic libraries. Each year it offers signed professional reviews of approximately 7,000 current titles in a wide range of disciplines. Our service is thus an important one for libraries and their users.
Reviewing for LJ is a demanding and time-consuming activity, but one that can yield a good deal of professional satisfaction. We do not accept unsolicited reviews. We do try to honor our regular reviewers’ requests for specific books or subjects to review (though not, of course, books written by friends, relatives, or associates). We ask our contributors to agree not to review for other publications the same books they review for LJ, and not to send copies of their reviews to publishers or authors.
There is no payment for reviews. When possible, the reviewer receives a finished copy of the book. Our service to the library audience would not be possible without the generosity of over 1,500 contributors. The quality of Library Journal Book Review ultimately depends on their expertise, intellectual integrity, and professional commitment.
=================================================
At the time, my heart sank and I resumed my job search which ultimately paid off six months later. But five years later I look back and realize my reaction now is: What the crap is this classist shit? No payment for reviews? It is said that “History is written by the winners”. So too are its book reviews, apparently. Unemployed between jobs? (Under-)Employed full time but weak executive functioning due to neurological difference? Who cares what you think, apparently. Nope, reviews are for closers, er, I mean Type A librarians who work AND have time to write thoughtful reviews completely gratis, from their sense of professional commitment.
As a proud former member of The Progressive Librarians Guild, I know this is the VERY mainstream Library Journal we're talking about, but damn. This is some first order noblesse oblige bullshit here. Pay for your damn reviews, LJ. You're extracting valuable intellectual labor and not paying for it. Yes, I know it "pays off" for already-successful librarians in other ways, another feather in their cap, etc. But if you actually paid for your reviews, it might motivate those of us who are struggling to write for you. Otherwise why should I bother? If my time and effort aren't valuable to you, why should I write for you and not myself? Only the already successful can really afford to write for you. It's classist as all getout, seriously. I’m a little embarrassed to admit I failed to see it that way when I was in Library school and a new member of PLG. It speaks to my (former) position of clueless privilege as I was mainly focused on being Anti-War (circa 2002) at the time. I had been against the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan and would later take a stand against the Iraq War which started while I was still finishing Library school.
Writing reviews for LJ, by being an unpaid endeavor, becomes more of a prestige thing. It’s something an established Academic Librarian working to earn tenure might do as a sign of professional commitment. Something to pad one’s C.V. with, or at least a line or two in one’s next Cover Letter to a prospective employer. If all one cared to do was write thoughtful book reviews for no pay, there’s always Amazon.com; Moreover, since LJ does not accept unsolicited reviews, becoming a reviewer in the first place is subject to a vetting process. By raising such a significant barrier to entry, it assures that LJ reviews will be not just from “the educated generalist”, their explicit goal, but also from a certain class perspective, namely middle and upper-middle class established professionals first able devote time to to undergo the vetting process itself and pass muster and then have a comfortable enough income and organizational skills to devote however many hours it takes to write such reviews at all, with “higher” long-term goals such as securing tenure at an academic institution, or garnering prestige and respect among one’s peers at professional conferences and the like. The remuneration is more long-term and ephemeral than what direct cash payment for intellectual labor would be. It protects their bottom line as a magazine, of course, and gives back higher order benefits to the already privileged while freezing out the voices of the unemployed or the underemployed, who face significant barriers to entry in getting their voices heard in print on LJ’s pages, except perhaps in letters to the editor and the like.
I’m just ashamed it took being unemployed for six months (but supported by my loving family at least) and being under-employed for five years (and being repeatedly passed over for promotion in favor of younger, non-neurodiverse candidates with less education and experience than myself) to actually perceive the inherently classist nature of LJ’s reviews policy, upon reflection. When I was more solidly Middle Class and as-yet undiagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder, when I was younger and more naive and more clueless about (my white) privilege, etc. I just didn’t see it; my Left wing politics back then were more in reaction to the Religious Right and later the war(s) of the early 2000s and rather underdeveloped, a work in progress (which it still is).
Bottom line, Library Journal should consider altering its reviews policy and pay its reviewers a reasonable amount for their intellectual labor that provides a large chunk of their content every month. I know that LJ is a business and not a charity, but by offering cash remuneration to writers of reviews, they could be doing a great service to unemployed librarians and underemployed library staff who are down on their luck at the moment, and bring more diverse perspectives to their pages as well.