Originally Posted by speakingtohe
I doubt that many would print a bad blurb/review in a book they were publishing. Also seems a tad unlikely that a well known author would write a glowing review of a book they found to be mediocre or worse.
I'd agree with the former; based on comments I've seen elsewhere (admittedly anecdotal evidence, to be sure), I have my doubts about the latter. Yes, I'd expect any blurb in a book to be positive, which is why, IMO, they are all pointless (and many of them suspect). Maybe if I occasionally came across the blurb that read: "The Times only gave us one star... but you won't let that stop you now, will ya?
" I might feel differently. But it's all one-sided promotion.
That's why if Locke was willing to accept bad reviews with the good, for promotional purposes, I'd consider him one notch up on the honesty chart above traditional publishing practices.
I will admit, though, that the service used actively encouraged positive reviews over negative, by its nature; so, not as even-handed as it could have been.