Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
An author doesn't have the money to hire an artist or is a washout when it comes to graphic design, and therefore his work doesn't deserve to be read? Why is that a legitimate criterion, but an insistence on traditional publication is not? Why are reviewers acceptable gatekeepers, but traditional publishers are not?
|
How do we know that people aren't paying reviewers to give good reviews?
Cue the joke about reviewers being paid to give five stars, and critics getting paid less to give an honest opinion.