Embarrassing....
I am a reviewer (a good one I'm told); this policy is surprising, but not unheard of. What is ridiculous is to expect a good review from those to whom you send materials, or to say someone who gets a free copy doesn't have the right to trash a book. What if I get paid to write the review? What if I get paid more than the book cost me? Another thing is, many reviewers get "free" books from sources tat purchased the books originally, what about those reviewers? Noting Mr. Figueroa's apology, I still feel there is a quibble, and that is: a reviewer has a right, and sometimes a duty, to tell people not to buy a book. Some things are that bad.
I didn't buy any of Avalanche's stuff before I was a reviewer, simply because I thought, "If they have to put these women on the covers, what must the content be like?" I thought that because, even though I was interested in their products based on Scandinavian lore, I knew that the pictures on the cover represented nothing historic at all. (I'm talking here about
Ragnarok!,
Greenland Saga, and
Doom of Odin.) Since the cover illustration was obviously not well researched, I assumed that the product's content was also inferiorly investigated. I know you're not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but on a limited budget one has to make choices. This bias could hold true for many of Avalanche's products, and is not simply based on sexism of the cover image as I've shown.
On the sexism note, I should make a few brief points. First of all, someone indicated that there were no scantily clad women in history. That's simply wrong, for many eras. The book
Nile: War in Heliopolis is inaccurate historically because the woman is wearing
too much clothing (though, ostensibly, she could be wearing an Egyptian (Kemetic) robe, many women went topless in ancient Egypt). One might also note that some recent releases by Avalanche don't have such risqué covers (
I, Mordred,
All for One and One for All, and
Vlad the Impaler Blood Prince of Wallachia).
Mistwell represented that some video game companies did the same thing. Mistwell also asserted that book publishers perpetrate identical schemes. Fast Learner (and others) asserted the latter was untrue, at least in reference to the book industry (Fast Learner stating he was a book critic). I happen to know that there are entities in the video game industry that do indeed have the same policy, though I can't name any names. (I was the art director for a video game world record, news, and reviews site.) The difference between them and Avalanche, is they don't go around saying that this is their policy.
One thing a lot of persons seem to be forgetting is that bad publicity is better than no publicity. There are some people who've never heard of Avalanche's products. You can bet some of them will go looking now that they have, and some of those people will become Avalanche's customers. Avalanche seems not to know this little tidbit, and neither do the video game companies that do it. There are those who are fans of the Avalanche product line that see a review on a site and say to themselves, "That book is out now? I gotta run by the game store!" I doubt Avalanche will see significant decreases in sales, even with this policy.
There is a point to not giving your product to someone you think is biased. If a site gives consistently bad reviews to a product line that others have little problem with, there may be a compatibility issue. If there is such an issue, then sending free samples to that reviewer is a waste of time and money. Of course, there are better ways to handle such issues than Avalanche's response. Further, the overall grade of Avalanche's books on EN World proves there's no such issue.
One must note, however, that the letter from Avalanche was to a specific individual, and not for the general public. Perhaps it was not the best idea to share that letter with the public. On the other hand, a representative of a professional entity must always think about what he or she says in any missive, and how that reflects on the company.
Boycotting Avalanche based on this faux pas is ridiculous. Maybe take any review you read with a grain of salt, but that's it. You should do that anyway, because as a wise person pointed out to me (Steve Creech), despite attempts to be objective, reviews are opinions. As a reviewer, I've seen a book I thought was garbage get middling grades form others, and lauds from still others. I focus on all aspects in my reviews, but I tend to be a stickler for an educated writing style and organized presentation, playability and accuracy of mechanics, a high-quality story, and superior art and design. Others prefer one aspect, or another group of aspects. One learns to trust certain reviewers, if there are regular ones—or reads multiple reviews.
As a reviewer, I'd like to point out that reviews aren't
that important. That doesn't mean I don't do my best.
Wulf Ratbane shows a good point about reviews:
The thorough and critical ones are absolutely necessary to improve your product.
That's my aim when I do reviews: to be thorough, and critical. Reviewers need to be educated in their subject matter to do this, however.
All this said, I still feel that Avalanche's reaction and policy are less than ideal for them and for their customers. It is unethical to expect good reviews, just because you provide free product. A reviewer has a duty top his or her readership, not to the companies that send the books. Reviewing is like providing advertising, getting the item in question into the consumer's consciousness. (Once again, any publicity is better than none.)
Game writers, artists, and companies are well advised to take a piece of advice I learned from reading Monte Cook's website and took to heart. Don't bother about bad reviews, they're opinions. But, feel free to (diplomatically) point out
factual errors in reviews. Reviewers are human (most of us, anyhow), and make mistakes.
Another thing that confuses me is that, if it is Steve Creech's review that got them in a tizzy, why? He gave
Black Flags a 3.6 out of 5!
Cheers!
