You’re not the first to question this practice. What prompted the change?
One thing I set out to do as publisher at S&S was ask questions. Who finds blurbs effective? What is their utility? I think the practice has become so common that not engaging in it actually makes a book distinct. I would certainly be more intrigued if I came across a book that didn’t have any of those endorsements—that was using, say, that back cover real estate in a unique way. I also wonder, Are we just publishing the same books because we saw a blurb, and we didn’t give a fair shake to a book that didn’t get one? Why didn’t it? Because it didn’t deserve one, or because the author didn’t go to an MFA program or have connections?
What does this mean in practical terms?
There’s few people I’ve met who say they’ve bought a book because of a blurb. More commonly, I’ve heard, “I bought a book because my friend told me about it,” or, “I saw it on TikTok from some anonymous person who has been passionately proselytizing about it.” My worry is that the time it takes to source these blurbs takes away time from the editorial team to focus on the work itself. It takes time that we could be putting into thinking up creative marketing and publicity ideas. I’d rather put our time more into coming up with innovative ways to get attention for the book. It’s similar for the author and the agents themselves. So many authors have instituted a sort of blurb hiatus or moratorium. They understand that there’s an issue here.
