Letters
Authors and publishers
Sir: I cannot allow Richard 01lard's some- what crotchety little bit of self-justification (Letters, 23 March) about the jacket copy of Philip Ziegler's Mountbatten book to pass without a further comment. Mr 01lard implies that it becomes acceptable for a publisher to describe his own book as 'a masterpiece' when the editor responsible has written to the Spectator to make it clear that this judgment was independently ar- rived at without reference to the author.
My point is that London publishers generally rather diminish themselves by the promiscuity with which they are brand- ing their own books with plaudits which should properly be delivered by reviewers, If at all. I have just reviewed another book — a rather indifferent American oral history — which a respectable English publisher suggests on the jacket achieved 'near Tolstoyari breadth'.
No one would have a greater respect than I for the admirable Richard 01lard's Judgment that the Mountbatten book is 'a masterpiece' (which it almost is) were the judgment expressed under his signature on a review page. I still believe the practice to be shoddy and silly in making such remarks anonymously on the jacket of a book. I Speak with some feeling on this subject since I myself am about to be embarrassed by the publication of a picture book with my name on the jacket whereupon the Publisher has, without consulting me, grossly exaggerated my own standing as a military historian. When the book is pub- lished, I think readers and reviewers can be forgiven for assuming that any author is familiar with his own jacket copy and is thus party to these absurd hypes. As a result author and publisher merely appear equally ridiculous.
Max Hastings
Guilsborough Lodge, Northamptonshire
Previous page
