Whispers is always looking for more people to join its team of reviewers.

If this is something you are interested in doing then check out the details of how it works by reading the first two posts here.

Still interested? Then mail Pete and he’ll sign you up before you come to your senses.

Whispers is primarily about promoting work from the small/indie press (we figure the likes of Stephen King and Clive Barker get enough promotion without us jumping on the bandwagon) and that falls within the genres of F/SF/H, though our interpretation of such labels is very broad (they’re marketing categories, not straitjackets for the imagination).

If you have a magazine or book which you think might be suitable for a review on Whispers, then as a first step mail Pete, who will either demure or offer it out to our review team.

Once allocated, the publication can then be mailed direct to the reviewer, which has the double advantage of saving Whispers money on postage and ensuring that review copies are not wasted. Publishers should also be able to provide a cover scan if required.

Points to Note

Whispers is an amateur site. We have a large team of reviewers, with people of differing abilities and preferences, but none of our team are on a par with the likes of John Clute or S T Joshi, so if you think your work merits that sort of consideration then for both our sakes we would ask you to send it elsewhere.

All we require of our reviewers is that:-

• They tell you why they like or dislike a particular publication

• They don’t give away the endings

• They remain factual as far as possible

• They do not allow themselves to be influenced by any personal experience they may have had with a particular publisher or writer

Beyond that, we are happy for them to comment as they feel appropriate and put as much or as little of their own personalities into the reviews as they wish.

The Small Press is an insular environment in which everybody knows everybody else, and for that reason we will allow publishers/authors to disqualify up to two members of our team from reviewing their work, with no explanation required. We would point out however, that a review may not be done as a result of this.

A list of our reviewers can be found here, and requests to disqualify individuals should be made when first offering us a copy to review.

Beyond that we are happy to investigate any claims that an individual is using Whispers’ reviews as a forum to pursue personal grievances, and if that proves to be the case we will not use that reviewer in future.

Should you have a complaint contact Pete with the details as a first step, but please note that our position is we believe all our reviewers comment in good faith until and unless proven otherwise, and the simple fact of a writer being rejected by a publication, on its own does not constitute proof of bad faith.

However, it’s only fair that this cut both ways.

Complaints about negative reviews have been a contributory factor in causing other sites to give up on reviewing altogether, which we regard as regrettable and a loss to us all.

We understand that nobody likes to get a bad review – we don’t ourselves – and that some complaining is only to be expected, but an over the top reaction can be self-defeating. Those who complain need to reflect on how they wish to be regarded by their peers and that such tactics, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the matter, can be seen as simply ‘sour grapes’, alienating those who might otherwise sympathise with them and conferring on the review a greater prominence than previously. Behaviour like this can also create a climate in which reviewers are discouraged from giving an honest opinion, or any opinion at all, for fear of a backlash, and this is not a healthy state of affairs.

Reviewers should not be above criticism. They make mistakes just like everybody else and should be called on them, but this needs to be done with a modicum of respect and restraint.

If personal vendettas are unacceptable in writing reviews, then they are equally unacceptable as a way of responding to them. Such things as, for example, sending abusive e-mails and initiating flame wars in public forums go beyond the bounds of what we regard as acceptable. We have a duty to do the best we can to ensure the reviews that appear on our site are fair and honest, but we also have an obligation to support our reviewers should they find themselves being abused as a result of the work they do for Whispers.

It’s our position that if people can’t accept honest criticism with good grace and humour then they should not receive praise either.

If any members of our team are subjected to treatment from writers or publishers that goes beyond the bounds of what we consider an appropriate response, then we will decline to review the work of those individuals in future. We may also exercise the option of withdrawing anything on our site that relates to them (stories, interviews, links etc) and bar them from posting on our Forums until such time as they learn to conduct themselves in a more politic and responsible manner.

We’re not deluded enough to think Whispers is so important that not appearing on the site will be a serious blow to anyone’s career, but we do hope that by taking this stand we will make people consider a little more the consequences of their actions and what constitutes acceptable behaviour.