On the other hand, I must admit the lead review did make me cringe. Roger Clawson reviews the blurbs before reviewing the book, and in so doing announces that most endorsers -- himself included -- haven't actually read the book in question. Is that the best way for a blurbophobe to combat such an empty practice? I'm sure the always-controversial Clawson would say so, though I'd rather he simply vowed to stop providing empty endorsements himself.
Second question: is a book review the best place to raise such issues? Or as this site points out (thanks to Terry Teachout for the link), should a book review simply identify books that people should or should not read?
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/, or let me know your thoughts via info at johnclaytonbooks (and you can fill in the rest).