Locus Responds to Tilton Departure

Locus Magazine’s Liza Groen Trombi has commented on Lois Tilton’s statement about her resignation as the publication’s short fiction reviewer.

While we don’t usually discuss the end of a contract relationship online, we do want to clarify something about the recent statement made by a freelance reviewer and her relationship with Locus. Lois Tilton wrote: “Without consulting or informing me, they had begun deleting material they considered negative from my reviews. To me, this is censorship and completely unacceptable.” This has been interpreted incorrectly to mean that Locus was making editorial changes to Lois’s columns without her consent.

To clarify, Locus made a decision this month to change how editing future online review columns was to be managed — folding the online columns in to the existing Locus editorial stream and applying the same standard to online reviews as the magazine.

Locus publishes both positive and negative reviews and, we hope, encourages a robust conversation about the works being discussed. When Lois was told about the editorial process being applied to the website, she opted to resign. None of her columns affected by this decision have been posted online, and she was paid for the work even though it will not be published.

We are sorry to see this relationship come to end after 205 columns. We wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors.

108 thoughts on “Locus Responds to Tilton Departure

  1. Interesting. Thanks for this. Very, very sorry to see her and her snark go. Whatever she does, I hope she does well and keeps that unique voice of hers.

  2. To clarify, Locus made a decision this month to change how editing future online review columns was to be managed

    I’m glad that this wasn’t a case of editing existing material.

    What’s unclear to me is whether the new way of managing editing review columns does, in fact, consist of “deleting material they considered negative,” as Tilton stated.

  3. Huh.

    Sounds reasonable, and it’s good to know they hadn’t yet edited stuff out.

    In 7044, Mecha-Lois beams her reviews right into our brains.

  4. Standback: What’s unclear to me is whether the new way of managing editing review columns does, in fact, consist of “deleting material they considered negative,” as Tilton stated.

    If you re-read their statement above, which seems pretty carefully worded, they do not dispute that this is what they will be doing going forward.

    Which seems pretty much like confirmation to me. They aren’t going to leave that statement unchallenged if it’s not true.

  5. @JJ: I confess, this is a case where “this is unclear to me” is a polite version of “this seems entirely clear, but you haven’t actually said so outright, so I’m going to point it out directly.”

  6. Mike – thanks for putting this up since I was unaware.

    I try not to comment about negative reviews I’ve received; it’s none of my business what other people think of me or my books/stories if they bought/read it/them. But in a world where some (many?) reviewers/bloggers self-censor and only make *positive* comments because they want to avoid controversy (or whatever the reasons), knowing that people like Lois exist is a comfort. I get the sense that she has integrity. One can trust her reviews, and so a positive review from her *means* something – if that makes sense. I’ve never met her but hope she continues to publish reviews in another venue and wish her the best.

    Caveat: I’m not saying that Locus is definitely moving in the direction of publishing only positive reviews, but removing negative content seems unusual? I have not fully studied the issue and am only going by what I’ve read here.

  7. “Locus publishes both positive and negative reviews and, we hope, encourages a robust conversation about the works being discussed.”

    That seems pretty clear-cut to me.

  8. The fact that Locus presumably removes negative comments from print columns and will soon do so for their online work is disheartening.

    Once I saw a writer lament on Twitter about how horrible they felt because Tilton gave their story a negative review. I read the review, and while Tilton mentioned that there were flaws, it was not a hatchet job. Her format doesn’t leave her enough room to give textual evidence of her opinions, but she does always give a thought-out reason for her assessment. On the writer’s Twitter feed, their friends piled on to sympathize, and they largely did so by saying that Tilton is not a good reviewer, everyone knows not to trust her opinions, etc. As someone who reviews short stories and novels, it was really distressing to me to realize that every slightly negative review means that I am burning bridges with a certain portion of writers and fandom who don’t want to hear it. I definitely have been more timid about reviewing since then, which is miserable. And now that’s going to become more of the norm.

  9. tofu: it was really distressing to me to realize that every slightly negative review means that I am burning bridges with a certain portion of writers and fandom who don’t want to hear it. I definitely have been more timid about reviewing since then, which is miserable. And now that’s going to become more of the norm.

    I encourage you to take heart. Look at what so many people have said about Tilton in this thread and in the Lois Tilton Leaves Locus Online thread.

    Tilton has earned the trust of many readers precisely because they know that while they may not always agree with her reviews, she has shown integrity by consistently being willing to publish her opinion even when it’s negative, backed up with thoughtful analysis and reasoning.

    When writers get a positive review from Tilton, they are elated because they know that a good review coming from her really means something. And when her review is not enthusiastic, they at least have the knowledge that 1) she felt their work was worthy spending her time to provide analysis and commentary, and 2) she’s probably given them some ideas about things to work on.

    I know that facing down angry writers and their entourages is no fun, but I hope you will maintain your integrity and resolve and be true to yourself when publishing reviews. I think that if you make an effort to include that thought process — “this didn’t work well, but here’s what they could have done to make it work better” — many writers will grudgingly admit, at least in their secret heart, that you’re not an ogre and that it’s nice to get the sort of feedback that helps them to improve their craft.

  10. I’m glad that this wasn’t a case of editing existing material.

    Me too. It’s a lesser offense for Locus to change a review that has yet to be published.

    But I would rather follow Tilton elsewhere than rely on her successor to be honest and blunt about stories that weren’t good. This is a black eye for the magazine. I think there’s a difference between refusing to do news stories that are too negative and refusing to run reviews that are negative. Reviewers should be able to call a turkey a turkey.

  11. Negative is one thing, but I understand that Tilton has reviewed material that she has said from the outset she dislikes due to the genre (Horror) and then criticized for being precisely that (Horror stories). To me that’s different and, if I were a publisher, I would not be keen to print something that was that clearly biased.

  12. I remember the late Roger Ebert’s negative movie reviews with great fondness. I didn’t always agree with him, but he always made clear why he was saying what he was saying.

    It made his reviews so much more reliable than those of the reviewers who made such a point of finding something nice to say about even the doggiest of movies, and then when they couldn’t say something nice stayed silent.

    That may be a reasonable rule of thumb for everyday social interaction, but it is not the best one for consumer reports.

    When Ebert was positive, you *knew* it was quality.

  13. JJ said:

    Standback: What’s unclear to me is whether the new way of managing editing review columns does, in fact, consist of “deleting material they considered negative,” as Tilton stated.

    If you re-read their statement above, which seems pretty carefully worded, they do not dispute that this is what they will be doing going forward.

    Plus the statement says “…applying the same standard to online reviews as the magazine,” which seems to say that even if Tilton hasn’t had material deleted before, this has been standard practice for print reviews since forever.

  14. As I hope my statement in the other thread made clear, Liza Trombi and I are in general agreement about the recent events that led to my resignation. Material was deleted from one upcoming review column during the editing process. After I learned of this, I withdrew the column and it wasn’t published.

    We were both surprised to see that my original statement was interpreted differently.

    I appreciate the support of readers here. Thank you all for your comments.

  15. Oh, for pete’s sake. Editing paid contributions to your own publication is not censorship. If a (disgruntled former) commercial reviewer is calling it censorship, she’s got such a wrong take on the process that I’d take anything else she said about it with a large grain of salt.

    Also — and I don’t actually know whether this is relevant to the Tilton-Locus friction — snarky reviews are easy to write, and are often amusing to read. They’re like a bag of potato chips. Thoughtful, interesting non-snark is a lot harder to write, especially if you have to turn it out on a regular basis.

    In any event, Locus has the right to edit what they publish. Trying to represent this as “censorship” is just plain ridiculous.

  16. Hi, Lois. Sorry you’re having problems, but I just can’t agree with your position on this.

    Publications are responsible for what they print. Therefore, you have to assume that writing done for someone else’s publication is subject to being edited, unless there’s a specific prior agreement not to do so.

  17. As a subscriber to the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, I relied on Lois’s reviews to give me a heads up as to which stories I should read first, and which I might read later or even skip.

  18. A sad day for Locus, I’m afraid. The gradual silencing of honest criticism is a trend that’s been ongoing in the industry. Locus was one of the few outlets left one could go to for straight-talk and unvarnished opinion when it came to book and story reviews and industry news. It seems they’ve decided to abdicate their responsibility to their readership in the interest of pleasing their advertisers and avoiding the ill will of angry writers and their hangers-on.

    Reviewing with integrity isn’t easy. It takes a great deal of courage these days to call ’em as you see ’em and not give in to the money-men or the mobs. That courage and integrity has been central to the Locus brand until now. I am very sorry to see that brand diluted and the honesty of Locus’ reviews come into question. I will definitely take this change into consideration when the time comes to decide whether or not to renew my print and online subscriptions to Locus.

    Lois – I’ve been pleased to follow your reviews since you were writing for IROSF. I didn’t always agree with you, but I always respected your integrity, your opinions and your insights on the short fiction market. I look forward to reading you in the future under a new banner.

  19. While I agree that publishers have a right to edit material before they run it, I also understand that a particular writer might not want to subject their writing to that process depending on how the publisher edits. Not all editorial processes are the same.

    I’ve had a short story run with a quote from a song edited out; that seemed reasonable to me because song lyrics are protected by copyright and it’s not often worth it to try to seek permissions for it.

    I’ve had work run with content edited out to meet length requirements; they only had room for X column inches and, unedited, it would have run X+Y column inches. I’m cool with that.

    I’ve had a short story come back to me after editing with a change that caused that part to communicate something diametrically opposite from what I was going for there. I argued that it needed to be changed back, or at least to some compromise change that had addressed their editorial concern while still maintaining my original intent. We came up with a solution, and the story was published. If we had not, and they had insisted on their change, I might have pulled the story. (I don’t remember exact details at this date, but I do remember thinking, “This is no longer the story I wanted to tell.”)

    I briefly had a paying blog gig with a publisher who, without being clear up front that they would do this, began cutting out any material in my blog posts that got in the way of them reading like “sexy baby talks about pop culture”. So if I mentioned that, for instance, my husband and I went out to see a movie and he’d said something that provoked an interesting conversation about the protagonist, they cut that bit or, worse, even replaced it with something that made me sound… single and eagerly available. Ick. Clearly we had not successfully communicated about what they wanted from their paid bloggers. (In my defense, all the publisher’s emails were very jokey and coy, so it was hard to tell where he was serious. In his defense, it was foolish of me to sign on to write for someone who sprinkles their emails with so much “wink-wink” coyness that I honestly can’t tell what they mean.) Once I realized it was going on, I withdrew any pending posts, asked that they remove my name from anything already posted (since I was uncomfortable having my name attached to the persona they were trying to create), and quit the gig.

    Obviously that last is a rather extreme example of an objectionable editorial policy, but my point is, while it’s true that every publisher has the right to their editorial policy, not all editorial policies are the same, and if a writer decides one particular publisher’s editorial policy has become unacceptable, that’s a valid reason to cease doing business with them.

    (But I agree that it would not be accurately described as “censorship.”)

  20. @Teresa Nielsen Hayden –

    As an employee of Tor and spouse of their Manager of Science Fiction, you have a conflict of interest in this matter. Tor will certainly benefit if Locus editorial policy eliminates negative reviews of works published by Tor and Tor.com. As such, I don’t doubt you are pleased with Locus’ decision to eliminate negative reviews. A Locus reduced to pandering to Tor is much more useful to Tor than Locus as an honest arbiter of quality.

    The issue is not whether or not Lois should be subject to editorial control. The issue is that the editorial direction will prevent Locus’ reviewers from giving its readers an honest review when a Tor author puts out a bad book or story. While ‘no reviews but good reviews’ benefits Tor, it does not benefit the reading public.

    With that, your attempt to ridicule Ms. Tilton comes off as a self-interested attempt (possibly backed by Tor) to belittle a well respected reviewer, and distract from the central issue: Locus’ apparent loss of editorial integrity where their reviews are concerned.

  21. Editing paid contributions to your own publication is not censorship.

    True, but if a reviewer believes negative reviews are being edited or removed to keep publishers happy, it’s understandable that the reviewer would quit.

  22. I agree, publications can publish what they want to. But if they chose to obscure the fact that they are delivering something different from what the consumer believes they are delivering, the consumer has a right to be unhappy about it.

    There is nothing on the Locus Online front page announcing any kind of change in editorial policy, nor is there anything on the “About Locus Magazine” page explaining that it has a longstanding policy of not printing negative reviews. If it weren’t for Tilton’s statement, many people would be none the wiser.

  23. @John Popham: As such, I don’t doubt you are pleased with Locus’ decision to eliminate negative reviews….

    Hold on a second.

    Pointing out the appearance of conflict of interest is one thing.

    Ascribing motive or opinion to someone else is, like putting words in their mouth, another thing entirely.

    Knock it off.

  24. Seconding Nicole’s point. Also assuming an individual always represents employer is a problem even if you weasel with ‘possibly backed by Tor.’

  25. If every person who worked in the SF/F/H publishing industry declined to comment on what SF/F/H industry magazines were doing due to perceived “conflicts of interest” the dialogue would be like Silent Spring.

    Employees of publishing houses have every right to comment on industry publications.

  26. Seems like there’s a lot of speculation going on here. Unless you can point to a pattern of reviews from Locus’ physical magazine as being mere cheerleading for publishers*, that’s all you’re doing, as they’ve made it clear they are applying their print editorial policies to the web reviews, as well.

    And if this is true:
    @A.G. Carpenter

    Negative is one thing, but I understand that Tilton has reviewed material that she has said from the outset she dislikes due to the genre (Horror) and then criticized for being precisely that (Horror stories).

    I can see where both sides would disagree without either necessarily being a villain, though if that’s true, that’s a remarkably Yelp-like review philosophy.

    Disclaimer: I get most of my recommendations from people I know, either online or IRL. I only occasionally read Locus outside their recommended reading lists.

    * And some of the pure speculation-based accusations on this thread are remarkably similar to accusations that “Torlings” are conspiring to Win All The Awards for Tor publications.

  27. “Conflict of interest” and “censorship” are terms with specific legal meanings that don’t seem to apply here. Maybe the lawyering should be left to lawyers.

  28. said:
    @Teresa Nielsen Hayden –

    As an employee of Tor and spouse of their Manager of Science Fiction, you have a conflict of interest in this matter. …

    I think one could as easily say that from that she has more knowledge and understanding of the situation than we (non-inclusive we, I don’t know anything about you) do.

  29. Petréa Mitchell: I agree, publications can publish what they want to. But if they chose to obscure the fact that they are delivering something different from what the consumer believes they are delivering, the consumer has a right to be unhappy about it.

    There is nothing on the Locus Online front page announcing any kind of change in editorial policy, nor is there anything on the “About Locus Magazine” page explaining that it has a longstanding policy of not printing negative reviews. If it weren’t for Tilton’s statement, many people would be none the wiser.

    I agree completely with this. If Locus is upfront about the fact that they won’t be printing negative reviews, fine; I can regard the reviews on their website accordingly. However, if Tilton had not been open about her reasons for departure, I would not have known any better, and I would still have expected that reviews on Locus were honest, unrestrained, and unaltered.

    As Nicole has pointed out, there is a big difference between editing to tighten up content with the meaning remaining the same, and editing which changes the meaning of the content.

  30. As an ordinary reader, I enjoy many of the reviews in the print Locus and I think the standard is generally pretty high. I don’t have an issue with whatever policies are being applied. I’ve also been a regular reader of Lois Tilton’s online short fiction reviews. I hope a replacement is found and the online reviews continue. If Lois TiIton continues to post accessible reviews elsewhere I’ll probably read them as well. It makes sense to me that Locus would want to apply consistent standards and editing practices.

  31. As I understand it, Locus’s policy of not printing negative reviews means that bad books don’t get reviewed, not that bad books get good reviews. Their argument, if I recall it correctly, is that they don’t want to waste space on inferior work when they could review something better instead. Take that with as much salt as you like.

  32. “Locus was one of the few outlets left one could go to for straight-talk and unvarnished opinion when it came to book and story reviews and industry news.”

    This has never been the case since the days when LOCUS was two mimeoed sheets. Charlie Brown always had strict rules as to how he ran LOCUS and what he’d allow people to write, and in general it was always sycophantic to mass market publishers. The idea that there was ever “unvarnished opinion” or “straight-talk” in LOCUS that went against Charlie’s preferences is complete nonsense. LOCUS was always run strictly to Charlie’s dictates and Charlies dictates were to make as much money as possible, not to preserve some sort of mythical editorial integrity that never existed at LOCUS.

    Many dozens of previous LOCUS employees are available to testify to this, going back to the Seventies.

  33. @John Popham
    With that, your attempt to ridicule Ms. Tilton comes off as a self-interested attempt (possibly backed by Tor) to belittle a well respected reviewer, and distract from the central issue: Locus’ apparent loss of editorial integrity where their reviews are concerned.

    Your comment tells me a lot more about you than it does about Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

  34. Gary Farber: Really? I first wrote for Locus in the ’80s (before getting a reviewing slot in 1990), so I can’t testify to the editorial environment of the 1970s, but that characterization doesn’t match my experience–and I was able to spend enough time at Locus World HQ that I don’t think I’m naive or delusional.

    It was Charles’ store and run by Charles’ rules. Which is no different from any magazine I ever wrote for–and among the dozen-plus magazines I wrote for were two other owner/publisher/editor books, so it’s not like I only know the corporate-publishing world. (In fact, writing for Charles was more like writing for a fully-pro book than for the other small operations.) I read what I wanted to (with, to be sure, monthly phone exchanges about available titles, new writers, and such) and wrote about it as I wanted to, and didn’t see my copy messed with. Charles loved SF, took it seriously, and wanted reviews to be serious, smart, and well-informed. The suggestion that Locus reviewers were being nudged or manipulated is, not to put too fine a point on it, offensive.

  35. At risk of putting words in her mouth, I expect Teresa Nielsen Hayden will be pleased to have so many friends stepping up to her defense after her unkind words to Lois Tilton.

    @Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little – Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s comments on ‘snarky’ reviews that accompanied her original diss of Lois Tilton communicated very clearly Nielsen Hayden’s opinion of negative reviews. No putting of my words in her mouth were required.

    @Robinareid – Given the depth of her connection with a major SFF imprint, I expect Teresa Nielsen Hayden is aware of the potential appearance of conflict of interest in this case. The advantage to an SFF publishing house of being treated with kid gloves when it comes to reviews is self-evident. Calling it out is not putting words into anyone’s mouth.

    @Ultragoth –

    Employees of publishing houses have every right to comment on industry publications.

    Well, of course they do. They are also responsible for the impressions their comments leave. Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s a bit more highly placed and connected than your average publishing house employee. And she’s not just commenting on an industry publication. She’s attempting to discredit a well-known reviewer who objects to an editorial policy that benefits publishing houses at the expense of readers.

    @Peace Is My Middle Name – I have heard foxes use the same reasoning to argue that they were the best qualified to oversee hen-house security. I did not doubt their knowledge or understanding of the subject matter. However, I did point out their conflict of interest. They were, as I recall, very offended.

  36. Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s comments on ‘snarky’ reviews that accompanied her original diss of Lois Tilton communicated very clearly Nielsen Hayden’s opinion of negative reviews. No putting of my words in her mouth were required.

    TNH is by no means the first person I’ve heard describe Tilton’s reviews as “snarky.” And I’ve heard some people use that word to describe what they *like* about Tilton’s reviews. “Snarky” isn’t a negative judgment. It’s a flavor note.

    Besides that, you’re conflating “Lois Tilton’s snarky reviews” with “all negative reviews”, which weakens your point further.

    As far as I can see, TNH is criticizing Tilton’s stated reasons for leaving Locus. I don’t see her criticizing all negative reviews, or even all negative reviews of all Tor-published fiction. I don’t see her expressing any pleasure in Tilton and Locus having parted ways. I certainly don’t see any evidence that she would be pleased to have Locus publish no more negative reviews going further.

  37. Oh for god’s sake. This is the comment pages of a blog. If people can’t even leave comments on a blog saying that they feel something isn’t censorship without being accused of having a conflict of interest and trying to discredit a critic because that critic might have someday negatively reviewed a book for a company they worked for, then we’ve got way bigger problems than Locus.

    By this logic, no authors can comment on the situation either because she might have reviewed THEM negatively at some point in the future, and probably no artists because they might have done cover art on a book that Locus might review, and if we’re now knocking off spouses for also being too close, nobody who has friends or family members who are authors because whoa, conflict of interest, and at that point we might as well have nobody in fandom comment.

    (In the interests of full disclosure, I once had a poem published on Tor.com AND I have friends who write for their novella line AND I am also an author who Tilton might someday have reviewed, and at least one editor at Tor has a manuscript of mine somewhere in their TBR pile AND I have met the Nielsen Haydens in person on at least one occasion AND I have done cover paintings for books that might also someday be reviewed by Locus AND John Scalzi follows me on Twitter, so feel free to dismiss anything I have to say in perpetuity because of the obvious conflict of interest.)

    Sheesh.

  38. I have heard foxes use the same reasoning to argue that they were the best qualified to oversee hen-house security

    Are you worried TNH is going to devour just the reviews, or will she chow done on the reviewers themselves? Do you keep them all cooped up in tiny enclosures or are they free-range reviewers? Do you run around the farmyard trying to find where they laid their latest batches of reviews before breakfast?

  39. As someone who is not paid to write, my question is whether it is customary for the editor to inform the author of editorial changes before publication? Whether it is or not, I think I would want to resign from such a position if the editors changed my writing without notice to such an extent that I felt it changed the meaning of my work to something I disagreed with.

  40. RedWombat: In the interests of full disclosure, I once had a poem published on Tor.com AND I have friends who write for their novella line AND I am also an author who Tilton might someday have reviewed, and at least one editor at Tor has a manuscript of mine somewhere in their TBR pile AND I have met the Nielsen Haydens in person on at least one occasion AND I have done cover paintings for books that might also someday be reviewed by Locus AND John Scalzi follows me on Twitter, so feel free to dismiss anything I have to say in perpetuity because of the obvious conflict of interest.

    Well, all of that is fine, except for the fact that Scalzi follows you on Twitter. This means that you have a permanent conflict-of-interest about everything, and may not comment on anything — EVER — because Scalzi.

  41. Bruce A: As someone who is not paid to write, my question is whether it is customary for the editor to inform the author of editorial changes before publication? Whether it is or not, I think I would want to resign from such a position if the editors changed my writing without notice to such an extent that I felt it changed the meaning of my work to something I disagreed with.

    I’m not paid to write, either — which may be why I agree with this, since I am not reliant on writing to survive.

    When I was in high school, I wrote a humor column for the school paper, which was published weekly in the weekly town newspaper. I had a word limit, and I stayed within it. Yet, almost every single week, I would open the paper to find that the editor (the newspaper editor, not the school editor) had whacked off the last paragraph (the one with the summation or punch line) so that she could stick some 3-line notice in the space thus freed-up. It was incredibly aggravating, because in my opinion, it made me look like a moron who just trailed off in the middle of the piece every week without making a point.

    It seems to me that it’s not just professional courtesy — it’s professional ethics to notify the author if editing is done which changes the meaning of the content.

  42. Well, all of that is fine, except for the fact that Scalzi follows you on Twitter. This means that you have a permanent conflict-of-interest about everything, and may not comment on anything — EVER — because Scalzi.

    I would comment on this, except that…well, you know.

  43. I consider myself a friend of Lois Tilton’s, or at least a friendly acquaintance.

    I have a great deal of respect for Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

    I am a longtime reader of “Locus” and consider it an invaluable resource.

    I don’t see people lining up on “sides” here, nor do I see any need to.

    I was commenting about multiple people I respect and a situation I am not terribly familiar with but others are. Even with my limited understanding I can see that there is a lot of room for nuance and complexity here. A simple narrative of good guy-bad guy does no one any favors.

  44. I edited the reviews I published in SCIENCE FICTION CHRONICLE for spelling and punctuation—NEVER for content. And I paid the reviewers, too!

Comments are closed.