While publishers and the press fairly obviously have a common interest in the nature of book review pages, one also needs to remember that their requirements substantially differ: a newspaper or magazine needs to provide its readers with appropriately entertaining material; a publishing house wants to see books, preferably its own, reviewed, preferably favourably. Without any question, book reviewing is 'better' more diverse, less elitist than 40 years ago, when I began reading review pages. That said, there is still a long- grumbled-about tendency to neglect the book medium read by a majority namely paperbacks. The weekly roundups aren't really adequate even if conscientiously done. And even original paperbacks only rarely receive serious coverage. But publishers shouldn't complain too much. Reviews are an economical way of getting a book and an author known. There is no question that a lively account of a new book by a trusted name can generate sales even more if there are several of them.