Pool’s answer addresses that, the book page, if part of a larger publication, will review based on the publications views. So in that case, whatever the audience of that publication is, will be reviewed. Which could be poorly written books of mass appeal or niche interest books.

The response from Pool is that the publication curates the book page according to the audience. These books aren’t necessarily the most well written but one’s that they feel reflect the reader’s interest.

Pool is basically saying should my book be written on material that people want to read or should I inspire them on something new.

In my opinion the word aware refers to the editors being familiar with the publishing houses

They review novels with the publishing houses in mind.

it means that editors are aware of what is publishable and what’s not. They know the publishing business. They know how to edit, and adapt a work, according to a publishing house’s expectations

According to Pool the system has created this facade where all of these companies who work under the same pressures of enticing the people and peaking interest has become more important than authentic quality. forcing them to go against their own norms, creating this idea that if everyone else is doing the same thing doesn’t it simultaneously become the polar opposite, doesn’t it become weird if as a brand you want to stand out and allude to your own ideals and quality rather than hop on the band wagon and do what every other editorial company is doing.

Pool is upset how all of these editors are influenced in the same way. He wants editors to get information from another source to come up with different ideas.

The ramifications in the system allow for little flexibility in reviewing. With these restrictions they end up with similar results.

Pool’s issue comes with the lack of creativity in book reviewing. She points out that there is a standard of “reviewing traditions” that serve as the unofficial rulebook for book reviewing, though these traditions are forcing reviewers into a box where it is hard to express creativity in structure. The point that editors have many of the same thoughts because of identical commercial and cultural experiences is also very valid and thought-provoking; maybe editors with different kinds of viewpoints are needed to spice up the book reviewing industry.