The diversity of textbook and scholarly book reviewers makes it difficult for an author to deal with reviews in any systematic or preplanned manner. There are, however, several helpful working assumptions: (1) the reviewer is always right, (2) the author is always right in principle but frequently wrong in practice, (3) the publisher wants what you (the author) want, (4) reviewers' comments can and should be tested and evaluated, (5) the author should respond to reviews as a teacher who writes rather than as a writer who teaches, (6) reviews should be processed and revisions made under the guidance of a self-imposed ethical system, and (7) there are traps on the road of least effort. This last assumption can be illustrated by popular cliches to which authors sometimes resort--that the reviewer is either "stupid,""blind," or "atypical." On the contrary, the reviewer responds to the manuscript with the best of intentions and deserves the very same respect the author expects to receive. In the face of negative reviews, it is helpful to recall that many books ("Peyton Place" and "Jonathan Livingston Seagull," among them) were rejected innumerable times before finally being accepted for publication, and that the author and the publisher both want the same thing: a successful and popular book. It is more productive to look at a reviewer's suggestions with objectivity--from the point of view of a user of the book, or (if the book is a textbook) as the teacher of the course. (Three pages of notes are included.) (NKA)