Writing a Critical Book Review

[_Kishkumen]

The SBL provides this handy bit of advice that could have served many a FARMS reviewer well. I guess there is always a next time.

Writing a good book review is an art that requires some cultivation. While there is no perfect model for the task, there are some goals to strive for and some common mistakes to avoid. Writing a fair review involves a serious attempt to understand a book's purpose. Sometimes this is hard to do, but the purpose and intended audience is usually made fairly clear in cover and front material. A friend of mine who is an academic publisher recently expressed the frustration involved in getting his press's books properly reviewed. Books with academic content that are aimed at a popular audience can not be sent to academic journals because they are sure to be blasted for their failure to deal with certain technical issues in great depth. Unfortunately, when publishers have to avoid academic journals when sending such books for review, then the readers of those journals are not made aware of works in the field that are academic in purpose but are aimed at general audiences. A fair review must consider whether a book's depth and breadth adequately match its intended audience and purpose, regardless of whether they meet the needs of the reviewer.

This kind of unfair criticism reveals a larger concern related to the purpose of book reviews: How can I make sure that the review is about the book and not about me? I can well remember my early days of writing book reviews as a graduate student when I was preoccupied with convincing the reader that I knew the field that the book addressed. The habits of writing for professors as a student are hard to break. The worst kind of book review is the one that uses the book merely as a launching pad for the reviewer to present her or his own view of the subject. A good review should keep returning to the book, its organization, and main lines of argument, as the proper focus.

[_Kishkumen]

This is great stuff KIshkumen, and long overdue. I was wondering when you were going to do something like this.

Thanks, Kevin. It is long overdue. People need to understand that the broad international academic consensus on what constitutes a constructive critique and why civility is important is not something that I pulled out of my butt.

FARMS Review operates far outside the norms.

[_Kishkumen]

In 2010, Joseph Weiler of NYU faced libel charges in a French criminal court for publishing a negative review of Karin Calvo-Goller's book, The Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court.

What is interesting to me is how he responded:

Mr. Weiler refused to remove the review but offered to publish a response from Ms. Calvo-Goller, "so that anyone reading the review would immediately be able to read her reply," an approach that "would have amply and generously vindicated all possible interests of the author of the book," he wrote in the editorial. "I continue to believe that in all the circumstances of the case ... removing the review by Professor Weigend would have dealt a very serious blow to notions of freedom of speech, free academic exchange, and the very important institution of book reviewing."

So, even in a case of the publication of a negative review, Weiler shows fairness in the offer here to publish her response to the review.

[_Simon Southerton]

In reference to the high standard of the articles in the FARMS Review, Louis Midgley wrote this in the editors introduction to volume 17 (2005)

“more richly detailed, carefully written, fully documented accounts of the crucial texts and events in the Mormon past"

"The growth of an obviously faithful and sophisticated literature on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, much of it published in this Review or elsewhere under the FARMS imprint, has led to considerable dissonance among dissidents, cultural Mormons, and anti-Mormon zealots. Critics respond to this scholarly literature with vilification, animosity, and acrimony, with slurs, name-calling, and unseemly personal attacks.”

At least in Louis' mind FARMS is above all this.

[_Kishkumen]

In reference to the high standard of the articles in the FARMS Review, Louis Midgley wrote this in the editors introduction to volume 17 (2005)

“more richly detailed, carefully written, fully documented accounts of the crucial texts and events in the Mormon past"

"The growth of an obviously faithful and sophisticated literature on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, much of it published in this Review or elsewhere under the FARMS imprint, has led to considerable dissonance among dissidents, cultural Mormons, and anti-Mormon zealots. Critics respond to this scholarly literature with vilification, animosity, and acrimony, with slurs, name-calling, and unseemly personal attacks.”

At least in Louis' mind FARMS is above all this.

It's good to see that he has time to fantasize amidst all of his public accusations and epic meltdowns.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Yeah, I'm going to have to offer up many kudos to my Cassius U. colleague as well. Those of us who are familiar with academic book reviews have always known that the FARMS stuff was extraordinarily atypical--and Dan Peterson has acknowledged this, calling the Review "sui generis." The thing is, so many of the FARMS readers don't seem to know what's going on. That's why Kishkumen's posts are so valuable--and I agree that someone should try to post them to MDD, though I wonder how you would have to frame it in order to prevent the mods from deleting the material. I would imagine that even J Green would have to look at this and admit that there are serious problems in the FARMS Review.

The kicker is that the upcoming generation of Mormon Studies scholars know that this stuff is a huge embarrassment. It's why you see people like the narrator and LoaP standing up to Dan Peterson, and Volgadon confronting Schryver, and telling them to knock it off. They seem to know that this just isn't professional, and it's not how real scholarship proceeds.

[_Kishkumen]

The kicker is that the upcoming generation of Mormon Studies scholars know that this stuff is a huge embarrassment. It's why you see people like the narrator and LoaP standing up to Dan Peterson, and Volgadon confronting Schryver, and telling them to knock it off. They seem to know that this just isn't professional, and it's not how real scholarship proceeds.

Thank you, Doctor.

The thing is, it's not just unprofessional behavior; it is unchristian behavior as well.

[_CaliforniaKid]

The rule I try to follow is to offer at least two positive comments for every negative one.

I also try to keep in mind that the future of my career may depend upon how I am perceived by the scholars whose works I'm reviewing. When I write a book, they are likely to review it. And if my review of their work is inappropriately critical, they may pay me back in kind. They may also talk about me to their colleagues or even sit on a hiring board or a grant committee I want to apply to. A lot of folks don't realize that politeness is a self-interested behavior.

[_Kevin Graham]

The rule I try to follow is to offer at least two positive comments for every negative one.

I also try to keep in mind that the future of my career may depend upon how I am perceived by the scholars whose works I'm reviewing. When I write a book, they are likely to review it. And if my review of their work is inappropriately critical, they may pay me back in kind. They may also talk about me to their colleagues or even sit on a hiring board or a grant committee I want to apply to. A lot of folks don't realize that politeness is a self-interested behavior.

You could make that five positives for every negative, and the folks at NAMIR would still focus on that one negative comment to label you an anti-Mormon. I know you must have struggled mightily when coming up with enough positives to counter the negatives you had to say about Gee. LOL.

[_Chap]

The rule I try to follow is to offer at least two positive comments for every negative one.

I also try to keep in mind that the future of my career may depend upon how I am perceived by the scholars whose works I'm reviewing. When I write a book, they are likely to review it. And if my review of their work is inappropriately critical, they may pay me back in kind. They may also talk about me to their colleagues or even sit on a hiring board or a grant committee I want to apply to. A lot of folks don't realize that politeness is a self-interested behavior.

What worries me is when I see signs of 'self-interested behavior' in the form of unalloyed praise by early career scholars of books by people in influential positions who are known to be intolerant of criticism. I don't much blame the young and untenured: they often have good reason to fear revenge if they do not build up their elders' egos, and they find if difficult to turn down an invitation to review.

In my opinion, the frequency of such behavior imposes a duty on scholars in secure positions to be prepared to review frankly, and where appropriate negatively - subject always to the primary duty to inform the reader clearly of the purpose and content of the work under review, and to recognising that there are very few books that are entirely without value.