Jim West has posted some thoughts on bloggers and book reviews, and seeing that I’m a blogger who frequently reviews books, I find it necessary to offer some thoughts of my own.  This is not a response to Jim’s post, nor do I plan to address everything that he touched on; I just want to offer a few random thoughts on the bits that stood out to me.

Jim begins his post by saying:

Book reviews, traditionally, have served to 1) inform the members of the guild about new publications and 2) to critique, in a positive way, those publications.

Concerning #1, perhaps this is true of books related to Biblical studies, I really can’t say as I’m not a member of the guild; but a ’review’ doesn’t really seem necessary to inform people of new publications.  Blurbs serve that purpose just fine, and generally, journal articles should set the stage for forthcoming monographs.  From my observation, I’d say that reviews in general (be they reviews of books, movies, albums, or restaurants), are meant to summarize the content of the product, and and to ultimately let the reader know if it’s worth their time. 

I find a lot of what passes for #2 on Jim’s list to be nothing short of the reviewer’s backhanded way of writing their own article or booklet.  Can’t get published on your own steam?  Write a review!  Many times the ‘reviewer’ doesn’t actually review the work, but rather picks one or two things that they take issue with and uses their ‘review’ space to pontificate and wax eloquent on why they’re right and the author is wrong.  Such ‘reviews’ are hardly worth the reader’s time as they don’t really give an overview of what the book is about.  Critical engagement is only useful when it engages the entire work. 

Jim raises an interesting point that I have experienced in part, when he says:

But to this point negative reviews (and I’ve written more than a few) have not been gently received by any publisher but one.

I’ve written fairly ‘negative’ (I’d consider them ‘honest’) reviews for three books from three different publishers.  Two publishers took the reviews in stride and haven’t “cut off the spigot,”while the other one has done exactly that.  Now I don’t know that the content of the review was the cause of the cutting off, but I have my suspicions.  So does that then force me to write positive reviews of every subsequent book I receive?  Heavens no!  But I’ll share why my reviews are generally positive.

First of all, I try to find out a bit about a book before I request a review copy.  This includes reading the publisher’s blurb, recommendations, and other reviews (though I’m likely to request review copies of books on the Trinity regardless of what others say about them).  Many times I will learn of a book from the footnotes (or God forbid, endnotes) of another book that I enjoyed, so if it seems like something I think I will enjoy or learn from, then I request a copy for review.  For the most part, this has worked out in my favor, as I have received some great books.  So when Jim says, “if you like the book, praise it to the high heavens,” I tend to find myself in that very position.

Secondly, I have yet to read a book so horrible that I didn’t think that somebody could benefit from reading it, even if I haven’t.  I have to ask myself who this book would best suit, and if I had to recommend it to someone, who would I recommend it to?  There are few books that I read that I think will be of great benefit to scholars–in terms of their actually acquiring new information and knowledge–but these same books may be revolutionary to the novice looking to get their feet wet in a certain subject. 

I think that we have to keep our audience(s) in mind when reviewing a book as much as the author’s audience.  If something is written for scholars, we can’t criticize it for not being easy enough for laymen to understand.  If our audience consists of scholars and laymen alike (and this is inevitably the case in the Biblioblogging world), then we have to be able to detail the reasons why certain readers should be interested in a title and why others shouldn’t be. 

As readers, we also have to keep the reviewer in mind.  I’m presently working through and introductory Hebrew grammar, and as such I’m not able to offer the same level of critique that John Hobbins could.  But I can offer the perspective of a student with little to no knowledge of the language, and gauge how effective it is for learning in real time.  John could assess it as to its usefulness as a teaching tool, he can find the faults of grammar or syntax, and he can suggest improvements based on his level of expertise.    

When Jim says:

[M]any publishers are not looking for ‘reviews’ in the classical sense of the word but for ‘advertisers.’ Fail to advertise, and the well will dry up.

He may very well be right.  In fact, to a large degree I think that he is.  But then the question becomes, what’s so bad about that?  Publishing is a business, and the name of the game is ‘profits.’  Nobody is in business to lose money, and if advertising on blogs helps to garner sales, then publishers would be foolish not to cash in. 

But backing this, I think, is the publisher’s genuine belief that they are selling a quality product.  Reputable publishers aren’t in the habit of soliciting work from shoddy scholars just for the fun of it.  From my understanding, there is a fairly long and arduous process that goes into the production of a book; a process in which author, editor, and publisher work very closely to produce the best product possible.  So why not send out copies for review (in the sense of ’summary’)?   

I also think at work here is a bit of equivocation.  Some people hear ‘review’ and think ‘critical evaluation’ — Jim certainly falls into this category.  For Jim, if one fails to offer critique where they have noticed problems (assuming that they have noticed problems), then they have failed as a reviewer.  Others hear it and think ’summary’ which is probably what most laymen think.  If the reader gets a good idea of what a book is about and it helps them to make a decision on whether or not they think such a work will benefit them, then they would say the reviewer has succeeded.  I think there’s more than enough room for both types of review, and I think that both are necessary to satisfy the diverse group of people who frequent biblioblogs.

B”H

Your response: