The question of whether it's a good use of one's time to write a book review has come up once before on this blog (here). I thought the discussion was helpful, but one question was not addressed which I'd now like to put to you. Before getting to the question, though, some brief backstory:
I've written three book reviews already. I have an idea of how to do these things: focus on the positive, perhaps mention one or two drawbacks, and be sure to fit in the crucial claims/concepts/distinctions/arguments in the book. So, when I was recently invited to write (for a journal I will not name) a review (of a book I will not name), I figured, "What the hell. Why not? I need to learn more about this topic anyway."
Unfortunately, I've just finished slogging through the book, and there's simply no way I could responsibly write a positive review. Now, negative reviews can be helpful and entertaining in their own way (e.g., this, this, and especially this), but the power dynamics involved are treacherous. Sometimes, I think it might make sense for a junior person to write a take-down of a high-flying senior person's book. It makes a splash. It gets your name out there. It shows gumption. Rarely, if ever, does it make sense for a senior person to flame a junior person's book. If it's bad, just ignore it. But what about a junior person writing a (mostly) negative review of a fully-established-but-non-superstar's book, which happens to be published with one of the top five presses? Is the fact that this press has given the book its imprimatur sufficient reason to target it? Is the relative non-superstardom of the author sufficient reason to give him/her a pass?
Basically, I'm struggling with whether it's all-things-considered correct to put on my brass knuckles. Thoughts?
Leave a Reply