Many will recall the battles occasioned by Colin McGinn's review of Ted Honderich's book on consciousness. McGinn's review was, plausibly, criticized for being over-the-top in its nastiness. If the McGinn review serves as an example of the vice of excessive harshness, surely the vice in the other direction is exhibited in this reivew of Penelope Deutscher's book about Simone de Beauvoir. The reivew has recently appeared in the otherwise above reproach and extremely helpful Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.
The review is, in my view, over-the-top positive, gushing even. Every paragraph heaps praise on the author and goes on about how "fascinating," "wonderful," "exciting," and "significant" the book is. The only thing approaching a criticism has it that the author "tends to content herself with pointing out some promising avenues for future exploration, rather than developing these latter in depth." But, lest this seem a downer, the reviewer quickly turns this aspect of the book into a positive: it "leaves exciting new work for Deutscher and for others to pursue in the future."
Now, I do not know the author of the review, and I do not know the author of the book being reviewed. I am in no position to evaluate the merits of the book and am willing to presume that it is an extremely good book deserving of a highly positive review. However, a review like this-- gushing with praise and offering no real criticisms-- seems to me inappropriate and utterly unhelpful. The review is basically an extended advertisement for the book, not a review. This does a disservice to the book and to its author.
Maybe McGinn should have declined to review Honderich, given that he could not restrain his hostility. Maybe, too, the author of this review should have declined to review Deutscher, given her own lack of restraint. Views?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Spiros--one of your most dead-on posts of recent days (other than the "posse" ones, and not that I'm gushing, mind you). But the McGinn-Honderich thing WAS extremely embarrassing if not flat-out unprofessional. And I agree that an uncritical review--meaning one that offers no new food for thought at all--is unprofessional just the same. Reviews ought to play the same role in journals as commentators do for APA papers. In my own experience of the latter, I always think it's my duty to provide some additional insights irrespective of my agreement with the paper--my last such commentary just conceded that the paper was correct, but chimed in with variations on how there might be possible critical approaches from other directions that could be further developed. I would think that a commentator who just sang praises of a paper would be groaned off the dais. Gushing for gushing's sake serves nobody.
I'll add a hearty second to Platowe's "Reviews ought to play the same role in journals as commentators do for APA papers." If a commentator at a paper can't muster his/her critical powers to even find one place where someone (even if it isn't the commentator) might want more argument or have a rebuttal, it's evidence that the commentator is out of his/her depth. Gushing means either the reviewer/commentator hasn't the skill or knowledge to do the job adequately or there is some non-philosophical objective behind the scenes. Questions: what's to be gained professionally by gushing over Deutscher's book? Or better, what's to be risked with a critical review? Is this standard fare for this topic area?
In respect to the question "what's to be gained professionally by gushing over Deutscher's book?" the obvious answer is "probably nothing." Having also not read the book in question, I have no grounds to critique the book itself. That said, a review that considers its subject perfect in every respect might be useful if it is actually the case that it is perfect. But even the most devoted Kantian/Cartesian/etc. will offer some critique or another of the system in question. It's extremely difficult to imagine encountering a text with which one can find no issues unless, as others have stated, one is entirely out of one's league. Remember your undergrad days? I doubt I was the only "whoever we're going over at the time"-ian.
A side note: by no means should one refrain from praising a piece. Good ideas should be noted. Think about how we tend to deal with students' papers: most folks note when a student interprets something correctly or offers a well-reasoned argument. I contend that recognizing the merits of a piece can also be useful, but only if balanced with a critical assessment.
OMFG, someone wrote a positive review! Now all the assholes are gonna be miserable. What are we gonna do?
Anon 1:17:
Nice try. But the complaint is not that the review is positive.
Spiros, what are you doing reading a review of a book about Simone de Beauvoir, anyway?
Actually, I think many of you have a rather untenable view of the role of book reviewers and conference commentators. The chief duties of a conference commentator is to a) briefly summarize the principal arguments/claims the paper makes and b) stimulate discussion of those claims. b) is usually carried out via providing objections, pointing out still unanswered questions, or suggesting alternative approaches. The idea that a reviewer or commentator isn't doing there job unless they find something "wrong" is absurd (think about art critics or movie reviewers). The real problem with over-gushing reviews is that the gushing interferes with the reader actually understanding the arguments involved and why they are apparently superior to others in the literature. In my experience, the tendency to be overly critical has resulted in most people looking like both assholes and idiots, especially when they sieze upon an apparent mistake, attack it like a wounded gazelle, only to have it pointed out that the mistake lies squarely with them and not the author.
Additionally, I find it odd that somehow editors escape unscathed. If a line cook uses sugar instead of salt, the chef still tastes everything before it hits the pass, so if my creme brule tastes like a salt-lick, I rightly blame the chef.
One last thing, anyone actually read Honderich's book? If you did, you might think McGinn was being too nice.
Comment: using "there" for "their" is enough in my mind to say--well, use your own imagination to place a professor's mind in front of an inadequate undergraduate's paper.
And yes--Honderich has more than earned his place in discussion. Not so much by ponderous and clever prose as by putting fundamental issues out in front. And don't get me wrong--I also respect McGinn--but he needs a lesson in professional manners, in my estimation. Divine command theory should be reserved for non-existent but self-reassured authorities, and not mere existing mortals.
Ha ha! Grammar faced!
Wow, Platowe. Is pure irony your natural habitat or just a place you enjoy vacationing?
Killjoy,
Your earlier complaint that, "The idea that a reviewer or commentator isn't doing there (sic) job unless they find something "wrong" is absurd" is posited on a confusion. It's not the reviewer's job to find things that are wrong per se (and I have no idea why you use scare quotes for wrong), but to point out where the piece of work fits in the current state of dialectical play on an issue. This requires that the reviewer sketch what the likely responses are going to be -- even if they are not her own views. Your point that excessive praise obscures why a piece's arguments are good is on the right track, but there has to be a critical edge to the review for that contrast of argumentative superiority to make sense.
Finally, that critical reviews can be performed incompetently is not evidence that criticism isn't required. In fact, it seems that it's evidence that it is: incompetent criticism is objectionable not because it's criticism, but because it's an incompetent performance of what's required.
oho good dear !!!! very interesting blog and a good posting !!! you must maintain your blog, its interesting !!! Nice Buddy
________________________________
APA Research Paper Style
Post a Comment