Why Bother To Read Books Before Reviewing Them?
Here’s some, shall we say, flexible thinking in action. Someone (the name sounds male so I’ll decide it is male, in order not to have to say s/he, which I do not like to say) admitting in the first words of a ‘review’ that he has not read the book he is reviewing, then blithely and absent-mindedly proceeding to discuss said book quite as if he had indeed read it and taken detailed notes. I can tell you he hadn’t and hasn’t and didn’t, though, because everything he says about it is flat wrong, and I know that on account of I co-wrote the book.
Behold his artless frankness at the beginning –
I can imagine, and i’ve heard from friends that this is a good and funny read if you’re coming from the same camp as the authors (which i guess much of the general public will), but the (apparently witty) attacks on the “fashionable lunatics” of modern philosophy and religious believers are as far is it goes.
There you go. He can imagine, and he’s heard from friends, but he doesn’t know. The ‘attacks’ are ‘apparently’ witty but he doesn’t know that from personal knowledge. Not until the next sentence, when suddenly he does know all about it.
Look at them! They’re saying things which we don’t seem like intuitive common sense! They must be idiots! Ho ho.
Right. That’s just what Why Truth Matters is like. That’s all we do: we just point and laugh. Spot on.
It’s clear neither of the authors really understand post-modern philosophy, particularly its effect on ethics, and worse the book lumps together everything from art to history that anybody might have described as post modern into a single post modern opinion, so it can ridicule them all at the same time, apparently failing to realise the extremely wide range of phenomena that it covers.
Yup, that’s right, that’s an accurate description all right, we lump together everything from art to history and then ridicule the whole stew; we have no clue about the wide range of whatnots. What we did is we found a couple of columns by George Will and just kind of riffed on them, and let it go at that.
Okay, so, speaking of the effect of ‘post-modern philosophy’ on ethics, this Mojo fella has an interesting idea of ethics. He apparently considers it ethical to tell a pack of flat, brazen lies about a book he hasn’t read in hopes of damaging its chances because he doesn’t like what he thinks he knows (but doesn’t) about the contents. Fortunately, he’s also stupid enough to say he hasn’t read it and only then set about the lying. Perhaps that’s the effect of ‘postmodern philosphy’ on the intellect.
I don’t read it as him saying that he hasn’t read the book – but rather that he doesn’t come from the ‘same camp’ as the authors and so hasn’t read it in that particular way.
It undoubtedly annoyed you, but it’s not really worth mentioning. It’s a ‘review’ on Amazon by a nobody, just ignore it. People interested in your book are unlikely to take it seriously.
Paul, well, maybe, but what he says makes it clear that he hasn’t read it.
Unfortunately, Edmund, people do pay attention to Amazon reviews.
I’m with Edmund. Yes, (some) people to pay attention to (some) Amazon reviews, but people seriously interested in *this* book will not take *this* review seriously.
I once presumed to write a swingeing review of Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life (which, come to think of it, you read here first) and submitted it to amazon.ca. Need I say that they did not use it?
Since no literate person would give that babble a moments pause, I doubt if there is a problem.
By the way, best Amazon reviews are to be found here;
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A23664PX3VILKS/103-4363958-7891848
G. Tingey – for once I wholly agree with you.
My favourite amazon review is Larry Trask’s takedown of Julia Kristeva’s “Language, the unknown” at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231061072/sr=8-1/qid=1147812959/ref=sr_1_1/002-4547669-3992808?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Prof. Trask died quite recently, which is a great loss for the discipline of linguistics. He patiently weeded out both fantastic pseudo-prehistorical linguistics as well as the “postmodern” corrosion.
‘He apparently considers it ethical to tell a pack of flat, brazen lies about a book he hasn’t read in hopes of damaging its chances because he doesn’t like what he thinks he knows (but doesn’t) about the contents. Fortunately, he’s also stupid enough to say he hasn’t read it and only then set about the lying. Perhaps that’s the effect of ‘postmodern philosphy’ on the intellect.’
As Paul quite clearly demonstrates above, it requires an uncautious, and tendentious reading of the reviewer’s words to come to that conclusion.
Since the basis of your contention that the reviewer has not read the book (rather than say, having read the book and disagreed with it strongly) is solely the first quote in your diatribe against *him*, I think it might be appropriate for you to consider revising that final paragraph.
It is simply unfair to describe that person as “stupid enough” to tell a pack of “flat, brazen lies”. There is no evidence that they’ve done any such thing.
t.b., as I said in reply to Paul’s comment (he didn’t ‘demonstrate’ anythng, by the way, he gave an opinion), “what he says makes it clear that he hasn’t read it.” So you’re wrong that the basis of my contention that the reviewer has not read the book is solely the first quote in my “diatribe”. My evidence is also what he says of the book, which is inaccurate. I do know the difference between disagreeing with a book and having no clue what its contents are, thanks. This guy has no clue what the book’s contents are.
“There is no evidence that they’ve done any such thing.”
You’re wrong. He’s talking about a different book (I don’t know what book, but a different one).
Am I right in thinking you haven’t read the book? There’s absolutely no reason why you should, of course – but if you haven’t, you’re being absurd and presumptuous in thinking there’s no evidence the reviewer hasn’t either; if you have, you must be a pretty sloppy reader to think he described it accurately.
It’s not unfair. I chose my words deliberately. He’s stupid and he’s lying.
By the way – if you’re interested enough (and if you’re not, why bother to correct me?) – take another look at the review and then look at the blurb just above – he got most of what he said from there. He got the rest from the Indy review.
“OB wrote: Unfortunately, Edmund, people do pay attention to Amazon reviews.”
Some do, many don’t.
Did a little study where I looked at the relationship between the number of stars awarded in the review, and the number of people who found that particular review useful (for the book “Leaving Islam”. The correlation was 0.92: the more stars awarded, the more useful the review was considered to be.
Books awarded one star were, on average, regarded as useful by only 25% of people.
Of course this is only one book and people are not obliged to press the YES or NO button (in response to “Was this review useful?”).
It does, however, suggest that virulant, poorly written diatribes are percieved as such by most people.
It is worth noting that you can ‘report’ a review if you think it unsuitable, though I suspect this is mostly used against obscenity, as there is no way of specifying the nature of your objection. I think that one can assert one’s rights as an author to challenge a review, though that may be a more tedious process.
Edmund and Mark nail it – this type of no-brainer should be off your radar OB. If a fourteen year old described Hamlet as ‘too boring’, and so they hadn’t seen it, but nonetheless advised you not to see it either, would you dismiss Hamlet or the ‘critic’ ?
I would be inclined to think that he had read the book, except for the fact that it’s headed “What happens when two scientists try to do philosophy”. Where does he get the idea that the authors are scientists?
I don’t normally comment here, and I don’t mind getting bad reviews (the best review I ever got was titled “The Erotics of Deference”, where basically its author claimed that Julian Baggini and I were getting sexual thrills from interviewing top philosophers; it was hilarious and very cool), but I must admit that I’m not that keen on this review.
I don’t mind that the guy doesn’t like our agenda; but I also strongly suspect that he hasn’t read the book, which is irritating because it means that the review is factually inaccurate.
I agree that it won’t make any difference to sales, but there is a kind of principle at stake here. People ought to get things right in reviews, and it is right that one should object if they do not.
I don’t mind getting bad reviews either. I quite liked Laurie Taylor’s of the Dictionary. But I do mind getting a review that pretends to have read the book when it hasn’t even seen it.
I’m also, frankly, irritated by people saying they think he probably did read the book. How about taking our word for it? We know what’s in the book, don’t we; what the reviewer says does not match the contents of the book. He guessed wrong, that’s all.
The last para of his “review” is so risibly OTT that I really can’t see why you’re worrying about it. People don’t take Amazon reviews like this one seriously. It’s so obvious that you have (somehow) trodden on his toes.
Amazon reviews are great, if you watch them, over time the bad reviews begin to disappear leaving only the good reviews – you notice that the top whatever amazon reviewers all write really sycophantic reviews. Most of mine have long been purged.
So fear not, leave it long enough or (more likely) harrass Amazon, and it’ll go.
Just quickly, to respond to Ophelia.
The response Jeremy has given: ‘I’m not that keen on this review’ and that ‘I also strongly suspect that he hasn’t read the book’ is fair.
Saying ‘He’s stupid and he’s lying’ is unfair. Unless you have pretty good evidence that he has not read the book. You could’ve claimed that he hasn’t understood it (basically I’m paraphrasing a great line from “A Fish Called Wanda”). You didn’t. You’ve given yourself the hill to climb by claiming he’s a liar – and for what? An amazon review? Its pretty ephemeral stuff, all things considered.
tb, I told you, I do have good evidence he hasn’t read the book. Pay attention. Everything he says about it is inaccurate. Do you understand? He misdescribes it. I know I could have claimed he hasn’t understood it, but that would have been otiose, because of course he hasn’t understood it, since he hasn’t read it, or even seen it. Concentrate. It’s not that he hasn’t understood it, it’s that he’s never read a word of it. I repeat: he misdescribes it. He makes claims about it that are false. He says it says things it doesn’t say. Do you begin to understand? I know this, you see, because I know what is in it, so I can tell he doesn’t.
You didn’t answer my question. Have you read it? If you haven’t, what makes you so certain that I can’t tell that he hasn’t? He is describing what he extrapolated from the review and the blurb, not what is between the covers of the book.
Pot/kettle situation here I think; the last time I asked you, you hadn’t read more than a couple of words of Derrida and Irigaray and it’s a hell of a lot to get through in the interim. Have you read “Grammatology” or “This Sex Which is Not One”?
Oh, good point! I’ll have to rush off and remove all those reviews of Derrida and Irigaray I did at Amazon. Naughty me.
What are you talking about, dd? I don’t remember you asking me or me answering you, for one, but anyway what are you talking about? What is the relevance of your query? What pot is it that is sullied with blackness?
Oh yes, I see where you asked me. Dang, what a memory you have – that was a year and a half ago; I’d completely forgotten it.
But you were commenting on a post in which I said in the first paragraph that I wasn’t criticizing Derrida and that I hadn’t read him. I said that because I wasn’t criticizing him, I was criticizing someone else, who quoted him. So what is the relevance to someone who pretended to have read a book he hadn’t read? Eh?
I don’t suppose there will be an answer to that question.
Thought so.
Congratulations on the praise from Nick Cohen. I’d like to be in the bar next time you ‘ invite the most revered names in postmodern academe to step outside for a well-deserved slap.’
Thanks, Don. Yes, that would be fun, wouldn’t it. We’d invited them to step outside and then we’d run away as hard as we could, squealing in fear.
In that case, you ought to have a word with the Amazon reviewer and with Nick Cohen, since both are apparently promoting your book claiming that it discusses “postmodernism”. Clearly it can’t do anything of the sort if you haven’t read any of the texts.
Postmodernism has only two texts, Grammatology and This Sex Which is Not One?
And nice job of admitting error. Nice job of admitting that it’s not quite right to talk of pot and kettle when, rather than pretending I had read Derrida, I said at the beginning of the post that I hadn’t. Nice job, and typical.
Thanks for the clarification, Jerry. Do you also write all the posts on this weblog which talk about “postmodernism” then?
(I just ask because a lot of them appear to say “by: OB” and since those are the initials of your co-author who hasn’t read a lot of these books, you can see how a reader might find it confusing).
dsquared
You’re very silly.
Love
Jerry
xxx
Perhaps so; I’m sure we can do your faults next week. But I’m not “admitting error” here; my point was that Ophelia is regularly in the habit of writing all sorts of (usually critical) things about “postmodernism” without having read the works she’s criticising, so it’s a bit rich to get all worked up when someone else does the same thing. And this is correct.
Well done, im sure you will make alot of money from the book.
But I’m not “admitting error” here; my point was that Ophelia is regularly in the habit of writing all sorts of (usually critical) things about “postmodernism” without having read the works she’s criticising, so it’s a bit rich to get all worked up when someone else does the same thing. And this is correct.
No, that wasn’t your point here, because that’s not what you said. You said something different. You said:
Pot/kettle situation here I think; the last time I asked you, you hadn’t read more than a couple of words of Derrida and Irigaray and it’s a hell of a lot to get through in the interim. Have you read “Grammatology” or “This Sex Which is Not One”?
and
In that case, you ought to have a word with the Amazon reviewer and with Nick Cohen, since both are apparently promoting your book claiming that it discusses “postmodernism”. Clearly it can’t do anything of the sort if you haven’t read any of the texts.
I haven’t read Derrida, and I haven’t written “all sorts of (usually critical) things about” Derrida. I have written all sorts of (usually critical) things about other people, but those are people I have in fact read. I don’t write all sorts of critical things about people I haven’t read. You do realize – don’t you? – that there is a difference between not having read Of Grammatology or This Sex Which is Not One and not having read any of the texts? You do realize – don’t you? – that you made a wild leap, between those two posts, from my not having read the two books you cited to not having read any of the texts?
In short, no “this” is not “correct”. It is in fact a lie. I do not write all sorts of (usually critical) things about works I haven’t read. You do realize – don’t you? – that it’s bad manners to tell lies about people you disagree with.
Not exactly hard to check this with a google site search:
Two articles you’ve written which do make critical reference to Derrida by name:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=229
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/infocusprint.php?num=5&subject=Science%20Studies
Two blog posts by you trying to claim that Judith Butler was wrong about Derrida (no indication at all that Butler had read him and you hadn’t)
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=641
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=643
There are also about a half-dozen instances where you’ve approvingly quoted negative obituaries of Derrida and/or nitpicked and made dismissive remarks about favourable obituaries of Derrida. Presumably we are meant to believe that this doesn’t constitute expressing an opinion about Derrida.
More generally, I don’t believe that you’ve read nearly enough about “postmodernists” to justify the kind of rhetoric you use about them. I think you might have read Judith Butler but that’s about it, and I think you’ve admitted yourself that you didn’t understand her. I am pretty sure that you hadn’t read Steven Fuller when you wrote this
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=737
about him, because you asked if he’d heard of “intelligent design”. In general, all the authors of this website are far too keen on shooting their mouths off about strawman “relativists” without even a scintilla of interpretative charity, but then demand the earth themselves when anyone takes a critical look at what they’ve written.
“Presumably we are meant to believe that this doesn’t constitute expressing an opinion about Derrida.”
Well, not to be tedious and literal and pedantic, but in fact it doesn’t. The posts in question address the language and rhetoric of the people who are discussing Derrida, not Derrida himself. No, it doesn’t constitute expressing an opinion about Derrida, it constitutes expressing an opinion about Butler or Ruddick.
“I think you might have read Judith Butler but that’s about it”
Well guess what, you’re wrong. Don’t be misled by Jerry’s reading list above into thinking that’s the sum total of reading either of us has done; it isn’t.
“but then demand the earth themselves when anyone takes a critical look at what they’ve written.”
No, that’s wrong: it was the critical look at what we haven’t written that I objected to.
Sorry to be like a dog with a bone, but you’re saying what you want to be true, not what is true:
[The posts in question address the language and rhetoric of the people who are discussing Derrida, not Derrida himself]
Not so.
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/infocusprint.php?num=5&subject=Science%20Studies
makes the specific claim that Jacques Derrida pontificates about topology under the mistaken interpretation that it’s a slightly grander word for topography. (This claim appeared in a book review, but it does not look like the claim was taken directly from the book under review)
while
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=229
makes specific claims about the implications of “deconstruction”, “binary oppositions”, “postmodernism” and “phallogocentrism”, the payoff being a claim that Derrida supports the view that any interpretation of a text is valid.
As it happens, I have read your book and as far as I can see, the anonymous Amazon reviewer is spot on; there are a number of occasions where you (plural, apparently) do create straw man composite characters called “postmodernists”, “cultural relativists” and “literary theorists” to have a go at.
“there are a number of occasions where you (plural, apparently) do create straw man composite characters called ‘postmodernists’ ‘cultural relativists'”
But neither of us would have the least objection to that criticism, given that you’ve read the book. (I mean we might not agree with it – or might defend the necessity of talking in broad terms at times, but if you’ve read the book, then criticise away.)
But the other guy – well, as I said, I’d be extremely surprised if he had read it. The review in large part was talking about stuff that wasn’t in the book at all. And how on earth did he come to think that we were scientists…?