I'm not sure where authors reviewing scholarly works are coming from, in terms of who the players are to the field and in what context the reviews are generated. I found a few interesting differences in the Reimer and Mattson reviews of scholarly works. Reimer's review began with an introduction to the author's work and the place within the field that his work occupies. He moves on to the organization of the book itself, and the perspective of the book within the field. The reviewer, who identifies himself as a fan of the author, finds most fault with the organization of the work, which are bookended by positive examples. Is this an honest opinion, or simply what happens when a more junior member of a group is asked to critique a more senior person's work? The identification of the author as a fan seemed out of place in the review, as it seems to challenge objectivity, but perhaps that's more common in the European academic circles.
By contrast, the Mattson review of Badaracco's collection of essays concerning religion in the media and culture, the author seems to be taking the author much more to task, using the works in the book as opportunities to try his own criticism of the topic and the works of his academic peers. He's not fond of Badaracco's essay claiming to have read it multiple times, and seems to question whether the work is too far-reaching in its diversity of content, and authorial points of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment