linguistlist.org>
Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>
linguistlist.org>Dear All, I thought I'd better pipe in about the LINGUIST lists official line on book discussions. As Ron Sheen noted, we strongly encourage discussion (including book authors if they so desire and their response is appropriate), of reviews. We do this because we feel the electronic medium allows us to provide a service that print sources cannot. We try to further discussion by getting multiple reviews of the same books. This said, readers should know that book reviews and subsequent discussions are treated somewhat differently than other messages to the list. All issues to the list are moderated, but we pay careful attention to reviews, and book discussions. The reasons for this should be clear: An author's tenure, promotion, job or future publication prospects can be affected by the positive or negative response to their book. For this reason, reviews are more heavily moderated and edited than other parts of the list. (This of course does *not* mean that all reviews are positive! We frequently publish negative reviews. It simply means we are more careful about it) Geoff Sampson's comments are well taken. However, as many book authors can attest, I have frequently rejected responses to reviews that are too heated, and have either insisted they rewrite them, or reject them outright. So, it should be known that there are some safeguards in place (although not as many as in a print journal). Admittedly, this means relying on either my judgment or that of my co-moderators and our editors. We, being human, occasionally make mistakes and due to the instantaneous nature of this medium, they are generally ones we can't fix. Nonetheless, looking back at the past two years worth of discussions about reviews, the few discussions we've had have been for the most part, insightful and further the discipline. Since I am addressing the list, I would like to publically thank all the Authors who suggest our list to their publishers, to the publishers, volunteeer reviewers and discussants. We greatly appreciate having this as part of LINGUIST. If you decide to buy a book reviewed on the linguist list, please let the publisher know that you saw it here! Best, Andrew Carnie, Review Editor & Moderator, Asst. Prof. Dept of Linguistics University of Arizona.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
wanadoo.es>Hola, buenas! Ron Shien thinks that authors and editors should be willing to discuss the ideas they put in their work in public debates. And he think it's a pity that they refuse to do so. I, for one, have always been astonished at the sudden contagious power of a non fundamented idea that somehow begins to circulate at the right time. It is a very interesting process akin to that of epidemiology (see Dan Sperber for a full treatment of the phenomenon http://www.dan.sperber.com ). If Ron's wishes (and mine!) would be fulfilled, this would indeed prevent not well documented ideas to expand and become contagious myths that are very hard to eradicate (like, say, the "communicative approach" to second language teaching and its descendants). This sort of debate could act as a vaccin, more or less... However, G. Sampson belives that this move is better not attempted. At first I thought I would jump in just anger at his reluctance, but the reasons he gives strike me as very VERY plausible and not particularly undesirable. He is quite right, for instance, in believing that the passion we sometimes put in debates (that after all do not question long and difficult work) would centuplicate if ever some unknown correspondent would "dare" to question our very hard achieved conclusions, fundamented or not. After all, we are just human beings! So, in this debate, I wish things were as Ron wishes them to be, although I understand that they cannot be like that, unless we become angelical scientists. But that would be a boring situation, would it not? Salud! Jose Luis Guijarro Morales Facultad de Filosofia y Letras Avda. Gomez Ulla, 1 11003 Cadiz (Espa�a) Tel. +34 956 015526 Fax. +34 956 015501 joseluis.guijarroMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
uiuc.edu>I disagree with Sheen and Mukherjee and agree with Sampson on the issue of whether critical book reviewers have a right to expect a response from the author. I feel authors should feel themselves to be under no obligation to respond to criticisms of their works. In producing the work the author has made his or her position known, and if there is danger of misinterpretation or if the author feels like defending a certain point, he or she is certainly free and encouraged to respond, but need not feel compelled to do so. The problem cited by Sheen of the potential spreading of myth and blight is addressed by the appearance of the critical review itself, the validity of which enlightened readers are able to judge for themselves. In some cases, the criticism may so far off the mark as to not merit a response. Also, the number of points that could be criticized in a book can be huge, and the amount of traffic generated by such discussions can be enormous. In these cases responding to criticisms can become a full-time job. I much prefer leaving the option to respond to the discretion of the author. Jerry Packard University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Jerome L. Packard Professor and Head Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures University of Illinois 2090-A Foreign Languages Building 707 South Mathews Avenue Urbana, IL 61801 Phone: (217) 333-7057 Fax: (217) 244-4010Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue