Book Reviewer Released
Book Reviewer Released
I am a recovering book reviewer. I used to do it all the time; now not so much, if at all. It started when I was twenty-two in Manchester, England, when I wrote a couple of reviews for the Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology at the request of Wolfe Mays, the editor, who was my teacher (one on Sartre, the other on materialism). It then went on for forty years non-stop. I wouldn’t say I was an addict, but I found it hard to decline an invitation, for a variety of reasons. I don’t know exactly how many book reviews I have written; I estimate about eighty. I have a whole book devoted to a subset of my reviews (forty of them), Minds and Bodies. I can’t think of another philosopher who has written as many, except perhaps Tom Nagel. Here is a list of the publications I have written for: Philosophical Review, Journal of Philosophy, Mind, Nous, Philosophia, Nature, New Scientist, New Republic, New York Review of Books, London Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement, Times Higher Education Supplement, New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Slate, Guardian. It felt like a full-time job; imagine all the original philosophy I could have produced had I not frittered my life away book reviewing! It made me a lot of enemies and not many friends (people hate being criticized—I could tell you stories).
But it all came to an end twelve years ago save for a couple of reviews I did for the WSJ (on the octopus and Oliver Sacks) and a few for the NY Review of Books (under Robert Silvers). I don’t lament it. It was a liberation. Also, a transformation: no longer was I preoccupied with the torture of reviewing philosophy books—the reading and re-reading, the deadlines, the imperative to be fair, the need to be critical, the inevitable backlash, the necessity to enter into another person’s intellectual space (this was the worst). I spent so much time inside other people’s heads! Now I dwell contentedly in my own head, think my own thoughts, criticize only myself (what a relief). It is as if I never lived that previous life. The thing is, I know it had value, or else I would never have done it; I contributed more this way than in other ways simply because of the breadth of readership. It also honed my skills. But I am glad to be out of it, at least for part of my life. I recommend reading my reviews, but I don’t miss writing them—not at all. I kind of hated it. It is just so difficult. As to the reasons for my liberation, perhaps the less said the better; it doesn’t reflect well on my liberators. I am glad I put in that work because some of my best writing comes in the shape of reviews, and it’s a valuable form in its own right; but it wasn’t fun (except sometimes). Not many people can do it well, though many would benefit from trying. I did what had to be done.
I would love to be able to read all of your book reviews, but they’re often hard to track down, e.g. your reviews of Nozick, Scanlon, Unger.
Yes, they are; I don’t have some of them myself or any access to them.
On a side note, as his reviewer in the past, it may be of interest to you that a recent study of Oliver Sacks’ books uncovered a lot of fabrications he presented as facts. More details e.g. here (Horgan is a journalist who wrote about science and scientists): https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/oliver-sacks-fudged-facts-does-that-bother-me
I will write a post about this.
I read your review of “…Hat” in LRB and tried to post it in a comment, but probably it is too long to fit. Your politely harsh response to Aviv’s article is completely understandable to anyone who reads the review your wrote in 1986. You clearly saw the story telling elements masquerading as facts back then. This book of his should have been marketed as fiction and it does no good to popular or real science.
Right. Don’t you think it’s pretty remarkable that Aviv makes no reference to it? I’m as clear as daylight about his unreliability–forty years ago.
I too wrote about 80 reviews over the past 40 years but have stopped. Most of them were for “The Federal Lawyer” magazine, of which I was the book review editor for 28 years. (I am a retired lawyer, but most of my reviews were of history books, many about Abraham Lincoln.) The major benefit I derived from writing reviews was reading the books I reviewed so closely, taking notes and writing down my thoughts as I proceeded (which meant that writing a review consisted primarily of organizing the notes and thoughts I’d already written). Writing the reviews embedded the books in my memory, and now, when I reread an old review I wrote, it seems like rereading the book.
It is a good discipline because it requires careful reflective reading. But I don’t hear you complaining about it the way I do.
“I am glad I put in that work because some of my best writing comes in the shape of reviews, and it’s a valuable form in its own right; but it wasn’t fun (except sometimes).”
Fascinating & interesting. Read and reread it, its a pleasure to give you my ‘review’ of it.
– your text didn’t mention the context: any philosophy A PRIORI is review of past philosophy and that living philosophers are DE FACTO reviewers of each others reviews [no semantics intended here|].
– I fully agree that reviewing a’ text enhances one’s professional skills; the same goes for teaching students. Enhancing skills is the icing on any professional’s cake. The rest is ‘just’ work.
I did once review the reviews of Mckenzie and Strohminger in the style of their reviews in “Two Reviews” on this blog.
William James spoke of a “theory of mind.” Does entering the minds of “others” excepting dogs maybe, but other philosophers disturb your philosophical tranquility like listening to bad music?
No, I quite like it, but I prefer my own mind.