From: bookmarch_at_aol.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:00:27 -0500

I think we are talking past each other in the discussion of reviews. We au thors are saying it takes a lot to write a book. Reviewers are pointing ou t their obligation to indicate flaws, limitations, or concerns. Both are true. But what we authors are asking for is not so much praise or the dow nplaying of criticisms but rather for slow, considered, engagement. Lisa pointed out that she needs to read a book at least three times to review it. Speaking for nonfiction writers, I know we have read, revised, edited , submitted to review by experts, editors, copy editors, proof readers ten s, twenties, perhaps hundreds of times. That does not mean our books are good, or free of error, or free of matters of concern. It does mean we ha ve a right to expect reviewers to take their time, to read carefully, to sit with a book, to question first impressions with second considerations , to ask an expert themselves if they see an unfamiliar or disturbing idea or concept. We have no right to ask a reviewer to be nice, but
 we have ev ery right to insist that a reviewer take her obligation to be an engaged, thoughtful, critic as seriously as we have taken our obligation to be ded icated, professional writers. In a phrase: It is simply unfair for a revie wer to write a fast food opinion of a slowly cooked book.

Marc Aronson
Received on Sun 15 Nov 2009 09:00:27 AM CST