Thirty Golden Rules for Reviewers - gShen chung bslu dga' yi gter ma'o

8/9/2019 Thirty Golden Rules for Reviewers - gShen chung bslu dga' yi gter ma'o

1/4

THIRTY GOLDEN RULES FOR REVIEWERS

Writing a book-review requires truly fine craftsmanship and particularly a superb

command of textual and sub-textual possibilities of literary expression. Not too many

manage to master this literary genre fully or even merely to a satisfactory degree.

Therefore, for all those aspirant critics and sub-text dilettantes who are open tosuggestions for improving their skills, allow me to submit a few guidelines, which I

distilled from actual practice. It is my hope that perusal of these thirty rules will assist

those who do not belong to the happy few naturally gifted critics to produce passable

reviews.

For practical reasons, I divided my Golden Rules for Reviewers into three

sections, in accordance with the intellect of the reviewer:

A) Targets the dull-witted,

B) The mediocre, and

C) Those of the sharpest faculties.

A) For the first category, I should like to recommend the following ten rules. I hasten

to admit that conscientious adherence to these ten points alone will not suffice to let

one even get near a mediocre review. Generally, reviews written by practitioners from

this category will not arouse any significant amount of attention. They will not be

very helpful for future job-interviews, they are useless for sinking competition, and,

alas, will earn no significant amount of brownies. At best they will render service to

the general public (and the author) by introducing a new study and perhaps

engendering some public and private academic discussion with the author for what

thatis worth! In brief, such an inconsequential review falls short of its main purposes.Allow me to outline a few points anyway:

1) Read and re-read the book thoroughly, as often as necessary. If you still do not get

it, read it again, or get in touch with the author and seek clarification.

2) Summarise the key points or theses of the book.

3) Briefly present some relevant academic background information regarding the

author and sketch the specific discourse from which the study is to be understood.

4) Evaluate to which degree the author manages to meet her/his own targets and livesup to the promises she/he makes in her/his introduction.

5) If necessary, explain the methodology and evaluate how the approach serves the

authors objectives.

6) Provide a critical discussion of methodology and selected theses, preferably base

this discussion on your own expertise in the field.

7) Briefly and discretely indicate your own preferences and assessments, especially

regarding the overall structure and approach of the work.


2/4

8) Evaluate (acknowledge) the contribution of the author to the larger discourse.

9) Make sure to balance out criticism with appreciation for the merits of the book

properly. If you expect that your review will mainly cause damage to a colleagues

career, exert some discretion in the review (merely state your discontent) or even

consider not to publish it at all and to relay the points of criticism in privatecommunications. It is good practice to submit harsh or damaging reviews to the

author of the book before publishing them.

10) Give suggestions for emendation, discuss omissions and, if necessary, refer to

additional (i.e., generally the very latest) literature. Do not discuss misprints.

B) The second category may occasionally leap beyond this sadly limited horizon.

Their well-developed faculties of discrimination, greater erudition and, let us not

forget, superior language skills, allow them effectively to exert influence on their own

and other peoples careers by their literary outpourings. Yet, I still recommend that

they attempt to adhere to the following rules:

1) Quickly browse the book. If parts are unclear, it is probably due to muddled think-

ing and poor style in the book. It is not necessary to get in touch with the author and

ask for clarifications, preferably discuss this with congenial colleagues in your camp.

2) A brief summary of some points that you can quickly glean from the book may

suffice, a critical discussion is only cumbersome. But make sure you have enough

pages, otherwise the review might not do so very well on your list of publications; a

generously spaced title page can work wonders. In exceptional cases you might, fortactical reasons, also have to enter a generic word of praise here and there, keep in

mind, a useful academic friend is easily won.

3) It is very important that you discuss your factional quarrels and vendettas with

individuals from the academic background of the author at great length, but also

remember to reinforce your strategic alliances by occasional brief and well-chosen

references. Try to be subtle; the more gifted reviewer is able to move most of this

vital discussion and positioning into the sub-text. Use the opportunity to promulgate

your opinions regarding the specific discourse in which the study is to be

accommodated, without restraint. Your stance should be completely transparent by

the time you are finished with her/him. In case you do not subscribe to the discourse,do not forget to indicate where it of course is inherently deficient and that the author

could easily have seen this from the beginning of the project and spared all of us a lot

of trouble.

4) Measure the authors targets by your own standards; it is not necessary to try to ap-

proach the book on its own ground or to attempt to understand the authors objectives.

5) If necessary, discredit the methodology applied and explain why it could not have

worked in the first place, please do not spend too much time trying to understand the

merits of her/his specific approach, all colleagues on your side already know that it is


3/4

deficient. Otherwise, show how applying her/his methodology in the end supports

your own findings.

6) Provide an in-depth critical discussion of your own preferred methodology instead

and if necessary underline this by disqualifying a random sample of the theses that the

author forwards based on her/his own defective approaches. Make sure to lift thesetheses from their contexts, thus they are easier to disprove and ridicule. Do not worry,

for this discussion it is not necessary to be an expert in the field, just some common

sense criticism and skill in rhetoric will do.

7) At great length exhibit your own personal preferences in theory and interpretation

and do not hide your assessments, especially regarding insignificant but embarrassing

minutiae that can be used to suggest more serious flaws.

8) First of all concentrate on getting your points of criticism across, make sure to

press the point; you do not want your excellent points to be lost on a dim-witted

reader. Do not hesitate to repeat yourself where necessary. A few such points,

strategically accommodated, should suffice to do away with a book you dislike.

9) The best impact can be achieved by silently sneaking in a shattering review in a

journal that does not accept rejoinders. As a rule, never discuss a review with the

author, it is useless, she/he is too biased anyway.

10) Express your sympathetic regrets about the admirable but flawed attempts of your

colleague, but also make sure magnanimously to excuse her/his shortcomings to some

extent, at least you could say that some of it was useful (for your own work?). And,

yes, do not forget to inform us how you would have written the book, for that is whatwe would like to know most, of course. And ... have some fun! Make a sport out of

disclosing all the missing references, take special care to highlight those that concern

your own publications (and ... do not forget the misprints!).

C) Those fortunate but rare individuals that are gifted with superior talents, basically

be advised to let their extemporaneous prose pour forth in full abandon of all rules

and conventionsafter all, decency is for the mediocre! Each and every of the

masters words is like a precious pearl of insight, a spontaneous display of the innate

wisdom of the natural state, spilled out with a lavish hand for all ordinary mortals to

enjoy, study and comment upon, in lengthy articles and monographs. I neverthelessshould like to forward, if not guidelines at least some loosely arranged characteristics

derived from recent samples of such masterly academic prose. Most of these points

could be appreciated as expert tips & tricks for professionals.

1) First of all, pay attention to the basics! Check whether the youngster has properly

referred to your work and make sure she/he discusses your theories sympathetically.

If not, never, I repeat: NEVER mention this in the main body of the text, a subtle hint

in a footnote will do.

2) It is not necessary to read the book, if in doubt about the exact nature of its con-

tents, consult the cover-text or ask an informed colleague. Sometimes browsing the


4/4

table of contents or flipping the pages will also be a good preparation; there is nothing

new in it anywaynot after your own publications on the topic.

3) Briefly summarise how the book rephrases your findings and supports your pet-

theories. Be generous in your assessment and concede some minor improvements on

your work.

4) Do not shun praise, in a skilful hand it is the lubricant of academia and of social

life in general; a well-chosen adjective here and there can open many doors! This

does not imply that someone of your stature would so desperately need friends of

course, but congenial relations will certainly help to make life more pleasant for you.

Far above the struggle and strife of the dull and mediocre you can afford to be

generous and kind, and extend an encouraging word to a promising young scholar.

5) To create some contrast in your assessments, use devaluated superlatives, you may

indicate the weak spots by lesser or slightly eroded superlatives. If necessary, a

constrained use of damning praise will help to make a stronger point.

6) In general you should keep in mind that omissions are your most eloquent

statements. Subtlety is the name of the game, no need to shout. Continuing along the

same vein, I should like to submit that the best reviews in fact are the ones that you

have not written, though this point might be difficult to appreciate at first.

7) Be creative and playful. When offended by a review, you need not debase yourself

to writing a rejoinder or to other vulgar practices and join the oppressive hustle of the

mud-throwing and mud-wrestling commoners. Instead consider using an ad hoc

review as a riposte (subtle and easy does it, do show some humour); you do not needto worry about getting it published: you may use one of your own journals. Elegance

is not always paramount.

8) Likewise, if there would be a temporary dip in the general interest for your work,

write your own reviewanonymously of course; again, use your own channels ...

9) Generally, you need not worry about substance too much, even if you would drop

just a few lines of summary and empty rhetoric, there is a whole world of academic

experience hiding behind these few general statements; all your erudite colleagues

will understand. In this case, make sure you do not forget to sign the review with your

proper name.

10) Please keep in mind that reviewing, for someone of your stature, is tantamount to

managing academic resources, under no circumstance get involved in academic dis-

cussion.

gShen chung bslu dga' yi gter ma'o/ mu tsug smar ro!!

Discovered in Ani lam chung, in the year 2000

Documents

Thirty Golden Rules for Reviewers - gShen chung bslu dga' yi gter ma'o