As you probably know, I posted a short advertisement of this space, inviting people to take a look at what books I had listed for possible review. I posted to WPA-L and NCTE's Connected Community (for TYCA). The response was overwhelming! I received about 50 emails in 24 hours. It was terrific--the responses came from PhD students to Directors of Composition, from ESL Directors to Lecturers in Humanities. And already, 6 people are following this site.
All this makes me wonder. Why? I've written a half-dozen reviews for TETYC in the past and I've done so because it's one way I can stay sharp--there's something about having to write on a book that makes you focus more in the reading of it. I know I take notes, consider the responses of different audiences, shape my response--all this in a different way than how I read otherwise. I've served on a "best book" committee and a "best article" committee and I know in reading for them, I am only watching my own responses to the arguments, not on the possible reception of the book or article by other readers. Perhaps the difference is a subtle one, but I think writing a review requires a kind of split attention: one eye on the text, one eye on the potential audiences. That split attention, moreover, creates a different kind of reading tension, one that has proven useful to me in knowing the field better.
On the other hand, there's certainly no monetary reward for writing a review. No one's tenure or promotion is going to be affected by a review in TETYC. So I wonder why a director of composition at a pretty good sized university is interested in writing a review. Perhaps I should ask. That might be an interesting article, in fact, asking reviewers what they get out of it. (There's probably already a ton written about the genre of book reviews, but I wonder how much there is on the art of book reviewing and how much pertains to an academic journal.)
Thanks for your responses--I think I'm going to get some great reviews in the works soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment