When writing a numismatic book review, is it better to be thorough, or to get it out before anyone e

Longacre · October 13, 2008 5:37AM

Just last week I learned of a new book entitled In Yankee Doodle’s Pocket. I quickly ordered the book, and I anticipate its arrival. I think this is a rather large book (over 500 pages if I recall correctly), and from what I understand, it is quite a meaty tome. I also believe that the book has just been recently published (maybe even a week or so ago).

I am now seeing reviews of this book hitting the numismatic press. These reviews do not seem to be from professional book reviewers. Rather, they seem to be from average collectors like you and me.

I am disturbed by the fact that it seems there is always a “race” to be the first person to get a review of a book into publications. I recently read one review, and I was quite shocked that it was written with such generalities, that I wondered if the reviewer even read the book. The review in question could have easily been written just by looking at the table of contents, the end notes, and reading the dust jacket, and not even reading a single world of the actual content.

Does anyone think it is best to be thorough when writing a numismatic book review, or is it best to slap something together and be the first to write one? I would love to do formal reviews of numismatic books (I wrote several on these boards), but I know I would not do them without reading the book, and this might now work out well with people’s desires for instant gratification and feedback. I doubt any author would wait around for me to actually read the book, and then lovingly pen a personal review.

What do you think of this practice of pseudo-reviews?

lathmach · October 13, 2008 5:44AM

Do a review for us when you have read it, Loncager.
Just keep it under 1500 words. You don't want to rewrite the book.

Ray

Arizonadesertrat · October 13, 2008 6:04AM

Better to be thorough, and make useful, detailed comments. Don't forget to slam previously written, shoddy reviews.

Dentuck · October 13, 2008 6:10AM

In general, the more time, attention, and analysis the reviewer can spend with the book, the better. It's also useful to put a book in context --- cultural context, historical context, or even just comparing it to others in the field.

Here's one I wrote for The E-Sylum:
BOOK REVIEW: Numismatica Mexicana: Una Guia de su Literatura

I read this book cover to cover (admittedly skimming some parts). I tied my review to recent discussions in the hobby community, and tried to explore not only what the book contains, but what makes it work as a reference.

They say a director can't watch a movie without dissecting it from a director's point of view. As a book publisher, I can't help but analyze books for their content hierarchy and architecture, user interface, and other information design considerations. The last third of my review of Numismatica Mexicana: Una Guia de su Literatura is devoted to such things.

RYK · October 13, 2008 6:18AM

I think it should be viewed as a race, with the winner being the first one out with the review.

Actually, I thought that the review in Esylum was appropriate for my purposes. It is an excellent book, chock full of history and numismatics, very readable, and well-illustrated. What, you did not get your copy yet?

Coinosaurus · October 13, 2008 6:32AM

From an author's perspective, the most important thing about a review is that it generates a lot of sales

IGWT · October 13, 2008 6:37AM

There's something CACish about reviewing a book review.

Edited to add: Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Dentuck · October 13, 2008 6:54AM

There's something CACish about reviewing a book review.

LOL! It's very existentialist ... it's like someone asking Longacre a question about a question he's asked.

RWB · October 13, 2008 7:24AM

I think a review should be as accurate and helpful as the reviewer can make it. It's an opportunity to let potential readers know about the good things the author has for them, as well as mentioning problems or important omissions. To me, the question of being first with a review is irrelevant.

DaveG · October 13, 2008 7:58AM

Considering that most reviewers get copies of a book before they're distributed to the public (so that a favorable review can appear in the press as part of the book's marketing campaign), I think you should be much more distressed by the apparent fact that you're too low on the numismatic "food chain" to get free reviewer's copies in advance of publication.

Perhaps if you have a marathon reading session when you do (finally) get a copy of the book, you'll have a shot at posting the first favorable review on these boards and then you can market yourself to the various numismatic publishing conglomerates as the "official book reviewer of the PCGS message boards."

Of course, you'll have to lay off the "slow boat from China" cracks, or else you'll worry every time a package arrives from Whitman!

Coinosaurus · October 13, 2008 9:41AM

If Longacre decides to become the official book reviewer of the board, and also distributes said reviews to a wide variety of numismatic publications, I suspect he'll find himself on the "review copy" list in short order.

DaveG · October 13, 2008 10:29AM

Climb up that Food Chain, Longy!

Become an apex predator!

You can do it!

Yes You Can!

When writing a numismatic book review, is it better to be thorough, or to get it out before anyone e

Comments

Leave a Comment