Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8161Reviews Have to be "Critically" Negative?

Expand Messages
  • Dave Smith
    Oct 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:
      > Mr. Smith:
      >
      > Professor Waugh also wrote a remarkably similar review of "Grant,"
      > by Jean Edward Smith. In the two reviews, there is little or no
      > criticism of the authors' work and hardly any more of Grant as
      > either a general or president. It was copied and pasted from the
      > website at:
      > http://www.thehistorynet.com/reviews/bk_cwtijun01lead.htm
      >
      > Joseph Rose

      Joseph,

      I suppose one could come to the conclusion that Professor Waugh liked
      both books. It's been known to happen . . .

      But yes, I've seen that review before. It's been posted here as
      well. I checked before posting mine, in order to make sure I didn't
      duplicate things.

      But I have a question. Is a lack of criticsm of the author's work a
      requirement of writing a book review? A "critical review," in which
      the reviewer looks at a grocery list of things that make up a book
      biography (in this case), is required, but I don't believe there's
      anything that requires the review to be critical in nature.

      Dave

      Dave Smith
      Villa Hills, KY
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic