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

Re: Reviews Have to be "Critically" Negative?

Expand Messages
  • Dave Smith
    ... See The book review, as copied and pasted from the website at http://www.thehistorynet.com/reviews/bk_cwtimay00lead.htm follows: Also see message 8151 in
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@y..., Terry Johnston <tajjr@e...> wrote:
      > As a lurker, I'm afraid to say I've only caught part of this
      > thread. I wonder if Long's review has been posted on the web. If
      > so, could someone please provide me with a link to it? Many thanks.
      >

      See

      The book review, as copied and pasted from the website at
      http://www.thehistorynet.com/reviews/bk_cwtimay00lead.htm follows:

      Also see message 8151 in this forum.

      Dave
    • Terry Johnston
      Appreciate it. Now, for my two cents. This does not strike me as a good book review. It s not very well argued, for one. And though Long certainly is under
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Appreciate it. Now, for my two cents. This does not strike me as a good
        book review. It's not very well argued, for one. And though Long certainly
        is under no obligation to love (or even like) the book, or to refrain from
        revealing his true feelings about it, his negativity does seem excessive.
        The review, in short, lacks a sense of scholarly decorum. It also lacks,
        save for the penultimate paragraph, quotations (of significant length) from
        the book in question. You'd think that if Long wanted to hang Simpson out
        to dry for his conclusions, he's use Simpson's own words to do so.

        Terry Johnston






        Dave Smith wrote:

        > --- In civilwarwest@y..., Terry Johnston <tajjr@e...> wrote:
        > > As a lurker, I'm afraid to say I've only caught part of this
        > > thread. I wonder if Long's review has been posted on the web. If
        > > so, could someone please provide me with a link to it? Many thanks.
        > >
        >
        > See
        >
        > The book review, as copied and pasted from the website at
        > http://www.thehistorynet.com/reviews/bk_cwtimay00lead.htm follows:
        >
        > Also see message 8151 in this forum.
        >
        > Dave
      • FLYNSWEDE@AOL.COM
        In a message dated 10/2/01 3:37:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tajjr@eclipsetel.com writes:
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 10/2/01 3:37:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          tajjr@... writes:

          << Appreciate it. Now, for my two cents. This does not strike me as a good
          book review. It's not very well argued, for one. And though Long certainly
          is under no obligation to love (or even like) the book, or to refrain from
          revealing his true feelings about it, his negativity does seem excessive.
          The review, in short, lacks a sense of scholarly decorum. It also lacks,
          save for the penultimate paragraph, quotations (of significant length) from
          the book in question. You'd think that if Long wanted to hang Simpson out
          to dry for his conclusions, he's use Simpson's own words to do so.

          Terry Johnston >>
          Please Terry and all the rest:
          This forum was to discuss actions and individuals that fought in the Western
          Theater (and perhaps the Trans-Missip included) not book reviews, book
          criticisms even though the books may pertain to individuals or battles within
          these theaters. For those that do persist on having book reviews or
          criticisms of an author, may I suggest that you open up a discussion room
          specifically for that purpose, rather than using this forum.

          Respectfully,

          Wayne C. Bengston
        • Jfepperson@aol.com
          In a message dated 10/2/2001 4:05:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Western ... While I sympathize with the frustration over certain squabbles, I have to
          Message 4 of 13 , Oct 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 10/2/2001 4:05:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            FLYNSWEDE@... writes:

            > This forum was to discuss actions and individuals that fought in the
            Western
            > Theater (and perhaps the Trans-Missip included) not book reviews, book
            > criticisms even though the books may pertain to individuals or battles
            > within
            > these theaters. For those that do persist on having book reviews or
            > criticisms of an author, may I suggest that you open up a discussion room
            > specifically for that purpose, rather than using this forum.

            While I sympathize with the frustration over certain squabbles, I have
            to disagree in a major way with the assertions quoted above. If
            discussions of books which deal with the western theatre of the Civil
            War are deemed off-topic, then our ability to discuss scholarship is
            severely (perhaps fatally) limited.

            JFE


            James F. Epperson
            http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
            http://members.aol.com/siege1864
          • FLYNSWEDE@AOL.COM
            In a message dated 10/2/01 6:33:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jfepperson@aol.com writes:
            Message 5 of 13 , Oct 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 10/2/01 6:33:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              Jfepperson@... writes:

              << If
              discussions of books which deal with the western theatre of the Civil
              War are deemed off-topic, then our ability to discuss scholarship is
              severely (perhaps fatally) limited. >>

              Jeff,
              I believed that you misconstrued my post. Most certainly books on the
              Western theater should be discussed, but in the content of what happened,
              what was the battle strategy, were did the battle go wrong, etc.; what the
              battle commanders could have done or should have done rather than a given
              author. One could say that he/she enjoyed the book or did not enjoy the
              book, but to go into severe negative criticism on an author to a point where
              it becomes character assassination, this I believe has no place in this forum.
              Use the book to talk about battle events that took place so that all can
              learn. One can never learn from negative criticism, only from positive
              criticism; any instruction in leadership development will ascertain to that.

              Basically, if one desires to bash a book or its author; bash the reviewer or
              the reviews as a result of one's on personal bias, then let him/her open up
              their own room and do the bashing there, rather than within this forum.

              Hopefully this will clarify the true intent of my first post.

              Wayne
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.