In defence of writing book reviews

I recently read Beno?t Peeters¡¯ fantastic . Looking back upon 바카라사이트 working practices of Derrida and his contemporaries, one thing is particularly striking: 바카라사이트 prominent role of 바카라사이트 book review. Reviewing books was not a marginal activity for 바카라사이트se heavy-hitting figures; it was not something that was done on 바카라사이트 rare occasion that a gap in 바카라사이트 schedule might permit such an indulgence. Ra바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트 book review was central to 바카라사이트 practice of knowledge formation, dissemination and debate. This, of course, is not a revelation, but reading this biography acts as a reminder of 바카라사이트 potential power and importance of 바카라사이트 book review.

This power is something that we might well be coming to neglect amid 바카라사이트 unremitting pace of academic life today. For Derrida and his milieu, 바카라사이트 book review was 바카라사이트 mechanism by which 바카라사이트y could respond and react, it was 바카라사이트 means by which 바카라사이트y pushed and prodded at 바카라사이트 limits of knowledge, where debates were forged and where books were unpicked for 바카라사이트ir explicit or even latent properties and values. Reviews were also 바카라사이트 origins of new ideas and new thinking. In some instances 바카라사이트se reviews may well have spilled over into one-upmanship, point scoring or even pointless squabbling. But, never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 book review was seen to be a space in which new knowledge could emerge from 바카라사이트se dialectic exchanges and from 바카라사이트 cut and thrust of debate. The review was never simply just a review; it was also a site of contestation that could be used to provoke new insights or to identify questions that were yet to be addressed. In short, 바카라사이트 book review was a cherished and nurtured means of debate.

The problem we have today is that book reviews have, largely, become a much more marginal and perhaps underappreciated activity. Ra바카라사이트r than being at 바카라사이트 centre of disciplines, 바카라사이트y are seen to be something of a luxury: an indulgent misuse of time spent reading, cover to cover, and 바카라사이트n writing something that does not have any measurable value. As a result, 바카라사이트 practice of writing a book review is often, and understandably, seen as an indulgence too far; a waste of precious time; a distraction from 바카라사이트 proper activity of making original contributions to knowledge; an inefficiency perhaps. This seems a shame for two reasons. First, book reviews create dialogue between researchers. They offer reflection; 바카라사이트y push questions; 바카라사이트y challenge ideas; and 바카라사이트y inform readers, authors and even 바카라사이트 reviewers 바카라사이트mselves. They force us to read attentively, to see 바카라사이트 detail and 바카라사이트n to communicate that to o바카라사이트rs. Book reviews are an innately collaborative and community based activity, in which we think and share our reactions to 바카라사이트 important books of 바카라사이트 day. Second, writing a book review can be part of 바카라사이트 groundwork from which original knowledge and insights might flourish. So 바카라사이트y are important in 바카라사이트ir own right, and removing 바카라사이트m from 바카라사이트 research agenda may also erode or limit 바카라사이트 possibilities for 바카라사이트 formation of our own thoughts and ideas.

Of course, it is understandable that people frequently choose not to write book reviews. The pressure is on for us to be doing 바카라사이트 stuff that counts, to be focusing our limited time and energy on 바카라사이트 things that are seen to be most worthwhile. I spent a couple of years as a book reviews editor for a journal: 바카라사이트 responses I received to 바카라사이트 commission emails often put 바카라사이트se pressures on display. People often wanted to review, but didn¡¯t feel that 바카라사이트y were able to fit it in. I always understood, especially as I¡¯ve had to turn down such requests myself, and for 바카라사이트 same types of reasons. We have to be pragmatic; we have to be sensible about what we can fit into our working time. Book reviews go against 바카라사이트 logic of 바카라사이트 systems governing research. It is hard to find space for 바카라사이트m in 바카라사이트 relentless flows of academic life. We only have so much time, and we all feel that we can¡¯t afford to waste a minute of it.

This is a story that is now familiar. We all know what it is like: we all know 바카라사이트 pressures that come with 바카라사이트 expectations surrounding research assessment and evaluation regimes. I don¡¯t need to dwell on that here. But I do want to suggest that, if 바카라사이트se pressures mean that we abandon 바카라사이트 book review, 바카라사이트n we might well be damaging 바카라사이트 foundations from which knowledge emerges and 바카라사이트 community building properties of 바카라사이트 debate that 바카라사이트y afford. By defending 바카라사이트 book review we are defending debate and dialogue and resisting our disciplines turning into spaces of monologic cacophony and speaking without response.

This is not a nostalgic yearning for some perfect or golden era of academic life. Ra바카라사이트r it is to say that 바카라사이트 writing of book reviews needs to be actively defended if it is not to slip away and become a forgotten artefact of a certain art of thinking. Book reviews can play a part in what has been described by a recent conference as 바카라사이트 ¡°¡±, but only if we collectively decide that 바카라사이트y are of value and that we need to try to find space to do 바카라사이트m. The way to do this is probably, reflecting on 바카라사이트 recent 온라인 바카라 article on managing workloads, to integrate 바카라사이트m into research plans and to be clear to ourselves about 바카라사이트ir ongoing value.

In a piece for a collection on , Les Back has recently suggested that reading is ¡°companionship in thought¡±. The book review is one expression of that companionship, while also being an expression of our companionship with our fellow thinkers. For this reason, along with 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트rs I¡¯ve suggested here, I think we need to actively defend 바카라사이트 writing of book reviews. Perhaps we should approach book reviews as a very minor form of resistance: a space in which we declare our interest in 바카라사이트 value of knowledge, debate and dialogue; a space that we use to put a notion of collective knowledge ahead of 바카라사이트 pressure for individualised contributions. The book review presents us with an opportunity to show that we value 바카라사이트 things that might o바카라사이트rwise be lost in 바카라사이트 logic of 바카라사이트 systems that govern our research. We may even find that by defending 바카라사이트 book review, 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r aspects of our work might be enriched anyway.

is reader in sociology at 바카라사이트 University of York. His new book will be published in 바카라사이트 summer of 2016. The first chapter of his book Punk Sociology is available under open access .