america adrift

There is a brief meditation on the “inherent superiority” of the printed word versus the so-called ‘online drivel’ that is the blogosphere over at the Edge of the American West. Scott Kaufman highlights a current issue of a historical journal, which is riddled with flaws that may or may not reduce the credibility of the author and the journal itself. Compared to online journalism, in which post-publication editing is possible, damage control is very difficult in print media. I must confess to have gone back and corrected a few typos in previous columns, but I felt that it was within my right because some of the stuff was written almost on the go. But something as simple as a spelling error can have a serious effect on the overall impression of an academic essay or article. This is interesting considering the apparent fall of the print media in the United States, something I’m sure we’ll hear more about in the coming months.

To what degree should a reviewer emerge himself in the material he is reviewing? Daniel Davies of Crooked Timber wonders whether a reviewer should be allowed to review a book he hasn’t read? What if he is really, really sure what the book is going to be like? He winds up reviewing the book as an experiment, arguing that, no matter what, he is going at it with more background knowledge of the author than any potential reviewers, and he also suspects that who-ever ends up reviewing the book will probably not read all of it anyway. This is an interesting notion; I am to review a book for the August edition of a Danish women’s magazine. I have read the original book, but I’m reviewing the book in relation to the new edition. Since the review is rather short (and no one else will have read or are going to read the book), is it okay for me to just read the new preface in preparation for the review? Hmm.

3quarksdaily links to the Boston Globe for a story on how scientists, after years of studying the effects of religion on human health are now turning to the study if the non-religious. The findings are comforting (atheist here): just as religion on the overall seems to make you healthy, so do non-religious people seem to have sound minds and bodies. What I’m wondering then is, how are the agnostics doing?  3quarksdaily also has an item up on the food of Rome. It’s not really relevant here, but it is well written, knowledgeable, and it sounds delicious.

Mark Ford at the New York Times talks about the poetry critic William Logan (no relation) and his savage reviews/attacks on contemporary poetry. Logan’s Our Savage Art is the latest installment in a series of books commenting on the state of American poetry, and sounds like an entertaining read. Admittedly, I’m not that big on poetry, but someone talking about poetry can be funny.

Bo Tao Michäelis reviews the Danish translation of Don Winslow’s The Power of the Dog (Danish: I Hundenes Vold) for Politiken, and writes: “We may have seen these infernal borderlands before, with piles of drug money, dirty drug-dealers and merciless mass murder, as told by James Crumley and Cormac McCarthy, but never as intensely political or indignantly provocative as this.” I haven’t read The Power of the Dog, but I am now thinking that I might pick it up sometime, though I doubt it can rival the power of McCarthy.