Obviously coming to this article very late (I'm a new subscriber), but I think it's an interesting subject and want to weigh in. A few thoughts:
- I think John is right that transparency rather than "fairness" is what the Times should be shooting for in its choice of reviewers. That said, given the internet, isn't
- On balance, if there is going to a single reviewer for a book (especially non-fiction books about ideas), I think it would be better to have the reviewer be someone who is ideologically sympathetic to the arguments being presented. I think the reader (and the world of books is general) is better served by someone who is willing to make the best arguments for a book, while hopefully being willing to also point out its flaws and how it could have been better.
- That said, I think it would be great service to the audience (and lots of fun) if the Times presented multiple reviews of a book with reviewers from across the ideological spectrum on whatever issue is being discussed. And if there isn't "room" in print, make this a digital only feature.
I personally find the review much more illuminating than the one in the Times precisely because the reviewer disagrees with McWhorter, so now I have two POV's to consider, rather than a "yeah, what he said," when the ideology of the reviewer and writer track so closely.
But...that's obviously a preference rooted in a desire for a kind of critical discussion, rather than a weighing of a book's "quality," as might come from a more sympathetic reviewer. Points out that there is no single way, but I do think it's interesting to consider what is being valued in the choice of reviewers.
Obviously coming to this article very late (I'm a new subscriber), but I think it's an interesting subject and want to weigh in. A few thoughts:
- I think John is right that transparency rather than "fairness" is what the Times should be shooting for in its choice of reviewers. That said, given the internet, isn't
- On balance, if there is going to a single reviewer for a book (especially non-fiction books about ideas), I think it would be better to have the reviewer be someone who is ideologically sympathetic to the arguments being presented. I think the reader (and the world of books is general) is better served by someone who is willing to make the best arguments for a book, while hopefully being willing to also point out its flaws and how it could have been better.
- That said, I think it would be great service to the audience (and lots of fun) if the Times presented multiple reviews of a book with reviewers from across the ideological spectrum on whatever issue is being discussed. And if there isn't "room" in print, make this a digital only feature.
It's interesting that the same day you found this and wrote the comment, The Washington Post published what is essentially an ideal version of your third bullet, a review of Woke Racism by someone who is clearly unaligned with McWhorter's POV. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/at-war-with-the-woke-a-fresh-perspective-makes-the-same-tired-arguments/2021/11/24/7dcd37d8-38e7-11ec-91dc-551d44733e2d_story.html
I personally find the review much more illuminating than the one in the Times precisely because the reviewer disagrees with McWhorter, so now I have two POV's to consider, rather than a "yeah, what he said," when the ideology of the reviewer and writer track so closely.
But...that's obviously a preference rooted in a desire for a kind of critical discussion, rather than a weighing of a book's "quality," as might come from a more sympathetic reviewer. Points out that there is no single way, but I do think it's interesting to consider what is being valued in the choice of reviewers.