For many individuals, properly defining a central purpose in life is a difficult process of abstraction. Even with that accomplished, there is another hurdle: designing a path that makes that abstract purpose concrete. For those individuals who want to be scholars, either in the humanities or in one of the sciences, but do not want to be professors in a university, Ronald Gross has written The Independent Scholar's Handbook.[1]
"Serious intellectual work can be pursued outside of academe," says the author stating his theme.[2] This book is not a mere call to spend a lifetime in study, no matter how passionate. Gross writes not to dilettantes but to individuals who are eager to learn better methods of research, create new knowledge, and expect to produce something with their studies--a book, a series of lectures, or some other ultimately marketable product.[3]
The front cover, but not the title page, contains this subtitle: "How to turn your interest in any subject into expertise." Each of the ten chapters of the book covers one phase of independent scholarship. In Part One ("Starting Out"), one chapter covers "From 'Messy Beginnings' to Your First Fruits of Research." In Part Two ("The Practice of Independent Scholarship."), chapters cover selection of resources (such as finding specialized libraries and gaining access to data bases), the benefits of working with other scholars, maintaining a high level of scholarly craftsmanship, and seeking financial support. Last, in Part Three ("Independent Scholars in Action"), Gross displays the range of activities in which scholars can make use of their expertise: tutoring, nonacademic teaching, writing in various forms, and "intellectual activism."
"Independent scholars are pioneering in a new area I call 'intellectual activism'," says Gross. "By that," he notes, he means scholars "undertaking activities that are not in themselves scholarship or science. These activities do not [themselves] create new knowledge, but they make existing knowledge more accessible, understandable, useful, or enjoyable to others; . . . they do something which benefits . . . the general culture." Though his abstract description is somewhat unclear, his examples of "intellectual activism" show that he usually means activism for intellectualism, that is, activism encouraging others to live "the life of the mind."[4]
Nevertheless, readers familiar with philosopher Ayn Rand's idea of intellectual activism--intellectuals taking action to spread philosophical principles by applying them to current problems in society--will find plenty of instruction and inspiration in this handbook.[5] At the end of every chapter, Gross offers a case study of an independent scholar in action, often rising from obscure beginnings to public success in one form or another. An example is Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, a book that launched a women's movement that brought early progress (by debunking Freudian views of women) and later regress (by advocating governmental controls on employment).[6] Gross very briefly describes numerous other examples throughout the chapters--for instance, Rachel Carson, a scientifically trained author whose book for general readers, Silent Spring was most responsible for starting the modern environmentalist mass movement.[7] Through his many examples of independent scholars, Gross unintentionally gives the serious student of modern history--particularly the intellectual activist trying to gain insights that will make his work more effective--historical examples of the many independent intellectuals who, in decades past, shaped our society today--its movements, its values, and its politics.
Thus there are three potential audiences for The Independent Scholar's Handbook: would-be independent scholars, acting professionally; intellectual activists, acting as advocates of a movement; and individuals integrating the two points, that is, those individuals who have chosen to be in-line activists, which means advocates of intellectual change within their own chosen profession.
Cautions: The author provides a flood of examples and particulars. Objective readers will need their skills in reading at varying levels of intensity because some sections will be much more valuable to some readers than to others. Readers will also need to be wary of the author's "philosophy," which is a mishmash of an implicit benevolent universe principle, genuine intellectual excitement, and vague, conventionally leftist solutions to social problems.[8] Also be aware that this first edition was written before the internet became widely available as a resource. This fact does not detract from the book's main value, which is not the specific resources Gross lists but the timeless methods and virtues required for success.
For the appropriate readers, The Independent Scholar's Handbook can be an informative and inspiring guide.
Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith
[1] Ronald Gross, The Independent Scholar's Handbook, Reading (Massachusetts), Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1982. This is the first edition; the second, 1993, edition reportedly contains only minor improvements. Both are out of print. Inexpensive used copies are available from Amazon Books. [2] For the "outside of academe" quotation: p. xvi. [3] Ch. 1, "Risk-takers of the Spirit." [4] For the three quotations: p. 148. [5] For Ayn Rand's discussion of intellectual activism: Ayn Rand, "What Can One Do?" in Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ch. 17. See also discussions of intellectual activism on the website of The Ayn Rand Institute and The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, under the Participate/Activism tabs or search http://www.aynrand.org for "intellectual activism." [6] The case study of Betty Friedan appears on pp. 94-99. If my memory of 30 or 40 years ago serves me well, Ayn Rand wrote a book review of The Feminine Mystique, praising some of its insights, but I cannot identify the exact issue and periodical. [7] For mention of Rachel Carson: p. 94. [8] For the skill of choosing an appropriate level of reading depth: Edwin Locke, Study Methods and Motivation: A Practical Guide to Effective Study, at The Ayn Rand Bookstore. I wrote the review featured there.
Showing posts with label book reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label book reviews. Show all posts
Feb 7, 2009
Ayn Rand on writing book reviews
"In 1969," editor Robert Mayhew says, "Ayn Rand gave a course on nonfiction writing to . . . friends and associates" who might become writers for her magazine, The Objectivist.[1] The course, edited, now appears in book form as The Art of Nonfiction. One small part of her course focuses on writing book reviews, an important element of her magazine dedicated to applying philosophy to contemporary culture. Following are my notes from the first half of Chapter 9, "Book Reviews and Introductions," plus a few comments.
What is a book review? I would say a book review is an essay that describes the essential nature of a particular book and evaluates it. A book review presents both facts and values--what a book is and what it is worth.
Why write a book review? The general reason for reviewing a book is to announce to a certain audience that a particular book exists. As a reviewer, you could also have special purposes. For example, you might want to encourage a particular writer by publicizing his book, thus increasing its sales and influence.[2] I can see at least two other special motivations. First, to save your audience from wasting time and money, you might occasionally review a book that is wildly popular and seductively advertised, but has an undeserved reputation. Second, you might want to write an informal review for yourself as a way of recording your thoughts about a book that will probably be important to you throughout your career. For example, a student of history planning to teach someday might want to write an informal book review of a classic history text such as the seminal work, The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea, by Arthur O. Lovejoy. As another example, an author writing a book of his own might informally review each work he frequently cites--as a way of preparing for discussions of his sources with critics in his field. (Upper level undergraduate, as well as graduate, students of history will recognize these informal reviews as resources for writing a bibliographic essay to accompany a thesis or dissertation.)
What are the main components of a book review? Generally, a book review mostly describes the essential nature of the book: What is the book's subject? Its theme? Its style? Its approach (for example, tutorial or scholarly)? The review should not recapitulate the book, following it step by step, and should not misrepresent the book by reporting nonessentials while ignoring essential characteristics.
Use quotations from the reviewed book as proof statements. Ideally, the quotations will show the book's subject matter, theme, style, and approach, thus confirming what you have said and earning the reader's trust. A major problem, however, is finding quotations that serve those purposes but are also brief and representative of the whole book.
The second major component of a book review, after describing its nature, is your evaluation of the book. Is it a "good" book--if so, for whom and why?[3] Any evaluation, I think, should be backed up quickly with facts and reasons. "Good" alone is floating. More precise terms would be more helpful: "informative," "thoughtful," and "objective" are examples, if established in the text of a full review.
The third major component of a book review is a brief sketch of "the book's philosophical and stylistic flaws." Indicate the author's errors that might confuse a less experienced reader of the book. Do not debate the author or propagandize ("A review is not a polemic," Ayn Rand says), but instead briefly refer the reader to other works that offer a correct view.[4]
What are pitfalls for novice book reviewers? One pitfall in writing book reviews is focusing--without telling your readers what you are doing--on a small element of a book because it is especially interesting to you but is not representative of the book as a whole.[5] A second pitfall is telling an author of a book how you think he should have written it. To do so is a context-dropping act of arrogance.[6] A third pitfall is failing to make clear to your reader when you are speaking for yourself (in evaluating the book) and when you are speaking for the author (by describing the book). This difficulty arises frequently because, rather than presenting a block of facts followed by a block of evaluations, an effective book review usually interweaves descriptions with evaluations.[7]
In summary, an objective book review tells and shows readers what a book is and what value it has.
Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith
[1] The course was recorded and, many years later, transcribed and edited. The result is Ayn Rand, The Art of Nonfiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, editor Robert Mayhew, New York, Penguin/Plume, 2001. For the Mayhew quotation: p. xi. To buy the book: http://www.aynrandbookstore. [2] For Rand's purposes in reviewing books in The Objectivist: ANF, pp. 145-146. [3] For Rand's comments on the first two major components of a book review: ANF, pp. 147-149. [4] For describing a book's flaws: ANF, pp. 149-150. For not using a book review to propagandize: ANF, p. 152. [5] For the reviewer needing to say he is giving special attention to a minor part of the book: ANF, pp. 148-149. [6] For stating flaws and offering possible solutions, rather than prescribing the way an author should have written a book: ANF, pp. 150-151. [7] For distinguishing but interweaving description and evaluation: ANF, pp. 151-152.
What is a book review? I would say a book review is an essay that describes the essential nature of a particular book and evaluates it. A book review presents both facts and values--what a book is and what it is worth.
Why write a book review? The general reason for reviewing a book is to announce to a certain audience that a particular book exists. As a reviewer, you could also have special purposes. For example, you might want to encourage a particular writer by publicizing his book, thus increasing its sales and influence.[2] I can see at least two other special motivations. First, to save your audience from wasting time and money, you might occasionally review a book that is wildly popular and seductively advertised, but has an undeserved reputation. Second, you might want to write an informal review for yourself as a way of recording your thoughts about a book that will probably be important to you throughout your career. For example, a student of history planning to teach someday might want to write an informal book review of a classic history text such as the seminal work, The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea, by Arthur O. Lovejoy. As another example, an author writing a book of his own might informally review each work he frequently cites--as a way of preparing for discussions of his sources with critics in his field. (Upper level undergraduate, as well as graduate, students of history will recognize these informal reviews as resources for writing a bibliographic essay to accompany a thesis or dissertation.)
What are the main components of a book review? Generally, a book review mostly describes the essential nature of the book: What is the book's subject? Its theme? Its style? Its approach (for example, tutorial or scholarly)? The review should not recapitulate the book, following it step by step, and should not misrepresent the book by reporting nonessentials while ignoring essential characteristics.
Use quotations from the reviewed book as proof statements. Ideally, the quotations will show the book's subject matter, theme, style, and approach, thus confirming what you have said and earning the reader's trust. A major problem, however, is finding quotations that serve those purposes but are also brief and representative of the whole book.
The second major component of a book review, after describing its nature, is your evaluation of the book. Is it a "good" book--if so, for whom and why?[3] Any evaluation, I think, should be backed up quickly with facts and reasons. "Good" alone is floating. More precise terms would be more helpful: "informative," "thoughtful," and "objective" are examples, if established in the text of a full review.
The third major component of a book review is a brief sketch of "the book's philosophical and stylistic flaws." Indicate the author's errors that might confuse a less experienced reader of the book. Do not debate the author or propagandize ("A review is not a polemic," Ayn Rand says), but instead briefly refer the reader to other works that offer a correct view.[4]
What are pitfalls for novice book reviewers? One pitfall in writing book reviews is focusing--without telling your readers what you are doing--on a small element of a book because it is especially interesting to you but is not representative of the book as a whole.[5] A second pitfall is telling an author of a book how you think he should have written it. To do so is a context-dropping act of arrogance.[6] A third pitfall is failing to make clear to your reader when you are speaking for yourself (in evaluating the book) and when you are speaking for the author (by describing the book). This difficulty arises frequently because, rather than presenting a block of facts followed by a block of evaluations, an effective book review usually interweaves descriptions with evaluations.[7]
In summary, an objective book review tells and shows readers what a book is and what value it has.
Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith
[1] The course was recorded and, many years later, transcribed and edited. The result is Ayn Rand, The Art of Nonfiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, editor Robert Mayhew, New York, Penguin/Plume, 2001. For the Mayhew quotation: p. xi. To buy the book: http://www.aynrandbookstore. [2] For Rand's purposes in reviewing books in The Objectivist: ANF, pp. 145-146. [3] For Rand's comments on the first two major components of a book review: ANF, pp. 147-149. [4] For describing a book's flaws: ANF, pp. 149-150. For not using a book review to propagandize: ANF, p. 152. [5] For the reviewer needing to say he is giving special attention to a minor part of the book: ANF, pp. 148-149. [6] For stating flaws and offering possible solutions, rather than prescribing the way an author should have written a book: ANF, pp. 150-151. [7] For distinguishing but interweaving description and evaluation: ANF, pp. 151-152.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)