Well, I think my review of Aimee Byrd’s book may have touched a nerve. At least it seems that way from the wide array of responses I have seen on social media this week. There are a whole lot of folks that really appreciated it, and there are a number of folks for whom—let’s just say—it was less than edifying.
Years ago, I used to be more of a Twitter warrior and would have been online answering all the criticism. Not so much anymore. I don’t have the bandwidth for that kind of interaction, and I’ve come to see it as mainly futile because Twitter is often dominated by foolish speech and personal attacks. Even if you try to avoid it, you still end up getting some on you.
Having said that, neither I nor my review are above criticism. Some readers have actually pointed out some helpful things (misaligned endnotes, an incorrect page reference, etc.). So not all of the criticism has been bad. Some readers have pointed out that the review is short on summarizing Byrd’s book. That’s a fair point. Readers will be happy to learn that the print version of the review is actually considerably longer than the blog version because it includes more summary of Byrd’s book. So if you were looking for more summary, it’s on the way in the printed journal. Continue Reading →