Roy Weintraub said:
>I would have been interested in an HES review of Warsh's book, not this >wink-wink
assault on its subject matter which self-importantly appears to be a >story of what
Cleveland can and cannot swallow.
I'd like to use Roy's statement above to explain a distinction I'm making that may be so
subtle that members of the list may not notice it. In my mind, there are two kinds of
reviews on this discussion list, informal and formal.
I distributed Cleveland's review of Warsh's book as a general discussion message with the
DISC subject because I think it is reasonable for a member of the HES list to initiate a
discussion with his or her take on a book (or other work). This is an informal, casual
commentary designed to generate further discussion.
Formal reviews, regularly posted to this list, are distributed with the RVW subject
header. These reviews are organized by EH.Net, who solicits reviewers and adds the usual
stamp of professional quality.
I trust that my use of the subject headers DISC as code for "informal review by any one of
us with a reaction to a work" and RVW to represent "a formal EH.Net sanctioned review"
makes sense to you. If not, let me know. You are, naturally, welcome to comment on either
type of review.
While I'm here, let me add that EH.Net actually reviews many more books than the ones you
see on this list. I should distribute only those relevant to the History of Economics,
broadly defined. Making this judgment, of course, is the problem. The holes in my screen
of what's relevant to the History of Economics are pretty big. I figure that you can
easily delete a RVW that is uninteresting to you. If you see a review that seems to be way
outside the History of Economics, your moderator thought someone on this list might find
the review interesting. If you think I'm distributing too much junk, let me know. Such
feedback is helpful.
If any of you have suggestions or comments on how to improve this list, drop me a line at
[log in to unmask]
Thanks,
Humberto Barreto
|
