A Different Review Model -- ep. by Howard Rambsy II

A brief take on reimagining scholarly book reviews in African American literary studies, exploring how cluster reviews could illuminate broader developments across subfields more effectively than single-volume assessments.

Written by Howard Rambsy II

Read by Kassandra Timm 

Transcript

For decades now, reviews of individual scholarly books about African American literature have been a standard feature of the field. Publishers send new titles to scholarly journals in hopes that editors will secure a reviewer who can assess the book, and then the review is published. The review then helps raise the visibility of the work. This process has repeated itself over and over for quite some time.

And yes, the authors and publishers of these publications are often appreciative, especially when the reviews are glowing.

But what if there’s another approach that could be even more useful for scholars of African American literature?

You’re listening to Remarkable Receptions, a podcast about popular and critical responses to African American artistic productions and more.

When we speak of the field of African American literary studies, we should remember that we are really talking about an area comprised of multiple subfields: author-centered scholarship on Zora Neale Hurston, Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, or Toni Morrison; period studies of the Harlem Renaissance or the Black Arts Movement; genre studies like slave narratives, poetry, or fiction; or methodological approaches like Black feminist studies or Black queer studies.

We should also keep in mind that African American literary studies is viewed as one subfield within the broader categories or subfields of English or American literary studies.

 Given the nature of scholarly work across subfields of African American literary studies, would it be better, and perhaps more useful, to create alternatives to the single-book review? Instead of one reviewer assessing one book, what if a small group of scholars offered an overview of a cluster of books and articles published in a single subfield over the last five or so years?

 This approach would make it easier to see how individual publications fit within the context of several others in one or two related subfields. Cluster reviews could give colleagues a clearer sense of broader developments in their areas of study.

 Of course, the decades-old model of individual reviews is likely to remain in place, and many authors will continue to appreciate the recognition. But an alternative model, a cluster review for a cluster of books and articles, might be a welcome addition. It’s worth considering.

******************************************

This episode was written by Howard Rambsy, edited by Elizabeth Cali, and read by me, Kassandra Timm.

******************************************