I’m not sure how many people judge a book by the blurbs found on it, but I pray that number dwindles greatly. Because frequently, perhaps more often than not, they are misleading, particularly if they are written by a well-known scholar, author, pastor, etc.
Case in point: a while back Justin Taylor, one of the most popular bloggers in evangelicalism, highlighted a new book put out of IVP, The Roots of the Reformation. The author, G R Evans, is apparently a well respected Cambridge medievalist. Taylor includes in his post 4 endorsements of the book, two of which were particularly glowing:
“G. R. Evans is one of our finest scholars, and she has written a superb book placing the story of the Reformation in the wider context of Christian history. Comprehensive, well researched and readable.”
—Timothy George, general editor, Reformation Commentary on Scripture
“Briskly and breezily, but very efficiently, medievalist Gillian Evans here surveys Western Europe’s changing and clashing views of Christianity from the fourteenth century through the seventeenth century. This large-scale introduction is certainly the best of its kind currently available.”
—J. I. Packer, Regent College
But, a month later and Taylor (admirably) issued a ‘mea culpa‘ for implicitly endorsing this highly-praised book. Why? What changed his mind?
Because an expert on the subject matter of the book in question actually read the book carefully.
Carl Trueman wrote an absolutely devastating review of the book, pointing out numerous (and I mean numerous) embarrassing errors that undermine the credibility of the book, and thus, the author and those who praise it so unreservedly. How devastating is this review? IVP has opted to pull the book off the shelves, revise it (in time for the fall semester, although I wonder if any professor will opt to use it now) and give free ones to those who purchased the 1st edition. You can read their letter here.
Now, I don’t want to overstate the damage done here. No one’s salvation is at stake. There won’t be a generation of scholars who will screw up basic facts about Calvin, Luther and the rest of the reformers. The 2nd edition will fix the errors and the world will move on.
But I have to wonder about the endorsers, particularly the two I quoted. Was Packer right when he said the book is “the best of its kind currently available?” Are the other options so awful that Evans’ book is, in fact, better? I highly doubt it. The better question is: did Packer read the book? Or, perhaps, is Packer qualified to write an endorsement for a book on the Reformation?
Same goes for Timothy George. He said this book is ‘well researched.’ Did George read the book? Is he qualified to make such a claim about the book?
I’m being a bit sarcastic. Both Packer and George are highly qualified scholars. Their credentials speak for themselves. They ought to be able to read a book on the reformation and determine its value for classroom use. But the only real explanation for their high praise is probably the simplest: they didn’t read the book carefully. Trueman can’t be that much better of a scholar to be able to see frequent errors while they are not. If so, they aren’t the scholars we all think they are.
So what’s the point in trusting blurbs for a book? If you can’t trust J I Packer and Timothy George, then who can you trust? I’ve read too many books that received high praise, only to read the book and wonder if the endorsers actually read it. But often times it’s a matter of opinion to a certain degree. In this case, it’s plain and simple. The book had so many errors it has to be pulled off the shelf. This isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of getting basic facts correct. IVP shouldn’t be the only ones apologizing here.
I’m not the first to note the uselessness (or at least, the limited usefulness) of book blurbs. Nick Norelli makes the same point here. Esteban Vazquez (the only blogger to blog less than me) nail it pretty well here. Or even better, read this.
Anyway, to bring my rant to a close, it’s disappointing to have your suspicions confirmed: sometimes (oftentimes?) endorsers don’t read carefully the book they are endorsing. The quicker we all realize this, the better off we’ll be. But we’ll be even better off if endorsers stop doing it altogether.
[…] issue of book blurbs has come back up (see Danny’s post, which was inspired by Carl Trueman’s scathing review of G. R. Evans’ The Roots of the […]
“Danny Pierce’s recent blog post is by far the best blog post – nay, the best thing – ever written. History knows no greater record of human thought. It is no understatement to say that it is a moral imperative for all of humanity to read this post immediately, and to acknowledge Danny as having written to perfection.” -Brian Marchionni, co-blogger, BBG
Brian- if you get a chance, make sure you read the last post I link to (the second Esteban post). It contains a pre-written blurb just waiting for the right book to come along. It’s gold.
Keep up the flattery, Danny, and you might just find my blurb gracing the back of your book! ;-)
[…] issuing what he called a “mea culpa,” leading another conservative blogger, Danny Pierce, to say: Was Packer right when he said the book is “the best of its kind currently available?” […]