Just Got Reviewer Two'd
Just had an article returned back to me with a classic case of academic schizophrenia. You know what I mean -- one reviewer plays Good Cop, the other plays Bad Cop. One loves me, the other loves me not, etc.
In this particular case, the first reviewer thought highly of the article. Although they had some recommendations for improvement, as a good reviewer should, the phrases "groundbreaking" and "well-written" nonetheless did make an appearance. Reviewer 2? Alas, not so much. They opened their commentary with, and I quote, "I dislike this essay on a number of fronts." And, 500 words later, that was still the nicest comment they had to give.
The whole experience leaves me somewhat bemused, I must say. Don't get me wrong -- in the past I've received reviews, incompetent or negative or both, that really have angered or irritated me. This one, not so much.
Part of that, simply, is Reviewer 1 being -- clearly! -- a brilliant and percipient scholar of keen critical acumen. Another part is how hard Reviewer 2 tries, almost ludicrously, to justify their knee-jerk antipathy to the article. Their entire commentary is over-compensation -- basically, "This article is suffused with problematic issues and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever (and certainly none that I'm willing to admit)."
Also, while some of reviewer 2's objections were entirely reasonable, for which I'm grateful, others were a tad strange -- such as dinging me for using Jamie Williamson's The Evolution of Modern Fantasy approvingly, which I happen to think a very good book. C'est la vie.
Incidentally, the editor was cool about everything, suggesting that I shop the article around elsewhere, which struck me as a good idea.
In this particular case, the first reviewer thought highly of the article. Although they had some recommendations for improvement, as a good reviewer should, the phrases "groundbreaking" and "well-written" nonetheless did make an appearance. Reviewer 2? Alas, not so much. They opened their commentary with, and I quote, "I dislike this essay on a number of fronts." And, 500 words later, that was still the nicest comment they had to give.
The whole experience leaves me somewhat bemused, I must say. Don't get me wrong -- in the past I've received reviews, incompetent or negative or both, that really have angered or irritated me. This one, not so much.
Part of that, simply, is Reviewer 1 being -- clearly! -- a brilliant and percipient scholar of keen critical acumen. Another part is how hard Reviewer 2 tries, almost ludicrously, to justify their knee-jerk antipathy to the article. Their entire commentary is over-compensation -- basically, "This article is suffused with problematic issues and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever (and certainly none that I'm willing to admit)."
Also, while some of reviewer 2's objections were entirely reasonable, for which I'm grateful, others were a tad strange -- such as dinging me for using Jamie Williamson's The Evolution of Modern Fantasy approvingly, which I happen to think a very good book. C'est la vie.
Incidentally, the editor was cool about everything, suggesting that I shop the article around elsewhere, which struck me as a good idea.
Comments
Post a Comment