Cholbi's on attention books (do not) receive

In the comments section of my recent post, "Some questions about the book review process", Michael Cholbi writes,

A small point but something that's long bugged me: 'Important' books are often the target of review essays or symposia in journals in which the book authors get to respond to critics. But standard book reviews are the end of the discussion of that book -- the author has no voice with which to respond to the review. This seems to me an unjust way of augmenting the intellectual capital of those who typically already have plenty of it in our field.

As someone who has a book coming out soon, I couldn't help but find this comment worrisome. I expect that just about any author's biggest worries are (A) the book will be terribly received (i.e. receive bad reviews), or (B) it won't be received at all (i.e. no one will read or engage with it)--"falling still born from the press", as it were, to use David Hume's famous phrase about his own A Treatise of Human Nature (a book which, thank the gods, ended up ultimately receiving the attention it was well due). 

Anyway, these are of course the risks one runs as an author. One can only write the best book one can, and hope that it receives attention and is well-received (these are my own hopes as an author, at any rate!). Still, what interests me about Michael's comment is the question he raises as to whether our discipline does enough--as a professional discipline--to ensure that everyone is given a "fair shot" at their book receiving discussion. Michael seems to think not, suggesting that book symposia (in journals and/or conferences) should be more available to those with less "intellectual capital."

I'm curious what everyone thinks about this. Is Michael right? Are there not enough opportunities in our discipline for book authors--particularly "small time" authors not at top programs--to have their books engaged with and taken seriously? If so, what could/should be done (e.g. by journals, the APA, etc.) to improve/level the playing field? More book symposia at APA's? More freedom to organize book symposia at the APA? More room in journals for book symposia (particularly, let's say, in the new Journal of the APA)? I would be especially curious to see if there are any authors who are willing to chime in, either in favor of or against Michael's concerns.

I guess I'll close by saying that I don't think I have enough experience here to weigh in on one side or the other, but that I have a few friends in the discipline whose books have thus far seemed to enjoy a good amount of discussion. Still, these are only a few anecdotal examples. So, once again, I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks!

Comments

[Derek Bowman]

Again I have to ask - are the goals here primarily epistimic, or are they primarily about something else - e.g. fairness in the distribution of social goods?

Is the point of writing, reviewing, hosting symposia, etc to further the production and distribution of knowledge or understanding? Or is it primarily about furthering people's careers and distributing status among professional academics?

Without getting clear on those priorities, we're not even in a place to get started on these kinds of questions.