I recently submitted a brief article on Orientalism ("Orientalism Explained"). The article was rejected for two reasons.
First, the editor asked me to proofread for spelling errors. I did find one error, but while I'm here I wanted to be sure that the editor's proofreading process involves more than running spellchecker, given that the word "Orientalism" is itself underlined in red by whatever program this forum uses to check spelling.
Second, the editor stated that it was "unclear when the book in question was published and, therefore, how relevant the discussion of the book is to today's readers."
This seems patently ridiculous, so I'm sure the editor did not mean to suggest that the date of a book's publication necessarily determines the relevance of articles that review it. Shakespeare wrote in the 16th century. I'm assuming an essay on "Macbeth" would not be rejected for potential "irrelevance."
In addition, I specifically noted in my article that "The word [orientalism] has nevertheless become an important term of art for cultural theorists and historians, and is a powerful attempt to describe what is certainly an attitude common to all cultures."
Orientalism was published in 1978. It's a founding text of postcolonial studies, and made Said internationally famous. The book is extremely well-known in several fields, and not unfamiliar to the general educated public. Anyone studying literary criticism, postcolonial history, cultural pluralism, globalization, or a number of other disciplines is likely to encounter it at some point.
Relevance of Book Review
Moderators: Celeste Stewart, Ed, Constant
Re: Relevance of Book Review
You spelled the word "warranted" incorrectly.
Providing the date of publication of a book that readers may not be familiar with adds to the usefulness of the article. The reader cannot be expected to know the date of the publication for any book.
If you are writing about a book that wasn't published within the past few years, the reader wants to know why the information is relevant to them today and why they are reading about a book published a few decades ago. Of course, the date itself does not provide reasons for relevance - it is for the author to provide this information.
Why not just include the information that you took the time to explain in your post: "Orientalism was published in 1978. It's a founding text of postcolonial studies, and made Said internationally famous. Anyone studying literary criticism, postcolonial history, cultural pluralism, globalization, or a number of other disciplines is likely to encounter it at some point."? This is what makes the book important, interesting, and relevant to a broad audience, not only an audience who is already familiar with Said and the book.
Thanks,
Ed
Providing the date of publication of a book that readers may not be familiar with adds to the usefulness of the article. The reader cannot be expected to know the date of the publication for any book.
If you are writing about a book that wasn't published within the past few years, the reader wants to know why the information is relevant to them today and why they are reading about a book published a few decades ago. Of course, the date itself does not provide reasons for relevance - it is for the author to provide this information.
Why not just include the information that you took the time to explain in your post: "Orientalism was published in 1978. It's a founding text of postcolonial studies, and made Said internationally famous. Anyone studying literary criticism, postcolonial history, cultural pluralism, globalization, or a number of other disciplines is likely to encounter it at some point."? This is what makes the book important, interesting, and relevant to a broad audience, not only an audience who is already familiar with Said and the book.
Thanks,
Ed