tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20132153.post115497712059945671..comments2024-01-28T03:39:57.181-06:00Comments on Sean Michael Lucas: Amazon Book ReviewsSean Michael Lucashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06911661966197928859noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20132153.post-1158989253513450132006-09-23T00:27:00.000-05:002006-09-23T00:27:00.000-05:00Apparently, people are waging Wiki Wars in a simil...Apparently, people are waging <A HREF="http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20324624-8362,00.html" REL="nofollow">Wiki Wars</A> in a similar fashion to the political book reviewing on Amazon.pelicanus neoaureliensishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00564318254572347955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20132153.post-1155686196396303822006-08-15T18:56:00.000-05:002006-08-15T18:56:00.000-05:00Hey Sean! Yeah, I guess that comments post of min...Hey Sean! Yeah, I guess that comments post of mine came across a bit too harshly. Forgive me. This controversy gets my blood boiling sometimes and I have to step back and take a few breaths. <BR/><BR/>I overreached a bit, too. I don't think the Waters book should be banned or anything. I just want people who do read it to be careful to consider both sides of the debate. <BR/><BR/>And it looks like I read a bit too much into your own comments. <BR/><BR/>This whole controversy began with overweening accusations all out of proportion to what the original AAPC speakers actually said. It's gone downhill from there. I just wish everyone could step back and calmly debate the real issues. That's all. <BR/><BR/>You know, the only reason you guys at Covenant won the softball championship the past few years is because Providence wasn't in the league. Watch out next year, buddy. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20132153.post-1155678368675147932006-08-15T16:46:00.000-05:002006-08-15T16:46:00.000-05:00Sean,I should add one thing: I posted a review of...Sean,<BR/><BR/>I should add one thing: I posted a review of your very good book "Robert Lewis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life" on Amazon. <BR/><BR/>Although I made two suggestions on how (I thought) the book could be even better - this didn't prevent me from praising and strongly recommending your work. I think this is a fairly common approach to reviewing books - even with built in politics of book-reviewing.<BR/><BR/>Best wishes,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid A Boothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08718043590946290563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20132153.post-1155677489662357642006-08-15T16:31:00.000-05:002006-08-15T16:31:00.000-05:00Sean,Perhaps one of the reasons that Guy Waters' b...Sean,<BR/><BR/>Perhaps one of the reasons that Guy Waters' book has produced such polarized reviews is because it is an intrisically polarizing book. Please note that the book ends by borrowing a phrase from Samuel Miller in desiring that "believers be spared ... from the 'poisonous exotic' that the FV offers to the Reformed church (p. 300)."<BR/><BR/>This is an extremely strong statement to make about the teaching of men who are Ministers in good standing in a variety of Reformed denominations.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I am very much on the TR side of the Reformed community. If I had the money I would love to endow a B.B. Warfield chair of theology somewhere. I was Lig Duncan's first teaching assistant at RTS and consider him to be both a mentor and a friend.<BR/><BR/>But the bottom line is that Guy Waters' book does not demonstrate that the men associated with the FV are teaching a "poisonous exotic". It is therefore a very bad book - there really cannot be another option. Dr. Waters established this standard when he polemically branded those he is critiqueing as purveyors of a "poisonous exotic". <BR/><BR/>It will not do to point out that Dr. Waters has read a vast amount of material or that he makes a variety of good points in his book. If (as I believe) Dr. Waters fails to establish the call that he concludes his book with - is it not a Biblical requirement that we ask our brother to repent?<BR/><BR/>Your suggestion that there is a "politics in book reviewing" is certainly valid. Nevertheless, in the case of Guy Waters book I believe it is the politics/content of his book that is driving the polarization of the responses.<BR/><BR/>BTW - Your comments also point out why book reviews on blogs are more valuable than book reviews on Amazon: There is both context and feedback.<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid A Boothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08718043590946290563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20132153.post-1155579548337055592006-08-14T13:19:00.000-05:002006-08-14T13:19:00.000-05:00Hi, Jeff:Couple of things: I don't really care whe...Hi, Jeff:<BR/><BR/>Couple of things: I don't really care whether people read this book or not; my name is nowhere to be found on it and so I have no stake in whether it is read. Nor was I criticizing you personally nor your position (as far as I can tell, both the pro and con positions were articulated by pastors). If you think the book is a bad book, that is fine with me.<BR/><BR/>If you actually go back and calmly read what I wrote, you will find that I was critical of both the "pro" and "con" and suggested that the book was probably neither as brilliant and horrible as suggested (for the record, I got stuck after chapter 2 and have yet actually to finish the book).<BR/><BR/>What happened was this: I went to my own book's page at amazon and noticed that others were buying the Waters book as well. So, I clicked on the link. When I read how opposite the reviews were, and noticed how overwhelming the responses were, I literally laughed out loud. I thought it might make a good post.<BR/><BR/>As far as "political" purposes, my only purposes are simply to remind others of the spirit (if not the wording) of the Presbyterians Together document--which I took to be: moderate your language, watch your tempers, try to be understanding of each other.<BR/><BR/>Hope that helps, smlSean Michael Lucashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06911661966197928859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20132153.post-1155346993824388832006-08-11T20:43:00.000-05:002006-08-11T20:43:00.000-05:00There's nothing uncharitable about reviewing a boo...There's nothing uncharitable about reviewing a book and honestly recording one's conviction that it is a bad book. Since I'm one of the ones who wrote a negative review on Amazon I'll stand by my review. I do think it's a awful book. <BR/><BR/>As for the accusation that putting comments on Amazon has a political purpose, well, of course they do. All public communication, especially in a controversy has "political" dimensions. <BR/><BR/>I'll be upfront with my political purposes. Yes, I would very much like people not to buy and read this book. Honestly. That's why I wrote the review. Making public evaluations like that are intended to influence people is what debating issues and positions is all about.<BR/><BR/>Sean, your own post on this is highly political. You want people to read the book. You don't like the criticisms. You've attempted to deconstruct the reviews. Fine. I have no problem with that. But let's not accuse me and others of being political, when in the very nature of the case a debate about something like this will always have a political dimension.<BR/><BR/>I believe my criticisms are grounded in objective fact. Go here and take the time to read the responses from the FV men to Waters's book (the section called "Responses to Guy Waters's Book. . .):<BR/><BR/>http://www.federal-vision.com/<BR/><BR/>After reading these, perhaps one would understand why I say that the book does not even fairly represent the positions of the men being criticized. Now, I don't know WHY Waters fails. I don't want to impute impure motives to him. His heart and motives are not for me to know or judge. I only know that he does in fact misrepresent the positions. So I cannot recommend people read the book. That's why I wrote the review. No other reason. What's the problem?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20132153.post-1155240439365040662006-08-10T15:07:00.000-05:002006-08-10T15:07:00.000-05:00Sean, I think your observations are true and unfor...Sean, I think your observations are true and unfortunately way too common in our circles. <BR/><BR/>I think this also highlights one of the problems in dealing with the FV/NPP in a climate where some of the loudest calls for charity come from those who it seems to me, demonstrate a profound lack of charity themselves when dealing with people who oppose their ideas.adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06428605390326710845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20132153.post-1155220887225641302006-08-10T09:41:00.000-05:002006-08-10T09:41:00.000-05:00I gave up putting much stock in Amazon reviews aft...I gave up putting much stock in Amazon reviews after finding dozens of highly positive reviews attached to a book I knew was really quite a poor book which, as an obscure "print on demand" volume didn't even likely have as many readers there were reviewers.<BR/><BR/>But reading through the reviews with a bit of text critical analysis, it became clear after a while that the reviews were almost all from the same pen and that, mostly likely (given commonalities between the reviews and the book itself) were the product of the author himself writing under a variety of pseudonyms in an attempt to hype his own book.<BR/><BR/>That experience, more than anything, led me to read Amazon reviews with suspicion.<BR/><BR/>A suspicious and conspiratorial mind, by the way, would probably read this blog entry of yours as itself a sly attempt to get your readers to go and vote over at Amazon. :-)Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00892252858943436754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20132153.post-1155217684145279092006-08-10T08:48:00.000-05:002006-08-10T08:48:00.000-05:00Sorry, my tone was a bit too personal and negative...Sorry, my tone was a bit too personal and negative.pdughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09832284495239324375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20132153.post-1155216859317974452006-08-10T08:34:00.000-05:002006-08-10T08:34:00.000-05:00Sicne this all started with Morecraft saying that ...Sicne this all started with Morecraft saying that the AA theology was another gospel, it stands to reason that those that promote it would be greatly desirous of influencing how people think about the attacks on them.<BR/><BR/>The AA critique was born in extreme rhetoric. I believe you were a participant ("Leithart should go join the RCs or a liberal church")pdughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09832284495239324375noreply@blogger.com