"Negotiating Book Reviews: A Study of Technology, H-Net, and the
Emergent Status of a Contemporary Print Form"
The Internet is only the latest in a series of advances "destined" to bring about certain new realities and modes of thought. In order to understand and anticipate the future uses of technology, however, one should note the technological dynamic with reference both to the existing hierarchies and to the varied hopes and expectations of the almost innumerable actors. By looking at one small part of this vast Internet - focusing in on one new use (book reviews) of a particular type of communication (email, a moderated academic listserv) by a particular organization (H-Net) - we can begin to investigate the interplay involved in this distinct creation of contemporary print culture. The central thesis of this study is that technological qualities have facilitated new questions about the nature of book reviews; that the preexisting structure of academia and publishing are conditioning this technology; and that finally, based upon the collective, currently-contested understanding that H-Net lists directors have of this negotiation, the melding of technology and social structure is creating a unique opportunity for systemic change in the format of book reviews.
A collection of academic discussion lists, H-Net was formed in December 1992 by Richard Jensen at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Within three and a half years, it grew from one list and about 100 members to its present extent of 51 lists, 140 editors, and over 30,000 individual subscribers, with about 2,000 new subscriptions added each month. Moreover, the "H-" in "H-Net" which used to represent "History" is now taken as representative of all "Humanities." Indeed by the end of this year, H-Net will be the second largest organization in the American Council of Learned Societies, outside only the American Psychological Association. This rapid growth suggests both the power of the medium and the preexisting desire among academics for its services. That is, the technology has not created a need, but is responding to it.
As these lists develop, their editors individually and collectively seek appropriate avenues for this new creation, a problem complicated by the ambiguous nature of its communication style. In the context of this search, one of the most powerful enterprises developed within H-Net has been its online book review project. Begun a year and a half ago in the fall of 1994, this project has quickly blossomed in both extent and importance. H-Net has commissioned nearly as many book reviews as some of its far more established competitors (e.g., the American Historical Review and the Journal of American History), and H-Net Central predicts that in 1996 the organization will be among the largest volume publishers of reviews in all the humanities and will likely to expand to include more frequent reviews of movies, CD-ROMs, and relevant World Wide Web sites . It is also possible that H-Net reviews will grow even more influential than reviews in print journals, as the speed of the technology means that these postings will usually represent a first major review for any book, regularly preceding the competition by up to a year or more.
H-Net is both proud and boastful of book reviews, as its Web page announces that "fast, thorough, professional reviewing is one of the most important breakthroughs made possible by the Internet." Much of the impact is attributed to the technology of online communication itself, notably its immediacy, freedom from the constraints of paper, and interactivity: "H-Net reviews offer several advantages over their print cousins: speed, flexibility of length, and most important, the opportunity for reviewer, author, and audience to talk about the subject matter in the way of a professional seminar." The unique broadcast capacities of the listserv medium, it is claimed, makes such efforts possible. But technology is not solely, decisively, or even primarily responsible for this outcome. A multiplicity of actors are involved: book authors, review authors, subscribers, publishers, journals, editors, and the technology all play roles. The "print" culture which emerges thus claims lineage to an interesting meld of realities and potentialities, including most prominently the established structures of academia and publishing, editors' idealizations, technological capabilities, and the wants and needs of subscribers. And by analyzing not only the form which has developed but also the internal debate which has accompanied the rise of the review project, we are offered a unique historico-contemporary prospective on the negotiations involved in this new cultural production, perhaps then to make larger claims about technology and structure in general.
Because of the needs of H-Net staffers, editors, and reviewers alike to justify the work in terms that tenure committees might understand and respect, the H-Net project has been explicitly conditioned by existing standards in professional book reviewing. Like journals, H-Net lists have editors or even special book review editors who are encouraged to select both the titles under review and the reviewers carefully. All the books and reviewers are selected by specialists in the field. This process is backed by editorial boards, whether actively through participation in the project or passively through the support offered by their often-prominent academic reputations. H-Net guidelines also make clear that reviewers are to be understood within the general rule of academia: "Professional ethics dictate that a scholar can publish only one review of a book. H-Net reviews count as that one review," claims the book review web page. Like journals, H-Net also provides administrative support and technical direction to the effort headed by an established academic, Professor Mark Kornbluh, and guided by a book review coordinator, Jim Sleight, an advanced history graduate student. Finally, H-Net editors and subscribers offer feedback, criticisms, and new ideas regarding the process. It is an altogether institutionally "involved" process from start to finish.
Not only does the publishing structure remain unchallenged by H-Net, but clearly these lists are tapping into a existing market of book review enthusiasts. As proof, one need look only to the inauguration of the H-Review listserv in September 1995, which attracted over 1,000 subscribers in just 48 hours. The technology is not creating this desire nor independently manufacturing expectations, but rather it is taking advantage of much of what is already present in the system.
The relations to established process are not, however, uncomplicated. Various levels of institutions offer differing responses. For instance, publishers love the project, and have inundated H-Net staff with a flood of books for potential review. Why? Due to technological advantages, H-Net reviews can be not only be published more quickly than print journals, but also offer instantaneous, interactive judgments of a targeted mass of subscribers as to the book's quality and market usefulness. This ability to judge a work's reception by meaningful actors within a reasonable time frame is an obvious and welcomed resource among publishers. These same benefits also intimate the potentially potent force of H-Net reviews in a not-distant future, a power to make or break a book in the initial stages of production, even prior to its mass release. Similarly, librarians - who, incidentally, represent one of the most digitalized of all academic realms - welcome the project as offering reviews which, at 1200-2000 words, are ten times longer than industry-standard CHOICE reviews and two to three times longer than paper journals. And of course, the same dynamics of interactivity and immediacy which publishers crave also directly play into the librarian's professional interests and duties.
Predictably, then, among those most fearful and opposed to H-Net reviews are the organizations which heretofore have dominated the production of book reviews, that is, established print journals. As H-CivWar/H-SHEAR/H-Pol editor Peter Knupfer pointed out in a January 1996 meeting of H-Net editors and staff, H-Net is at least three things that journals have long aspired to be: international, instantaneous, and interdisciplinary. Moreover, because of the technology, it has achieved these goals almost effortlessly. Yet in almost direct contradiction of the ordinary model of technological competition and replacement, H-Net has sought to build institutional links with these journals rather than opposing them. Whether by offering listservs for these journals' own internal use, free promotional space for web sites or hypertext links, affiliation between lists and counterpart journals or organizations (34 of the lists now have such affiliations), or simply meeting to discuss the various issues involved as they did this past March with the editors of 16 print journals, an open dialogue is being sought between the two. These efforts validate both the mutual interests of professional colleagues in supporting the increase and diffusion of knowledge and the common lineage they share within the academic publishing community. The technology may be revolutionary, but these interests remain conservative and linked.
It still is not presumptuous to argue, however, that H-Net is transforming the existing system to fit a new mold. With the technological capacities and social respect necessary to becoming a major player, H-Net represents a new move in the book review form. Given its huge (and growing) subscriber base, the immediacy of the medium, the tremendous interest in substantive offerings among subscribers, the paper-free flexibility in length and distribution, and the extensive user-driven possibilities for creative change, it seems not overly brazen to suggest, as Mark Kornbluh does, that H-Net is "in the process of reshaping professional reviewing" and that, moreover, "we [particularly editors] need to think through what reviewing in the electronic age should look like."
One of the most prominent debates in this regard has been over the issue of book review length. Wayne Carp initiated the most recent discussion in January 1996 with his pointed observations:
Why are the reviews so short?... I think we are making a mistake or at least not taking advantage of the one thing we have: lots of space. We should be faster and _better_ than the print journals. We should model ourselves not on the AHR or the JAH, but _Reviews in American History_. IMHO, longer reviews are simply a better use of the medium and are far more valuable and interesting to scholars.
A brief message, yet so much discussed above is here involved in Carp's formulation. The technological capacity offered by "lots of space," the ability of editors to manipulate the process, the articulation of an appropriate model within respected structures, the expressed desire to supercede existing precedents, and the hopes of anticipating and meeting subscriber interests are all revealed. A clearer index of the elements under negotiation could hardly be found.
David Broscious, however, found room to contradict Carp's conclusion along the very same lines of debate:
While I agree with Wayne's point that our book reviews should seek more of a niche than simply getting reviews out more quickly than print journals, I am not sure longer reviews are the solution. At H-Diplo, our subscribers have chafed at lengthy reviews. My sense is that many people do not like reading long messages (of any type).
Whereas Carp stresses the opportunities offered by the technology of listserv communication, Brocious sees limitations. Moreover, these technological implications are directly tied here to subscriber use. Not mesmerized by the future possibility that computer screens might someday become more soothing, more portable, or even phantom-like projections of digital thoughts into direct "mind-space," Broscious shows how such directions are here continuously conditioned by contemporary circumstances.
In addition, Broscious connects these issues to reviewers' writing styles and to the overall intentions of the list themselves:
Our solution [at H-Diplo] has been to try to direct reviews away from summaries and toward more question-raising/debate-inducing pieces (which are still not more than 2-3 pages long). Our primary goal is to use the review as a vehicle for sparking threads [i.e., listserv discussions].
The editor and reviewer must therefore cooperatively create an environment substantively different than that encouraged by more-static print reviews. Technology, goals, and subscriber interests again come together in the negotiation of book review lengths. Most interesting here is the way in which these commonly-agreed elements have brought about two diametrically-opposed conclusions based upon debate not over their relative importance but instead upon differing interpretations of each element involved: what does the technology mean, what are the goals, and what do the subscribers want and need?. Also instructive are the elements not debated: the importance of existing structures, the need to improve upon certain limitations, and the (only partially self-serving) belief in the centrality of H-Net editors.
Siding with Wayne Carp, Jackie Kent writes: "I think we face the task of retraining reviewers for this medium. We need to let them know that they can write long reviews because of the lack of space limitations. Many are programmed to write within a shorter framework and do not realize that they can enjoy the added space." But more than that, editors also need to be involved in retraining authors for the medium: "...we are facing this same problem with author comments after publication of reviews. Some presses discourage their authors from responding and other authors feel it is unprofessional to respond - mainly because it has not been an accepted practice to this date."
The H-Net web page, designed in late January, picks up on this point:
Currently, authors don't engage their reviews in a public forum except in an occasional conference session. Author's responses to print reviews are considered peevish and greatly discouraged. On H-Net, however, authors are encouraged to respond to reviews and discuss their work publicly.
These guidelines go on to make explicit the intentions already implicit in these scattered, successive comments: that is, "H-Net is endeavoring to develop new professional norms." H-Net guidelines pointedly ask that reviewers avoid using "blind" references, explaining this as a necessary accommodation to the diversity of interests, abilities, and departmental backgrounds represented within each list. They also encourage reviewers not to seek a common standard length, but instead to consciously adjust the length of the review to reflect their view of the book's quality (shorter discussions for lower quality), a more varied and therefore, in some respects, less standardized system that nonetheless expresses important information (e.g., is the book any good?) via compressed means. This compactness of style is particularly welcome among a base of subscribers fearful of email explosion and additional unproductive academic readings. Sensitivity to attacks upon authors is a final concern explicitly and uniquely addressed by H-Net. Here the rationale for expressing criticism in "courteous, temperate, and constructive terms" is not simply professional courtesy as expected, but rather is particular to the medium, because "electronic communication is a hot medium in which intellectual exchange all too often is lost to verbal conflict." Negotiating the path to a new book review form thus is tied inextricably with the technology, subscribers' receptions, and the willingness of reviewers and editors to adopt new ethic and mode.
Finally, H-Net's loose organizational structure keeps these negotiations in a somewhat beneficial, somewhat distorting flux. H-Net Central makes few pronouncements regarding list operations, postings, or participation in the review project. In conjunction with their editorial boards, editors confront such issues independent of such control. This laissez-faire attitude allows a greater diversity and experimentation in approaches to book reviews, yet also enables a discrepancy insofar as input into the process is concerned. Whereas a survey of book reviews since March indicates that lists such as H-LatAm and H-German have averaged at least one review every two days (50 total), many others are comparatively sluggish with only one or two reviews a month. Indeed, over the past three months, just 10% of the lists (5 of 51) were responsible for nearly 50% of the book reviews (169 of 350), and a full dozen lists did not publish even a single one. So the development of book reviews, experimental and diverse in nature, is neither ubiquitous nor equally determined by each of the member lists of H-Net as a whole, but it is being shaped by "casual" circumstances often unrelated to the more objective, though contested, questions of needs and opportunities.
Peter Knupfer writes: "it seems to me that we [as editors] need to work with reviewers because we know this audience and the technology." So much is true. Even the useful, enculturating stream of technological advances needs to be shaped, formed, and informed by active decision-making, and the list editors are currently in the middle of the many swirling eddies. Academia, computer technologies, print journals, book publishers, print authors, online reviewers, and H-Net subscribers must all be considered with reference both to their present needs, their desires, and their potential future forms. All of these various forces - both established and new - have a hand in the process. Clearly H-Net is seeking an appropriate niche in the organization of academia and book reviewing, and considering its history and its potential, probably will achieve a more or less prominent role in this regard. But in the meantime listserv technology will be busy adapting to the needs of its audiences, both subscribers and non-subscribers, and academia will be rearranging values and structures to admit the emerging technological possibilities. Into the breech is coming this new book review form, a fresh opportunity based in technological advance, but an innovation which also will change that which it is expected - even essentially designed - to uphold.
This paper was written for a course on the History of the Book by Professor Karl Kaestle at the University of Chicago, 28 May 1996
Copyright David Burrell, 1996. All rights reserved.
For further information, please contact Dave Burrell.