The Problem With Reviews

The problem with a journal review of a book (or collection of CDs) is that there’s no opportunity for response. I imagine that hundreds of writers must feel this frustration annually, when their works are reviewed. Too frequently, I think, books are reviewed by professors who are happy to get a free copy of the work for their library. The review may be done in haste and without consultation.

The Pictorial Library of Bible Lands, which I first released in January 2000 and which was subsequently published by Kregel in March 2004, has been reviewed in various publications, but the pinnacle, as far as I am concerned, is the review in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. This is the best because it reaches most of those for whom the CD collection is intended and of whom I belong: evangelical professors. (One could argue that the Journal for Biblical Literature would be better with its much larger readership. That society is much more liberal in its leanings, but many of those professors are also interested in my photos, all of which, by the way, are conservative :-)). Thus my great interest in seeing the collection reviewed in JETS.

Overall, I am pleased that it was reviewed. As anyone knows, any press is good for getting the word out, even if it is critical or inaccurate coverage. For the most part, the review is accurate, but there are some points that I wish to make if only to suggest that in general, reviewers themselves make mistakes.

He writes, “A few of the images are out of focus, blurry or grainy, but by ad large, the collection is of good quality.” I would have preferred something more like, “Most of the photographs are of good quality, though some are stunning and of calendar quality.” I know that not all of the images are perfect (they are admittedly for “teaching purposes” and not for magazine publication), but I wonder if there are really so many that are “out of focus, blurry or grainy” to warrant mention. As for out of focus, I am mystified. Grainy – yes, there are some of these (some are slides that are scanned and these just don’t come out as well; I could spend an hour on each slide and make it better but I’m not doing magazine work but rather 6,000 images and you have to work fast).

He mentions some highlights, but only from the first volume (Galilee). Then he jumps to Egypt and Jordan and mentions a few of the photos there. My guess is that he didn’t look at 6 of the disks. As for aerial shots of Jebel Musa, he found something that I didn’t know about.

The images come “complete with titles” which tells me that the reviewer never even saw the annotations for the slides that are in the PowerPoint slides. Admittedly, these notes don’t “jump out” at the viewer, if you aren’t looking for them. But if you scan the instructions which open when the CD is inserted, you ‘ll see it. This isn’t a minor omission; at 700 pages, there are few sources of such extensive site data available anywhere, and these notes are correlated with the photographs. Unfortunately, the part of the project that I thought would kill me isn’t even noted.

The most disappointing part is in his conclusion: “In my opinion, however, too many images are not really necessary or usable. The number of pictures could have been reduced by about 50%, which may have brought down the price without a reduction in quality.” Now he is correct that the price is high, but he fails to note:

1. The disks can be purchased separately. 500+ images for $30 is not prohibitively expensive for most American teachers.
2. The relative cost of photos vs. competing products (Zondervan’s Image Archive, BAS’s Slide Set).
3. The cost of traveling to all of these places and taking the photos yourself (and then organizing, etc.).

Furthermore, which 50% of the set does he want to cut? How about Samaria, Negev, Egypt, Greece, and Rome? I think others would choose different ones to cut. Even if you cut within the CDs (say, take out half of the photos of the Sea of Galilee), which ones do you eliminate? I can say from first-hand experience that the hardest part of creating this collection is the selection process – choosing which ones not to include. It is very hard. I make take 400 photos in an average day’s shoot and use only 10. Cutting that down to 5 is nearly impossible for me to do. And besides, the goal of this project from the beginning was that this would be the Pictorial Library. The essence of a library is that you have lots of items to choose from.

So that’s my two cents on the subject. I wonder what the other authors would say if given a chance to respond to the review of their work.

P.S. Before posting this, I emailed the author of the review a copy of the above and we have had a very pleasant exchange. We naturally have different perspectives, but he’s a first-rate guy. Though I could make modifications to the above because of his clarifications, I have chosen not to, in order to keep it as a sort of “first impression” of mine.