Read on Twitter
SO many layers here - a phrase w/ a pull quote from a (moderately) critical review, written by a (woman) layperson, about a (woman) scholar's book, written for a layperson audience, about gendered dynamics in 20th C American evangelicalism. https://twitter.com/KSPrior/status/1354102688905109507
Asking as major booster of @kkdumez 's work, who also thinks @UnhurriedChase 's *moderate* critique merits thought:
What if the Jamie Carlson who wrote this review was a man, and not a woman? How might that change the way we think about the review?
What if the Jamie Carlson who wrote this review was a man, and not a woman? How might that change the way we think about the review?
I agree strongly that more editorial attention would have helped.
I also think that we might be focussing more on the fact that the reviewer said it's still an important book people should read and engage with. And we'd be calling it notable and encouraging for that reason.
I also think that we might be focussing more on the fact that the reviewer said it's still an important book people should read and engage with. And we'd be calling it notable and encouraging for that reason.
Addressing the evidence critique means having to reread the book, and the review (and I fully intend to do both, on principle). It also probably merits more academic expertise than I have.
But I *am* an expert in sarcasm, so on that I feel qualified to at least comment. (
)
But I *am* an expert in sarcasm, so on that I feel qualified to at least comment. (
)
An early edition of my Twitter bio outed me as a "snark addict in recovery". That statement is still true; I removed/changed it for reasons that aren't material.
My speech is still *naturally* spicy. Jesus & time have mellowed it a lot; my closest friends still have receipts.
My speech is still *naturally* spicy. Jesus & time have mellowed it a lot; my closest friends still have receipts.
