Writing a book review about a book about writing book reviews is bound to make the reviewer unusually self-conscious of the how and why of this scholarly activity. Well, here we go. Gump’s pleasantly and accessibly written guide, primarily aimed at young scholars aspiring to this honourable and rewarding but underappreciated variety of academic output, is a passionate plea for the genre. I fully agree with the author that book-reviewing is, or should be, a core part of being in academia. It is not only indispensable for evaluating new research; it also, Gump convincingly argues, helps improve thinking, broaden interests, hone writing, refine peer-reviewing, and enrich teaching. In short, reviewing books makes one a better scholar.

Evidently, Gump is well-qualified to write this vademecum, having authored some 100 reviews pertaining to more than 150 publications, and being himself a former book review editor. His main motivation for assembling his thoughts on the topic is that he considers too many book reviews mind-blowingly boring, mainly by not transcending the level of mere summaries or book reports. He gives advice on numerous content-related matters, such as deciding what to review, note-taking (and then continually winnowing these notes), structuring a review, types of flaws that are worth mentioning (and not worth mentioning) in a review, and on special cases such as edited collections and reference works. But his book is also a goldmine of suggestions about practical matters, such as finding suitable venues for publication and approaching journals’ book review editors, realizing who is your audience, graciously handling disappointing books, co-authoring a review, promoting one’s review, and on the pros and cons of digital and print copies. Emphasizing there are no hard-and-fast rules about the genre, a review should, Gump contends, always minimally provide “contextualized summary, clear analysis, and cogent assessment” (p. 118). Core qualities of a respectable reviewer are objectivity, fairness, accuracy, and precision (p. 49). Moreover, worthy reviewers are as attentive as the legendary geese guarding Roman temples, and as curious as children wanting to learn new things. They have a sharp eye for what all good books should achieve: “cause the readers to think, to reflect, to grow” (p. 150).

Lamenting any weaknesses in a book, moreover, always deserves far less space in a review than celebrating its merits. That said, reviewers must never forget they need to strike a balance between being fair to the author and being honest to the reader.

Let me, as a strong believer in the value of book reviews as well as an enthusiastic practitioner of the métier, respond to some observations by Gump that made me reflect on my own routines. For instance, I realized that I usually take much longer between reading a book and writing the review than he does: I often let a book simmer not for days, but for weeks, or even months, in my subconscious before reading my notes and starting to compose the review. Of course, this is only possible if it accords with the arrangements made with the journal’s book review editor; but in my experience deadlines for book reviews are usually quite flexible.

Decidedly more worthy of debate are ethical issues pertaining to the relation between reviewer and reviewee. Gump sensibly advises against reviewing a book “if you have any sort of axe to grind with the author” (p. 40), while he considers using a review as a vehicle to promote one’s own work undesirable. Indeed, a review that does not devote a substantial part of the available space to the book’s contents is reprehensibly deficient. But I do occasionally ignore Gump’s warning to “be careful if you are fundamentally or ideologically at odds with the author’s theoretical positioning” (p. 76). I frankly acknowledge that I have written reviews (and review articles) in which I criticize the author’s theories, models, and ideas quite fundamentally by contrasting them with those informing my own work – of course always supported by evidence. I do so precisely because for me book-reviewing is an integral part of my scholarly writing, and I like to “enter into dialogues with the books [I] review” (p. 55). My hope is that other scholars will engage with my assessments as part of the debate. That these critical reviews indeed function in this way transpires from the fact that they are regularly quoted. And to be sure, the authors I take on are reputed scholars addressing important ideas within the discipline.

Of course, I am able to do this partly because I am in the last stage of a professional career in a tenured job, which, as Gump points out, bestows an enviable independence onto scholars. Academics in my position can afford to be exceptionally honest, because they need no longer worry about offending powerful peers that could ruin job applications, reject grant proposals, and block invitations to give talks at conferences abroad. Younger and mid-career scholars need to tread more carefully here.

Now, did I, as a seasoned reviewer, learn anything new from this book? I did. First, Gump’s characterization of edited volumes with an introductory chapter but without a final one wrapping up the discussion as “open-faced sandwiches” (133), made me feel painfully aware of this omission in the volumes I co-edited myself. Ouch! (That said, unlike Gump I do like an opening chapter of an edited volume to present chapter-by-chapter synopses.)

Entertaining readers by weaving gobsmacking words (Gump recommends Stephen Chrisomalis’ Phrontistery website) and other forms of wordplay into reviews is another idea I will benefit from. In this respect I have hitherto been more daring and free in my own papers, chapters, and books (sometimes eliciting reprimands in assessors) than in my reviews. But why, indeed, make this distinction? Gump moreover makes suggestions for hiding “Easter eggs” in a review. If you, dear reader, are him, you are likely to spot them in this one. If not, there’s only way to find out.

Gump untiringly emphasizes that joy in writing a review increases the chances that reading it will be a pleasure. I certainly relished penning this one.