March 7th, 2013
Most of the negative reviews What to Expect has gotten so far have come from people who pretty clearly haven’t read the book. But Publisher’s Weekly has the most critical review to date–and the reviewer pretty clearly did read it. But for the life of me I can’t quite understand how the reviewer came away with these views:
* PW says that I use “garbled statistics” and muddle causation with correlation. (I write on page 10 that unless I say otherwise, I’m never arguing that correlation equals causation.)
* PW says that I blame abortion for America’s fertility collapse. (I say, on pages 61 and 172, that the evidence suggests that abortion does not play a significant role in fertility decline.)
* PW says that I call for “pro-creation as self-actualization, period.” (On page 63 I point out that Second Demographic Transition Theory posits procreation has become an act of self-actualization, and then I suggest that such motives will probably not be sufficient to get societies to a sustainable replacement rate.)
* PW says that I make a “borderline racist” claim in noting that the US fertility rate has been artificially bolstered by mass immigration over the last 30 years. Yup, that’s me. A big ol’ racist who says that we’re “lucky to have [immigration] as long as it lasts.” (That’s on page 116.)
I’m not angry or anything–just kind of confused. If PW didn’t like the book for whatever reason, then so be it. And at least they read it! It just seems like a weird, bizarro series of complaints.
In any case I’d love to hear theories on how PW had all of that as their take-away. There’s a signed copy of What to Expect for the best explanation.
(As judged by Galley Friend X. Employees and family not eligible for contest. Contest not valid in Hawaii. Purchase not required for entry. Rules and restrictions apply.)
-
Interesting critque.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/02/why_have_kids_m.html
-
Upon reflection, let me modify that. He mistook the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” for your book.
-
It’s two things.
First is the illusion of power. Let’s face it: book reviewing is the most beta form of published writing, and writing is itself a pretty beta activity. But writing for PW deludes reviewers into believing they have a measure of real-world power. (“I’m going to scorch this soooo bad, no WAY B&N will run it!”) It’s stupid, but you clings to what’s you gots.
Second is anonymity. These are unsigned reviews. It’s like blogging anonymously (or pseudonymously). You can be the tough guy of your imagination because, hey, why not?
I know a lot of D.C. scribblers read this blog. Can any of you imagine a more shameful gig than reviewing for PW?
-
Your book covers territory that’s very difficult for an educated city-dweller to consider dispassionately, especially if (s)he has fewer than 2.1 kids, as the burden of it is to suggest that the lifestyle most prized in that milieu is unsustainable. A reader who thinks that lifestyle among the hard-won gains of modern life, if duty-bound to complete the book like the PW reviewer, proceeds with a guilty conscience and is constantly driven to ask, “So what’s Last really saying: that choices I’ve made doom my own civilization? That I and the people I’m closest to have gotten it all wrong? That if we’re to save the future we need to begin a massive campaign advising, ‘Do As I Say, Not As I’ve Done’?” Such a reader is strongly motivated to look for ways to blunt the impact of the argument through imputation of motive, guilt by association, failure to observe qualifications you register in the argument, and every other staple of political discourse. Hence the review.
-
Jonathan,
Maybe the they are projecting their own need for self-actualization over the facts of what you actually wrote.
Self-actualization that probably dovetails nicely with this: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/metaphysics-sprin/
+Nathan
-
Ah, you can almost hear the sneer: “According to Weekly STANDARD writer…” I hate to burst your bubble (yeah, I know I’m not allowed to be part of the contest) but reading this 198-word, unsigned “review” does not at all convince me the “reviewer” did read the book. Take this from someone who really only ever got mad in school when other students flipped through chapters of assigned reading, grabbed a few quotes, and then attempted to assemble them into something that passed for a book report. The disingenuous and self-serving product is painfully obvious to anyone remotely thoughtful or acquainted with the actual material. Mrs. Job, best literature teacher ever, was not fooled then. Nor would she be now. Good example is his mention of your mention of Genghis Khan: Anyone who read the book in its entirety gets why this is playful, and how it serves as a transition to a larger point. It’s not, itself, a point of argument. (Also, hint hint, that “point” comes at–you guessed it–the first page of a new chapter! Classic trick!) Like Tommy Malthus, this person’s a tool. And 198 words is nothing to sweat.
-
I’m with GW. What’s the evidence that the reviewer read it, especially given that PW is a trade publication whose reviews always (avoided the all caps there, against my better judgment) come out before publication as a guide for retailers? I can all but guarantee that the reviewer scanned a page here and there, found some language indicating that he/she had read it, and then extrapolated his/her own prejudices.
I was surprised last month that PW didn’t review it, leading me to believe it was ignored on the assumption that it would sell three copies to the tinfoil crowd. Then, when it did much better than even its author predicted, they were left to play catch-up.
Which of course pissed them off. It’s a PC publication anyway (not kidding: they once panned a book of mine based entirely on a throwaway sentence in the prologue about the Vietnam War), which meant that if they were going to get caught with their pants down, they weren’t going to be the ones embarrassed.
Fuck ’em. It’s a disingenuous review and as such ought to be disregarded.
-
It was clearly written by the Family Guy manatees.
-
PW has outsourced its reviews to Deadspin commenters.
-
Sorry, once again I can’t resist:
From parts unknown, weight unknown…GALLEY FRIEND X!!!
-
I tried to find a copy of What to Expect in my local (blue-state inner-ring-suburban AFSCME-poster-plastered) public library this past weekend. It’s on order, 2 other library users have already requested to borrow it, and the only information about the book in the computer catalog was the annoying review you mention here. Maybe I’ll try again later, but it’s hard to sneak away from the children’s section . . .
-
I agree with the others who said that the sneering PW reviewer just skimmed the book and highlighted a few superficial aspects. It’s hardly a probing review. It’s noteworthy that she [I think it’s a she] does not challenge the central argument of the book.
-
well I am glad another liberal read the book. I read it and enjoyed it because the writing was funny but, I am totally unconvinced that this is a problem. He provides no citations for the argument that global warming is controversial he just assumes it is. I got to tell you I cannot find any stories that say global warming is a hoax that are written by scientists. After reading the book I checked. on Google it may be out there but the scientists who think it is hoax are so few a and far between that they are hard to find on the internet.
Also what I did not like was his argument about immigration was flimsy. He said Immigration can sorta of help but it cannot do all of it. Well we have 1.3 million immigrants a year and 4 million live births taken together that is a population growth of 2.6 that means immigration can add .7 so even the worst countries in the world Japan at 1.4 can get up to 2.1 by having immigration at the USA’s current level. So again I do not see the problem until the world gets below 2.1 and the world is at 2.5.
I still enjoyed the book He is a really fun writer and it was fun to read even though I was screaming your wrong.
-
The obvious answer is that the reviewer had just finished reviewing some Bill Watterson and when he got to your’n, the results were a little Calvinball with a soupcon of Opposite Wednesday.
The other decent explanations are Jeff Peterson’s and the Galley Wife’s.
But probably the real answer is deep and abiding stupidity. Having a superficial facility with words doesn’t mean you aren’t dumb, dumb, dumb. Half the population has IQs below 100, recall. So if there’s ever one thing that never needs explaining, its stupidity. Why is this person who apparently read your book keep advancing interpretations that only a dumb person would come up with? Because he’s a dumb person and that’s what he came up with.
-
ok one more then I will hush up but his linking to politics and fertility in the USA is just plain silly the vast majority of 18-35 year old do not vote they do not care who is president or who is in congress. So suggesting that this is a problem with how liberals live their lives is just not true you cannot talk about the population if you only talk about those who bother to register and of those who bother to register those who vote in every state every place it is the vast majority who do not care and have not for quite some time.
-
Did Siri transcribe this?
-
I just fell off the chair laughing, J.E. Awesome.
-
Although I’m not a “pro-natalist” at all, I will say that “What to Expect” is, by far, the best of the recent baby-bust books. Even if I don’t agree with it, it was worth reading and I recommend it alot on the internet.
Given that reversing the decline in fertility is described as a “multi-generational” effort (at least 50 years), I suggest that biotechnology might come up with another option certainly within this 50 year period. That option is vastly extended healthy life spans, say 150 to 1000 years. Aubrey de Gray’s SENS is one method that is currently being developed by private efforts. Another is rejuvenation with genetically engineered stem cells (IPS’s, not embryonic stem cells) which is also being developed by at least two private organizations.
It seems to me that technology will resolve this issue in the next 30 years or so.
Any thoughts on this?
-
Jonathan V. Last, history’s greatest monster.
-
After hearing about this book on the internets and all the kerfuffle it’s causing, I was launched into an admittedly amateur obsession with demographics all my own that Mr. J.V. Last inspired in me. I haven’t been able to get a-hold of his book.. because it’s a hit! All my local libraries either have it checked out, on hold, or are ordering more. This might get me to actually buy it from Amazon, where it is flying off the digital shelves. Anyway, I have been able to read ancillary works, such as How Civilizations Die by David Goldman, and Choosing Boys Over Girls by Hvistendahl. I also want to read Kaufmann’s analysis of religious vs. secular fertility, too, which is Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?
Trends I’ve noticed, while admittedly not being a demographer or academic. Education for women lowers fertility. Religiosity in pretty much any religion raises it. In Asia and Eastern Europe there is a massive over-supply of male children with no women to marry them due to the abortion, infanticide or exportation of 163 million women. It’s true that fertility rates across the world are in decline; they can be observed in Europe, East Asia, Latin America, North America, Australia, and even parts of the Middle East or North Africa.
But. Africa. Africa’s demography pokes a big Africa-sized hole in Last’s thesis. Fertility rates in Africa- particularly Sub-Saharan Africa- are still quite robust and many times the replacement figure. Only Mauritius and the Seychelles are African countries currently below the replacement rate, which is complicated because their populations are largely of mixed or non-African origin. Only Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Lesotho are even in the low-fertility ballpark and they’re all still above replacement.
Sub-Saharan Africa is projected by demographers to keep producing quite robustly- their population won’t see widespread aging and sub-replacement fertility until the 2070s if current trends continue! That’s about 60 more years of massive population growth. And, as a critic above me noted, the globe’s total fertility rate is 2.5, which is also well above replacement. Now, having an anxiety that the majority of the world’s future population will consist of Sub-Saharan Africans is indeed racist. But if we act sensible about it and get on with our lives, rich countries should do the geological engineering that will send desalinated seawater to the Sahara to irrigate, rescue African ecology from desertification and rescue Africans from starvation and poverty. They will be, after all, the future of the human race.
My final critique; if sub-Saharan Africa represents the most fertile part of the world today, and by all objective accounts it does, why then it is thus? It is this way because of the same factors that compelled the majority of the world to produce children until quite recently; high mortality for infants, children, and childbearing mothers; high rates of infectious disease, high death rates, a life expectancy in the 40s or 50s, very little education and no healthcare. I’d hardly laud Sub-Saharan African fertility as the indicator of a flourishing society.
Jeff March 7, 2013 at 11:29 am
Simple. He mistook a copy of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” for your book.