Bad review

[michael wood]

on 8/9/02 5:31 PM, Aaron Gerow at gerow at ynu.ac.jp wrote:

Dear List Serve Members,
I would like to first say that we all have a right to react personally to a
"bad review" among associates and it is not my intention to accuse Professor
Gerow of any wrongdoing. On the other hand, it is hard to ignore such a
provocative series of messages. It is unfortunate that a message intended
for private viewing was accidentally posted in a semi-public forum, but this
is the risk we take in choosing to participate in a list serve. Since the
message already posted perhaps it is appropriate to address some of the
issues that are raised by such an occurrence. The first thing that comes to
mind is the nature of anonymous reviews, especially when they are so
directly associated with the largest book distributing institution around
and perhaps influence a consumer's choice to either buy or reject a book. On
the other hand, most of us probably base our decisions on more reliable
sources, and some of us may even feel invested in the subject to the point
where we are compelled to buy even the more problematic texts. If it was a
member of the list serve who provided this review, I encourage him or her to
address the issues they might have in a respectable manner before a forum
such as this list serve or a peer reviewed journal.
The other issue that I find intriguing is the assumption made that it was
Kato or one of his students. I feel that to share this assumption with a
co-editor is perfectly acceptable, but it is nonetheless most unfortunate
that such an unsubstantiated accusation found its way into our mailboxes. I
understand the mishap, and despite Professor Gerow's claims, cannot help
feeling that he must care deeply about it and for understandable reasons. On
the surface at least, it seems somewhat illogical to blame "Kato" for this
when, by assigning the text for classroom use, he appears to only be
encouraging a larger readership.
Although I am making a big assumption on my own part here, I would guess
that behind this review and assumptions of authorship lie some very
important issues for film studies. It would be very interesting if we could,
without getting personal about it, open the conversation up to everyone and
develop an environment conducive to theoretical discussion of what film
studies means today both in and out of the university, how it might relate
to Japan Studies, Asian Studies, and other trends.
Finally, I would like to thank Professor Gerow and everyone else for
contributing to a forum such as this and encourage everyone to demonstrate
understanding and a commitment to discussion.

Michael Wood
University of Oregon, EALL
Meiji University, History