universidade federal de santa catarina pós-graduação em letras ...

86L, however, expects an in-depth analysis of the book, a highly critical evaluationof the existing connections among different topics within a disciplinary field. Suchevaluation, differently from that expected by C, puts a lot of responsibility on thereviewers’ part:[L]Information about the topic of the book and the range of ideas, the main thesis,some assessment of the contents and an evaluation of the coherence of argument.In case it is an edited book, it is important that the review brings the range of thearticles and the interconnection among them.Finally, the economist explicitly demonstrated concern for an essentiallyargumentative text in which the reviewer ‘instructs’ the reader about the book:[E]The idea is try and put the book in some sort of context. That’s the purpose ofthat introductory contextual material: to put the book in context. And I think thatsort of helps people who don’t know the field, helps them place the role of thisparticular book that is under review.Maybe we can find here indications of different types of reader-reviewerrelationship. In economics, where the reader is referred to as ‘people who don’t knowthe field’, this relationship seems less symmetrical than in chemistry, where the reader is‘the fellow chemist’. In discussing the ethics of book reviewing, Wiley (1993) examines