AML Review of my book "Resurrecting Cumorah"

[SkepticTheist]

My first post on this thread will be to present the review of my book done by the AML, but I will have to follow this up with some observations on another post.

Here is the review that I just received a couple of hours ago:

Review

======

Title: Resurrecting Cumorah

Author: Edwin Goble

Publisher: Self-published in Charleston, South Carolina

Year Published: 2011

Number of Pages: 135

Binding: Softbound

ISBN: 9781456506452

Price: $11.00

Reviewed by J. Sherman Feher for the Association of Mormon Letters

Book of Mormon geography can be a very contentious subject. Marriages and friendships can be strained as a result of differing opinions regarding whether you believe in the Limited Geography theory, the Heartland theory, the Hemispherical theory or almost any other theory. Goble

[SkepticTheist]

Now, as you can see from a careful reading of the quotation from my book in the review, my thesis was on the idea of Mesoamerica as the Land Southward and Cumorah as the New York Cumorah. This is a semi-Limited geography in the sense of only extending into Mesoamerca, NOT into South America or into the Southern Hemisphere.

The reviewer sloppily believes that my thesis is on the "Hemispherical" theory, and finds fault with my abrasive writing style and lack of cash and manpower to have been able to hire an editor for my book.

I can't see that he actually spent any significant time looking at the real substance of the argument, let alone the basic thesis. I am unconvinced that he spent any time actually reading the book.

Ed Goble

[Rob Bowman]

Ed,

You wrote:

I can't see that he actually spent any significant time looking at the real substance of the argument, let alone the basic thesis. I am unconvinced that he spent any time actually reading the book.

I sympathize with you--I've had the same experience with reviewers of some of my books. Reviewers failing to read the books they review is far more common than most people imagine.

[cinepro]

Now, as you can see from a careful reading of the quotation from my book in the review, my thesis was on the idea of Mesoamerica as the Land Southward and Cumorah as the New York Cumorah. This is a semi-Limited geography in the sense of only extending into Mesoamerca, NOT into South America or into the Southern Hemisphere.

The reviewer sloppily believes that my thesis is on the "Hemispherical" theory, and finds fault with my abrasive writing style and lack of cash and manpower to have been able to hire an editor for my book.

I can't see that he actually spent any significant time looking at the real substance of the argument, let alone the basic thesis. I am unconvinced that he spent any time actually reading the book.

Ed Goble

If you don't mind me asking, how do the Kinderhook Plates figure into your theory?

[SkepticTheist]

They don't.

I make a statement that they are fraudulent along with other controversial archaeological frauds.

I make the argument that the statement in the Clayton Journal where Joseph Smith had a revelation on an ancient American from Egypt who was a descendent of Pharoah that ended up in the Great Lakes Region of North America somehow should be taken seriously in spite of the fact that that statement was mixed up with the Kinderhook plates episode.

If you don't mind me asking, how do the Kinderhook Plates figure into your theory?

[Mike Reed]

The reviewer sloppily believes that my thesis is on the "Hemispherical" theory,

Having not read the book myself, I can't say whether the confusion is rooted in your own lack of clarity, or the reviewer's misreading. Perhaps you can quote several passages from your book showing how your position is clearly explained and distinguished from other competing theories.

and finds fault with my abrasive writing style

A valid point (if true), I think... that could have been remedied if you had a good group of readers and an editor. I know my book/thesis benefited in this regard by having a large group of readers and an editor.

and lack of cash and manpower to have been able to hire an editor for my book.

He took issue with the sloppiness contained therein. Don't you agree with him? It appears that you do, since you are now defending yourself on grounds that you didn't have money or man-power. BTW... it is my understanding that (with the exception of self-publishers) publishers generally provide readers and editors at no cost to you. This has been my experience with John Whitmer Books, at least. Why did you decide to self publish?

I can't see that he actually spent any significant time looking at the real substance of the argument, let alone the basic thesis. I am unconvinced that he spent any time actually reading the book.

You are accusing him of reviewing the book without reading it?? That is a pretty serious accusation. Can you back it up? Providing several quotes from your book, illustrating how you clearly defined your thesis, is in order.

[SkepticTheist]

Let's see, do I want to play hardball with Mike Reed again......................................

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........................

Or shall we ask Mike Reed if HE read the review where the REVIEWER quoted my book's thesis. and then where the reviewer misrepresented my thesis in the very next statement he made.

Now, Mr. Reed, lets talk about the fact that I have approached many people to read my material, and few if any have agreed to do so, and I can't even get my own dang FAMILY to edit or read, much less a large group of people. In other words, it is ME, ME and ME, as Editor, Author and Publisher. Oh, and NO, Createspace is a vanity press, nobody is going to read my stuff let alone help me. Get off your arrogant place, and stay out of my life.

Why did I decide to self publish? Because I was shot down by publishers and there was only one way to go, and there is no point when I need to have absolute control of everything. My flawed process of producing my material ON MY OWN is not under the microscope here Mr. Reed, and I am not going to engage you on silly stuff like this because you can either accept that I am one lone guy that did his own stuff and find fault with the one lone guy as you do, or you can face the fact that my thesis was misrepresented which is the substance here.

Ed Goble

Having not read the book myself, I can't say whether the confusion is rooted in your own lack of clarity, or the reviewer's misreading. Perhaps you can quote several passages from your book showing how your position is clearly explained and distinguished from other competing theories.

A valid point (if true), I think... that could have been remedied if you had a good group of readers and an editor. I know my book/thesis benefited in this regard by having a large group of readers and an editor.

He took issue with the sloppiness contained therein. Don't you agree with him? It appears that you do, since you are now defending yourself on grounds that you didn't have money or man-power. BTW... it is my understanding that (with the exception of self-publishers) publishers generally provide readers and editors at no cost to you. This has been my experience with John Whitmer Books, at least. Why did you decide to self publish?

You are accusing him of reviewing the book without reading it?? That is a pretty serious accusation. Can you back it up? Providing several quotes from your book, illustrating how you clearly defined your thesis, is in order.

[Mike Reed]

Let's see, do I want to play hardball with Mike Reed again......................................

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........................

The abrasive writing continues, I see.

Or shall we ask Mike Reed if HE read the review where the REVIEWER quoted my book's thesis. and then where the reviewer misrepresented my thesis in the very next statement he made.

Ed Goble

I did read the quote. It appears to be poorly written. I can therefore understand how your thesis might have been easily misunderstood. Like I said... provide several quotes from your book. Even if this thesis statement were better worded, it is beneficial for books to remind their readers (more than once) throughout what that thesis is.

I am not sure why you are reacting so angrily towards my post above.

Get off your arrogant place, and stay out of my life.

If this is the way that you typically respond to feedback, I can understand why your friends and family members wouldn't want to be a reader for you.

[SkepticTheist]

No, it is absolutely worded very succinctly and very clearly and you are just a guy that likes to rub sandpaper on a situation yourself. Don't talk to me about abraisiveness. That is all you are, so once again, stay off my threads unless you have something substantive to add.

The abrasive writing continues, I see.

I did read the quote. It appears to be poorly written. I can therefore understand how your thesis might have been easily misunderstood. Like I said... provide several quotes from your book. Even if this thesis statement were better worded, it is beneficial for books to remind their readers (more than once) throughout the book what that thesis is.

I am not sure why you are reacting so negatively to my post above.

[SkepticTheist]

No reasonable person can misinterpret where I am coming from. You are just trying to make a provocation.

"

[SkepticTheist]

How dare you.

The abrasive writing continues, I see.

If this is the way that you typically respond to feedback, I can understand why your friends and family members wouldn't want to be a reader for you.

[Mike Reed]

No, it is absolutely worded very succinctly and very clearly and you are just a guy that likes to rub sandpaper on a situation yourself. Don't talk to me about abraisiveness. That is all you are, so once again, stay off my threads unless you have something substantive to add.

Relax. Nobody is attacking you on this thread. I was just giving advice on what I thought would be an effective way to rebut the AML review. In my opinion... the thesis statement quoted above could have been better worded... however, if you had reworded the thesis statement elsewhere in your book... then there would've been less excuse for misunderstanding. This is why I suggested that you post other quotes of your thesis statement in this thread. No arrogance in these words. I freely admit that I'm not the best writer... which is why I so desperately needed readers and an editor.

[SkepticTheist]

No, Mr. Reed, I demand that you get off my thread, because YOU are attacking me, and YOU are making baseless statements simply to provoke me, because of other altercations on other threads. And it is in this one where you thought you could throw salt on an open wound that was one that could be easily taken advantage of.

Relax. Nobody is attacking you on this thread. I was just giving advice on what I thought would be an effective way to rebut the AML review. In my opinion... the thesis statement quoted above could have been better worded... however, if you had reworded the thesis statement elsewhere in your book... then there would've been less excuse for misunderstanding. This is why I suggested that you post other quotes of your thesis statement in this thread. No arrogance in these words. I freely admit that I'm not the best writer... which is why I so desperately needed readers and an editor.

[Mike Reed]

No reasonable person can misinterpret where I am coming from. You are just trying to make a provocation.

What on earth are you talking about? Like I said, I hadn't read the book. From my first post in this thread: "Having not read the book myself, I can't say whether the confusion is rooted in your own lack of clarity, or the reviewer's misreading. Perhaps you can quote several passages from your book showing how your position is clearly explained and distinguished from other competing theories."

"

[TAO]

Skeptic, just chill a bit... Mike was just trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the reviewer, which is something we need to do to progress, if ya' know what i mean. If we don't give them the benefit of the doubt, how can we expect others to give us the benefit of the doubt, I mean? XD. So don't worry about it... have a cookie... or I'll force feed the cookie to you... or else *tries to think of other random cookie-related threats*

But more on topic... Have you thought about contacting the reviewer and asking him to reanalyze based on the misinterpretations? Does he have a user account or something whereupon you could contact him?

How thick is your book exactly? 135 pages is a lot depending on the size of the book, and I'd be willing to soft-edit over it if you would like if it isn't too big. Though I can't guarantee I know much about the subject in the book. I do do a decent job of formulating writing in a better format though, from what I have heard (I make it sound like regular speech).

But yes, I do hope your next review is more... timeworthy ;-).

[Mike Reed]

No, Mr. Reed, I demand that you get off my thread, because YOU are attacking me, and YOU are making baseless statements simply to provoke me, because of other altercations on other threads. And it is in this one where you thought you could throw salt on an open wound that was one that could be easily taken advantage of.

I think you are blinded by your own rage and can't see clearly what I've written in my post. Reread my opening post. There is nothing antagonistic in it.

Moderators can decide whether or not I should be eliminated from this thread. If you want me off, just click the report button.

[SkepticTheist]

I'll definitely consider that for the "second edition" but I have to find time to do the work put out such a thing, and I'll PM you at that point.

It is what it is at this time.

The review came out today, so no, I have not contacted him. It seems he's pretty opinionated anyway about my style of writing. There isn't a lot where the review could be "fixed up" except for the misrepresentation of the thesis. I'm not saying the guy did it on purpose. I'm saying he wasn't careful, and didn't pay attention to the core issues the book was dealing with. He was more interested in literary style and misspellings than he was with content and substance.

Ed

Skeptic, just chill a bit... Mike was just trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the reviewer, which is something we need to do to progress, if ya' know what i mean. If we don't give them the benefit of the doubt, how can we expect others to give us the benefit of the doubt, I mean? XD. So don't worry about it... have a cookie... or I'll force feed the cookie to you... or else *tries to think of other random cookie-related threats*

But more on topic... Have you thought about contacting the reviewer and asking him to reanalyze based on the misinterpretations? Does he have a user account or something whereupon you could contact him?

How thick is your book exactly? 135 pages is a lot depending on the size of the book, and I'd be willing to soft-edit over it if you would like if it isn't too big. Though I can't guarantee I know much about the subject in the book. I do do a decent job of formulating writing in a better format though, from what I have heard (I make it sound like regular speech).

But yes, I do hope your next review is more... timeworthy ;-).

[Mike Reed]

How dare you.

How dare me?? How dare you for flipping out over constructive criticism.

[SkepticTheist]

I think I have a handle on the way you operate, having seen you in action all over the place. I think I can see what you were really trying to do. You have no interest in trying to "help" me, only to provoke me. That is who you are. That is what you are.

I think you are blinded by your own rage and can't see clearly what I've written in my post. Reread my opening post. There is nothing antagonistic in it.

Moderators can decide whether or not I should be eliminated from this thread. If you want me off, just click the report button.

[SkepticTheist]

How dare you pretend to be able to divine the dynamics of what happens with my family and my friends and people's reasons for not being able to participate, aside from the fact that they simply have no interest in this subject.

It is typical of you and Vogel to pretend to be able to divine the dynamics of people's relationships as you are both brain surgeons who can only perform lobotamies, not serious understanding of people's true motives.

How dare me?? How dare you for flipping out over constructive criticism.

[Skylla]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Bickering

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff