> There is one message totalling 36 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. Ayahuasca Variations
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Sat, 3 May 2003 00:25:49 +0100
> From:    Ian Pitchford <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Ayahuasca Variations
>
> Miguel Farias wrote:
>
> I was a bit puzzled by this email, as the 3 paragraphs below do not even
> mention the book that is under review. I was even more amazed when I
> followed the link and read the whole thing: it is an impressive erratic
> exercise in which we learn something about Colleridge's opium taking habits
> but almost nothing about Shanon's book.
>
> Anyway, let us forget this pseudo-review and focus on the merits of Benny
> Shanon's work on Ayahuasca, which certainly deserves our good attention.
> ________
>
> REPLY: Benzon uses Shanon's findings to formulate hypotheses about the
> nature of the underlying neural mechanisms involved in these experiences.
> Surely a desirable outcome for the author of any scientific publication? If
> readers want only a description of the contents they can go to the
> publishers blurb, a link to which is provided. To the best of my knowledge
> no other review of the book is even available on the web - hardly a
> situation likely to lead to a "focus on the merits of the work" or any
> appreciation that it "certainly deserves our good attention".
>
> Best wishes
>
> Ian Pitchford PhD CBiol MIBiol
> Editor, Evolutionary Psychology http://human-nature.com/ep/
> Editor, Human Nature Review http://human-nature.com/

My point was clearly not about the merit of the existence versus the
non-existence of the review but whether the review fulfilled the function of
discussing its object. In this case, it does not; instead, it uses parts
of the book and other materials to discuss some of the reviewer's own
ideas. To use one of his analogies: He started improvising over a melody
but totally lost track of what the original melody was. Or to use a more
familiar image to academics: If this was an exam question, he would not have
answered the question. I'm sure everyone here would agree that the question
in a review is about the contents, the merit of the book and how it relates
 to a wider corpus of research. I applaude the idea of an 'essay review',
 as long as it still is a 're-view'. I'm afraid this one does not tell us much
about Benny Shanon's book and what it does tell us is not very clear.

Please feel free to forward this to the reviewer -- I'm sure he'll
be pleased to learn that his review has been review-ed.

All the best,
Miguel Farias
------------
Jesus College, Oxford