RSR reviews collected

With four excellent reviews here on T&S, as well as other discussions around the bloggernacle, you may think you’re covered as far as initial responses to Rough Stone Rolling. But for the voracious and curious out there, here is a list of links to notices and reviews from all over. Please add any that I’ve missed in the comments.

National Publications:
New Yorker
Kirkus Books
New York Review of Books (subscription required)
Knight Ridder newspapers
Foreign Affairs
Associated Press
Christian Science Monitor
Books and Culture (Christianity Today)
New York Times Book Review

Mormon Publications:
Association of Mormon Letters
Jeffrey Needle/ AML

Local Publications:
Salt Lake Tribune
Deseret News
Decatur Daily
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Clark’s links to Bloggernacle discussions of RSR
Amazon readers reviews

17 comments for “RSR reviews collected

  1. Greg, good catch on the Foreign Affairs review! I hadn’t looked at the review section of my issue yet.

  2. The Times may be combining their RSR review with that of other recent books (like Vogel). Back in 1985, they reviewed Bushman’s Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism in combination with Leonard Arrington’s American Moses and Jan Shipps’ Mormonism. If you have access to the NYT premium content, here’s the link to that review, by Laurence Moore: . Similarly, in 2002 the NYT review of Terryl Givens’ By the Hand of Mormon was combined with that of Robert Remini’s Joseph Smith book.

    I should also note that Martin Naparsteck’s review in the Salt Lake Tribune is no longer available online as far as I can tell.

  3. Thanks, Greg. This list is extremely helpful. And thanks for noting the AML-List reviews.

  4. Thanks, Johnna. As pointed out by Ryan above, the NYT hasn’t reviewed the book yet. Guy is criticizing Larry McMurtry’s review in the New York Review of Books, which is easy to confuse with the New York Times Book Review, but is an entirely separate publication.

  5. Naparsteck’s review has been posted here.

    Post-Dispatch review

    The latest FARMS Review has some brief comments on the book.

    Jana Riess named it one of the year’s best.

    It’s unfortunate that additional reviews published in the Tucson Citizen, New York Sun, Providence Journal, and the Guelph Mercury do not seem to be available online.

  6. Thanks Justin B. I’ve added the Naparsteck and the St. Louis paper. I’m sure FARMS has a full review forthcoming. I could not access the Publishers Weekly review by Reiss, but I noticed that there is a PW review on the Amazon site. Is the version on PW’s website (or the paper version) more extensive than what’s posted on Amazon?

  7. Greg,

    A minor note: The Knight Ridder papers review is the same as the one that showed up in the San Diego paper (bylined there Alexandra Alter and with a Miami Herald copyright). I suspect that both those papers are KR papers.

  8. I actually e-mailed the miami herald (same as the San Diego paper) regarding the erronous attribution of Martha Becks Contents-It really wasn’t about breakoff polygamous groups that much. that was about three weeks ago and didn’t see any type of correction. Makes me question the reviewer.

  9. It appears as a brief note in Riess’s list of the best religion books of 2005. The note states in full: “A mammoth, balanced biography of the controversial founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

  10. I notice that Bushman documents as source material in many areas of Rough Stone Rolling works by Dennis Michael Quinn. I wonder if Bushman “ran” with the Quinn-published material or if he judiciously assessed the material.

    Quinn is a gifted researcher but a biased, agenda-driven, revisionist writer of history. His hatchet job on Evan Stephens is just one example. I’ve found several examples of where the copious footnotes don’t substantiate the leaps to conclusions and speculative assessments of his narrative–specifically in Mormon Hierarchy–Extensions of Power. There are so many examples of impressive research but poor scholarship noted by reviewers of his works.

    I’m concerned and frankly disappointed with Bushman’s seemingly extensive employment of works by Quinn.

Comments are closed.