Kirkus Review just ran an amazingly unprofessional review (actually a misreading) of my forthcoming book, Racial Paranoia: The Unintended Consequences of Political Correctness.
The revealing thing about the review is that it is clear the reviewer didn't read the book carefully, if at all. They describe it as full of academic jargon, though it is not, and then they say that I claim blacks are debilitated by paranoia, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I argue in Racial Paranoia. THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT I EXPLICITLY SAY--AND DESCRIBE.
I knew the provocative nature of this book would upset some people, but a short and dismissive Kirkus Review by someone who seems to have simply skimmed the book's preface and conclusion before churning out a canned and hasty "review" is WILDLY IRRESPONSIBLE.
Knee-jerk responses like these are EXACTLY the reason why I wrote this book in the first place--and why I ask readers to think about race a little differently than they have been trained to do. This reviewer is an example of someone thinking they know what the book is arguing without really reading it, which is inexcusable.
The reviewer describes the book as "repetitive," but evidently it should have repeated its main argument even more often--since the 30 or fewer pages that this reviewer actually glanced through clearly didn't hammer the point home enough.
The good thing, however, is that this malicious misreading actually proves part of the book's point. People think they already know everything they need to know about what other people are saying when the topic is "race"--even without ever listening.
I haven't gotten the name of the reviewer yet, but I'm sure it will be telling information. More on that in a bit...