Posted on 02/12/2009 7:05:57 AM PST by GonzoII
.- The scholarly publisher Blackwell is being accused of censorship for suspending the publication of the too Christian Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization and seeking to destroy existing copies pending a full revision of the text. The encyclopedias Editor-in-Chief is filing two lawsuits against the company to require the encyclopedia be published without removing its Christian content, tone and character.
George Thomas Kurian, Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization (ECC), has circulated a letter protesting Blackwells actions, which he calls a looming crisis in the publication of the work.
According to Kurian, the ECC was completed in 2008 a year ahead of schedule and in four volumes instead of the original three.
It was edited, copyedited, fact checked, proofread and finally approved by Blackwells editorial team, he wrote, saying the completed work was launched at the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature where it received high praise.
Kurian said the EEC was lauded and praised by Miami University Prof. Edwin Yamauchi and Notre Dame Prof. Mark Noll.
On the Amazon.com web page for the ECC, Prof. Yamauchi said the work promises to be an exceedingly valuable reference work and is nearly exhaustive in scope providing articles on broad topics like the Roman Catholic Church and giving succinct analysis of themes such as Christian existentialism.
He writes that the ECC also provides a cornucopia of maps, charts and appendices.
According to Amazon.com, Prof. Noll said the thoughtfully conceived ECC presents authoritative articles, sensible bibliographies, and consistently illuminating treatments.
Kurian claimed that some members of the ECC editorial board determined that the encyclopedias introduction and many of the entries were too Christian, too orthodox, too anti-secular and too anti-Muslim and not politically correct enough for being used in universities.
He alleged that under mounting pressure from the powerful anti-Christian lobby Blackwell Religion publisher Rebecca Harkin and Editorial Director Phillip Carpenter agreed with the critics assessment, suspended publication of the ECC, and began proceedings to pulp the entire edition of several thousand copies of the four-volume ECC set.
According to Kurian, they did so just because there are a dozen references to which they do not subscribe and which ran counter to their philosophy and agenda.
Kurian said that Carpenter and Harkin want to delete words or passages such as Antichrist, Beloved Disciple, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Evangelism, the chronological markers BC/AD, and any reference with an evangelical tone or a tone citing the uniqueness of Christ and Christianity.
He further claimed that the two objected to historical references to the persecution and massacres of Christians by Muslims, also asking for references favorable to Islam and material denigrating Christianity.
All these I have refused to do, Kurian said.
His letter announced a class action suit against Wiley-Blackwell will be filed on behalf of the ECCs nearly 400 contributors. If successful, the suit will require Wiley-Blackwell to publish the book as originally approved and printed, without change and without censorship of its Christian content, tone and character.
Susan Spilka of Blackwells parent company John Wiley & Sons, Inc. responded to Kurians allegations in a statement, claiming that concern about the content of the ECC had been raised in November 2008 prior to publication. Blackwell stated that the review was prompted by concern for its leading reputation as a publisher of high quality scholarly content.
In the course of reviewing the situation with the editorial board (many of whom had similar concerns to those raised by the contributors), we learned that few if any of the contributions to the Encyclopedia were reviewed by the editorial board members as required both by high standards of scholarship and our agreement with Mr. Kurian. Instead, they were only reviewed (if at all) by Mr. Kurian himself. We have therefore asked the appointed editorial board to review the work for scholarly integrity and accuracy prior to publicationthe task they were originally recruited to perform-- and the majority of the board has accepted this appointment.
It described as an allegation completely without foundation Kurians claim that the review is being driven by an anti-Christian lobby determined to de-Christianize and censor the Encyclopedia.
We are sure that you will understand that it would make no sense for us to sabotage a project to which we have committed long-term investment and resources, and which we think will be valuable addition to Christian scholarship.
CNA spoke with Kurian by phone on Wednesday. He said the publisher received complaints about the ECC because it presented a Christian worldview.
He also confirmed that the charge that the ECC was too Christian, too orthodox, too anti-secular and too anti-Muslim and not politically correct enough was the gist of the complaints and not an original quotation of a critic.
Such complaints happen all the time, he claimed, saying changes are typically made in second editions.
Instead of doing that, they went ahead and suspended publication, and they desired to pull thousands of copies before all were sent.
This is a very high-handed action that has no place in any publishing community or in any university environment where you have freedom of expression.
The stand may not be popular with a certain segment of people but these things need to be heard.
More than 400 people worked on this for two years. To destroy that kind of work on the basis of complaint from four people seems contrary to the established traditions we have as a society, he told CNA.
Kurian said it should be expected that the writers of an encyclopedia on Christianity would look upon the positive things in Christianity rather than the negative things.
You dont write a book on a subject when you are hardly interested in exploring it, he added.
To say that a Christian encyclopedia should not be Christian seems to me a contradiction in terms. I brought this project to Blackwell, not the other way around. We had discussed it, we defined what the encyclopedia would be and would try to achieve.
After publishing, he said, they had second or third thoughts.
That is not accepted protocol in publishing. If you publish a book, you edit the book and then publish. You dont publish a book and then edit.
He characterized the publishers response as a classic maneuver, charging that they didnt answer whether they are trying to de-Christianize the work.
What they say is we are a major company, so we are above these things, we dont do those things. But that is not an answer to my question.
They have prevented [publishing] the work until and unless the offensive Christian elements can be removed. Thats the core of the complaint.
We already know they are a big company. The question is, can even a big company indulge in this kind of censorship?
We are beyond the Middle Ages where you could censor books.
We are involved in a society which really needs to know all sides. The Christian side is not being properly heard, thats my contention. And it needs to be heard even by those who dont like it, Kurian told CNA.
CNA also contacted Wiley-Blackwell for comment but did not receive a response by press time.
>Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization is too Christian?
>
>The late great George Putnam was right......we are living in the age of insanity.
Agreed.
>Ive been complaining for years that the Encyclopedia of Mathematics has too many numbers in it but nobody listens.
ROFL!
You seem to think that I was saying that authors never initiate book proposals with publishers. That’s not at all what I was saying. It is the normal way of doing things-when an author has a book in mind, of course, he’ll pitch it to a publisher. Even a book of essays written by a half-dozen or a dozen scholars may be proposed to a publisher by the person who organized the group.
But that’s not true of the sort of reference work Kurian edited. I’ve been involved with dozens of these reference works where hundreds of authors are involved. With very few exceptions they are initiated by the publisher because they have been easy to market to libraries.
Your examples are apples to the oranges I was referring to.
No, that’s not at all what I’m talking about. I’m referring to a gentleman I work with who is a University Professor and has done projects the same way this article describes. I think the problem is you fancy yourself an expert that must be right about all things. This is getting pointless, so I’ll save us some time.
What you called apples an oranges was an attempt, probably a poor one, to get you off the wrong track and show you that I’ve been trying to establish a difference between my writing and my colleagues. I contacted him and he said it would be quite common for a project like this to already be in some form and the scholar then approach a publisher. He would find it more odd that a publisher would seek someone out to do a work on this, especially on Christianity. But, who knows.
Blackwells has an active program soliciting these projects. The editor named in the story, Rebecca Harkin, was in charge of soliciting such projects from academics.
You said that Kurian said he initiated it. I asked for your evidence. The evidence you provided says no such thing. Then you started in with “well but . . . “ and offered single-volume monographs as your basis. Those are apples compared to encyclopedia oranges.
But you won’t let go of it.
Okay,I give up.
The numbers never bothered me, but the equations...
No, you are too stubborn to try and understand what I was saying. An example of just such scenario is the Bible translation employer worked on with several academics. They approached a publisher and pitched the idea. I was simply trying to get you to understand that his situation was different than my own, which you kept trying to say I was using as an example. I used it to describe what I was talking about, but later explained the difference between myself and the gentleman I’m referring to. You have an ego so huge, you can’t fathom that things don’t work just as you’ve seen them work. They do in fact at times work just as Kurian described, therefor it is POSSIBLE that he is not lying. THat was my only point. Your ego won’t let you admit that thought, so pout of and be right. Arrogant people drive me nuts.
From the beginning I stated that in most cases the author approaches the publisher but that in most cases of large multivolume encyclopedias the publisher approaches a leading academic with a proposal.
I never denied that authors approach publishers. I said that it is uncommon in this sort of work.
You come back with instances of non-encyclopedia projects in which the author approached the publisher and claim that this proves my general statement wrong.
You claimed to have evidence from the article that Kurian said he approached the publisher. But the lines you quoted merely said that he worked with the publisher.
People work with the publisher on every publishing project, regardless whether the publisher approached the author or the author approached the publisher.
From the beginning I acknowledged that it was possible that Kurian indeed took initiative on this, possible, but unlikely. That’s all I said.
So far you have not offered one shred of evidence to the contrary.
If you can offer clear evidence that Kurian initiated this project, fine. Like I said, it’s possible but not as common as the other way around.
My original point was that Kurian’s description of what happened sounds incomplete. It’s rare for a project to come in a year ahead of schedule and take only 2 years with 400 authors. You countered that perhaps he had pitched the project to the publisher and had it half done already.
Fine. As I said from the beginning, that’s possible but very unlikely. So far you have offered nothing to make me think otherwise.
It has nothing to do with my ego. It has to do with evidence and you’ve offered none, merely speculation based on apples that don’t match the oranges at issue here.
I don’t know how to make it more plain.
Actually your entire obsession with this has been that it never happens that way. You did in fact argue that. I can’t keep up with your changing story, and don’t have time to read a book each time you need to change it. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time-uh. I fart in your general direction. ;)
Here's what I wrote in post # 16 about who takes initiative in these projects, usually
From post # 16
Most of these dictionaries or encyclopedias arise from publishers contacting academics.
So usually the idea comes from the publisher who contacts a likely academic to propose that he edit the particular encyclopedia or handbook. This case may be different.
I dont know what happened. But overall, it sounds to me like theres more to the story. Thats all. More to the story.
I never used the term never when referring to the question you raised in your post # 9.
However, in my first post on this thread, # 5, I did use the word never, but in an entirely different context:
They never come in a year ahead of time after only 2 years. Now, in this case, Kurian may have done an exceptionally good job of riding herd on his contributors and pulled off a remarkable feat of editing. If so, he deserves praise.
The editorial boards for these projects never routinely review all articles.
I lean toward finding Kurians account credible, but Id urge a bit of caution.
I see...Kinda like Kurian never even said he had approached the publisher and not the other way around (because you couldn’t find it in the article). Right, and there was never an argument about whether the publisher is ever contacted by the academic and not the other way around. Never happened. You never argued about that through several posts, because there is a delicate ego to be protected. I’m not saying you didn’t change your mind several times. :) hehe. Yooooou didn’t see aaaaanything.....nothing to see here. It’s just drivin ya nuts that someone won’t let you fix it and be right, isn’t it. I’m just having fun torturing you and making you stay in reality. People like you don’t get that much, and it’s good for you. Builds character.
“I see...Kinda like Kurian never even said he had approached the publisher and not the other way around (because you couldnt find it in the article)”
You are the one who affirmed that he said that he had approached the publisher. The evidence you offered for that claim made no such claim.
“Right, and there was never an argument about whether the publisher is ever contacted by the academic and not the other way around. Never happened.”
Did I deny there was an argument? You keep developing straw-men. Of course you and I have been arguing about who contacts whom.
What I denied in my last post was that I ever said that an author “never contacts the publisher.” You accused me of saying that authors never contact publishers. I denied it. I did not deny that we are having an argument.
You are incapable of accurately representing what your interlocutor says. Ego has nothing to do with it.
Go argue with yourself.
Sure could have fooled me. I thought you were obsessed with talking past me. I’m relieved you are only bored.
Happy boredom to you. Goodbye.
LOL! Oh yeah, well.... I know you are, but what am I? Sad sad. A sense of humor would do wonders for you.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.