My friend Geof wrote a good post yesterday about really taking time to digest and consider a book before publishing a review. He appreciates his friend Adam for taking 6 months before responding to Rachel Held Evans' book. (I’m curious whether Adam’s really been chewing on it for a while or whether he just took a while to get to the book in the first place, but that’s only tangential to Geof’s point.)

When it comes to any book review, I simply question context: who is the reviewer, and does it seem that they’ve taken the time to read it well? Often the former is easily deduced—this is the Internet—but one never really knows if a book has been carefully considered or read simply to be discarded….

…I think you need to spend time thinking about a book if you are going to lend/demand authority to your response to the reading. I think that too many high-profile theology types rush through book reviews purely knowing that their authority rests in their brand. I think that’s a dangerous mistake.

Geof has a good point here, and I wonder how my own review of Rachel’s book would change if I read it again now that I’ve had time to think and interact with others about it.

Geof omitted, though, another critical aspect of why the big-name theo-review-bloggers rush through their reads and get their reviews out early: control. These theo-review-bloggers want to direct their readers' purchases in ways that they think are “safe”. If a critical review will keep a “dangerous” book out of hundreds of hands, let’s get it published ASAP. Waiting for six months to publish a review might allow time for those folks to buy the book, read it, and *gasp* think about it for themselves.

Don’t get me wrong - I appreciate good book recommendations, and I appreciate folks telling me when a book might be a waste of my time. But Geof is right - there’s far more authority to be had when you’ve ruminated on a book over time before reviewing than when your release-day review is ***DO NOT WANT OMG HERESY STAY AWAY***.