Savaged in WSJ

Authors and publishers are accused of accentuating the positive in selecting reviews to publicize. That's not a surprising behaviour: who wants to spread bad news? But every now and then you get a review so savagely vitriolic that you have to embrace the thing and actually address it. Such was the case today for me with an absolutely excoriating assessment of The Race to the New World (and me) in the Wall Street Journal by Notre Dame's Felipe Fernández-Armesto.
I was quite taken aback by the sheer venom of the thing, not to mention the errors. (For one thing I can never be found "explaining apologetically" that contrary to the title, there was no race to the new world. I never discussed the title at all. Bizarre) I decided to reply on my book's website. You can follow the link to my rebuttal, which also has a link to the review.
Unfortunately, it's this sort of review that reinforces a general impression of academics being insular and defensive of their professional turf. And contrary to the reviewers attempt to paint me as an amateur where history is concerned, I am a doctoral candidate in history. I am not amused by his contention that my work is marked by “incompetence in research, a lack of critical discrimination and a chutzpah reminiscent of Columbus's own.'
http://web.mac.com/dwh5/Site_3/WSJ_re...