A Publisher’s Weekly Contest
Most of the negative reviews What to Expect has gotten so far have come from people who pretty clearly haven’t read the book. But Publisher’s Weekly has the most critical review to date–and the reviewer pretty clearly did read it. But for the life of me I can’t quite understand how the reviewer came away with these views:
* PW says that I use “garbled statistics” and muddle causation with correlation. (I write on page 10 that unless I say otherwise, I’m never arguing that correlation equals causation.)
* PW says that I blame abortion for America’s fertility collapse. (I say, on pages 61 and 172, that the evidence suggests that abortion does not play a significant role in fertility decline.)
* PW says that I call for “pro-creation as self-actualization, period.” (On page 63 I point out that Second Demographic Transition Theory posits procreation has become an act of self-actualization, and then I suggest that such motives will probably not be sufficient to get societies to a sustainable replacement rate.)
* PW says that I make a “borderline racist” claim in noting that the US fertility rate has been artificially bolstered by mass immigration over the last 30 years. Yup, that’s me. A big ol’ racist who says that we’re “lucky to have [immigration] as long as it lasts.” (That’s on page 116.)
I’m not angry or anything–just kind of confused. If PW didn’t like the book for whatever reason, then so be it. And at least they read it! It just seems like a weird, bizarro series of complaints.
In any case I’d love to hear theories on how PW had all of that as their take-away. There’s a signed copy of What to Expect for the best explanation.
(As judged by Galley Friend X. Employees and family not eligible for contest. Contest not valid in Hawaii. Purchase not required for entry. Rules and restrictions apply.)
