Couple of questions--multiple replies

From: Janet Staiger <[email protected]>

If this was a university press, the editor would probably have been
required to submit all reviews to the press's governing board.  The editor
may have realized that this review would sink the project even if the
editor found another sympathetic reader.  The editor apparently decided to
"cut" losses at the start since all reviews cost presses money and time.
 Not exactly an excuse for other parts of the process (was the editor well
enough informed when he/she picked this reviewer in the first place?), just
an explanation for the decision not to pursue the project further.
*********************
From: Michael Fitzgerald <[email protected]>

> From: Dane S. Claussen <[email protected]>
>
> I think you should have been surprised and disturbed by the review,
assuming
> that your dissertation is either defensible history or defensible social
> science or both.  You also should be shocked (though not surprised) by the
> editor. Almost all of the book publishers don't exactly employ Einsteins
> these days. . . .

Dane, since you pointed it out, I should add that the editor is new and I
think hardly qualified for the position. I would have said it earlier but it
would have sounded like sour grapes. Thanks again, MRF