The second award offer in the recent contest, a copy of Don Johnson’s Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability, asks “What do you call a guy who reviews/trashes a book without reading it?”
It goes to homerj1 at 3 for
The review is a noview and the reviewer is a noviewer.
This won because it can be used effortlessly in a sentence, as in:
Prof. Retro Darwin’s noview of biochemist Michael Behe’s latest …
Rev. Darwin Santa, noviewer of Steve Meyer’s …
Recently, Dimbo Darwin, science writer, noviewed Bill Dembski’s latest …
Ease of use is important. And dropping the pretense of reading makes for more honest communication: He didn’t read it because he wouldn’t like it and wouldn’t learn anything from it, plus he can find an audience who wants to hear from him for precisely that reason. Don’t forget how many people out there know they are “for science” because they believe any nonsense talked in Darwin’s name.
homerj1, please contact email@example.com to arrange for your prize to be mailed.
Several other entries offer a handy term for such a reviewer, including
“illiterater” (spesaeterna at 4) Note: Should probably be “illliterator”
“re-skewer” (TomG at 10 )
“avoidocrat” (CannuckianYankee at 28).
“hypocritic” (Mike1962 at 32)
Guys, keep these for something else. Something will come up, be sure of it. – Denyse