A pet peeve of mine: When a junior scholar—say, a PhD student—writes a hyper-critical and dismissive review of a seasoned, well-respected scholar’s book. Now, in saying this, I don’t mean to suggest that established scholars are above criticism. Far from it! In getting to the place they now occupy, they’ve surely received more criticism than any of us mere mortals ever will. What irks me specifically is when this imagined junior scholar writes with a dismissive tone, giving off the distinct impression to readers that they could’ve produced a much better volume. There’s a certain decorum at work here (or lacking, I suppose). If you’re wanting to write a critical review of N. T. Wright’s latest book, that’s fine. But, if you treat Wright’s work as something easily dispensed with—his arguments easily demolished by your superior intellect—you reveal yourself to be an unserious person. Don’t be that person. So, if you’re going to review a book by, say, Oliver O’Donovan, or Matthew Levering, or Katherine Sonderegger, please don’t write it in such a way that readers are left thinking you believe you deserve their post more than they do. It’s not a good look.