The Encyclopedic Guide to American Intentional Communities by Timothy Miller (review)

What’s a poor reviewer to do when faced with a reference book that is 8½ by 11 inches and nearly six hundred double-columned pages and is composed of the following sections?

1. 1. A brief definitional introduction (xi–xix) similar to Miller’s “A Matter of Definition: Just What Is an Intentional Community?” published in Communal Societies (30, no. 1 [2010]: 1–15). Here he also includes material that might be called the “How to Use the Book” section that describes the various parts and comments on sources. I have some quibbles with the definitional material, particularly regarding what he calls the “Gray Areas,” that I have written about elsewhere, but Miller’s purpose here is to explain the book and the basis on which he made his decisions about what to include and exclude, and it serves that function well.

2. 2. A short list of previous definitions (xx–xxi).

3. 3. An alphabetical list of U.S. communities with the name and location of the community, a brief characterization including a population count, cross-references to related communities where appropriate, up to three references about the community (there are a few with more), and a Web site if there is one (1–488).

4. 4. Three appendixes:

   1. a. “American Intentional Communities Past and Present: A List by Categories” (489–513). This list includes some communities, most some notably Catholic Worker communities, that are not for various reasons included in the main list.

   2. b. “Other Communities” (514–26), which includes communities that have been mentioned in generally reliable sources but whose status is unclear for various reasons.

   3. c. “Communities Nonexistent and Otherwise Unlisted” (527–50). I think that this appendix is likely to be immensely useful; I keep running across communities that I can’t find anything about (I usually end up e-mailing Tim and asking him, and this list, with very brief explanations, will save him from getting as many e-mail queries). Here I should disclose that I am thanked in the acknowledgments, and I have known Tim for many years and have exchanged references with him throughout that time.

5. 5. A brief bibliography of works touching upon multiple communities (551–62).

6. 6. An index of personal names (563–84).

7. 7. Identification of the illustrations on the front and back covers (586).

When I started this review I read all the front matter and then read all the “A” and “B” entries straight through. I then started looking up communities I know well, reading their entries and everything else on the two-page spread. I then went through all the appendixes. Finally, I returned to the main list and opened the book at random, again and again reading the two-page spread. Thus, I have not read everything in the book, but I think that I have a pretty good sense of its strengths (mostly) and weaknesses (a few from my perspective).

Anyone creating a reference book must make it useful to as wide an audience as possible. The author can never know who will consult it for what purpose, and it must be useful to both the expert and the neophyte. As a result the book must be easy to use for the neophyte and as comprehensive as possible for the expert. And the author must make a number of basic decisions about how to structure the book, all of which go into making it more or less useful. On these criteria, I think that all the right decisions were made, even though, from the way I will use it, I wish a few decisions had been made differently.

While there are alternative possible arrangements of the main section, the alphabetical is undoubtedly the best choice. I found myself wishing that there was a chronological index, but dating communities is notoriously difficult. Beginning dates are hard to establish, and ending dates frequently simply cannot be known.

One choice that...