Editor's Note

When I became editor of RAH, I thought of Jack London's swipe at the occupation in his great novel Martin Eden: "If I fail as a writer, I shall have proved for the career of editorship." I certainly didn't think of writers and editors as mutually exclusive, and I hoped that my work in one role would inform my efforts in the other.

For ten years I've continued to do both jobs, but the time has come to relinquish the editorial role. My first issue was March 1998; this marks my final issue as editor. I intend to devote myself to other projects and to allow someone new to shape the journal.

I've learned a great deal while serving as editor. I'm amazed by the vital community of scholars around the world and the interesting work that they're doing. It has not always been an easy task to select books for review out of the hundreds that flood the office every year. RAH can review about 100 to 125 book per year. That leaves scores of worthy books that can not be reviewed. Changes in publication patterns over the last decade have raised other issues. Many historians now publish with trade presses and receive publicity for their work that historians writing for university presses mostly dream of. I have tried to balance having these books reviewed while continuing to honor the journal's mandate to give attention to scholarly works issued by university presses. I regret that many important books never got reviewed in the journal. But I am cheered that many books that might otherwise have gone unnoticed received essay-length treatment in these pages.

On the less pleasant side, I was shocked to discover how many well-intentioned writers agreed to review a book only never to complete the assignment. This is one of the reasons why some books were not reviewed. After an assignment is made, the reviewer has three months. At five months I inquire about the status of the review. At eight months, it is unlikely the review will appear, and so many additional books have arrived it is nearly impossible to commission a new essay about what has suddenly become an old book. In my darkest moments, I have considered publishing a list of non-compliant reviewers.

More happily, I've been delighted by the quality of the essays regularly submitted and that I have been able to draw on a wide range of reviewers at many different institutions. I've always been pleased when I've commissioned a review and the historian has written back asking how I found her. "That's my job," I'd say.

I've learned some important lessons: it is impossible to predict whether someone will like a book or not (my closest friends have all received negative assessments in these pages); it is good policy not to publish letters to the editor, which usually generate heat not light; it is a fine line sometimes between valid criticism and negative attack. The best essays have always been written by scholars who do not specialize in the precise topic of the book under review. RAH works best as a place for historians to familiarize themselves with issues and themes in fields outside their areas of expertise.

More than ten years ago, Stanley Kutler, founding editor of this journal, asked me to succeed him. I was honored by his faith in me and I am grateful to him for having given me the opportunity. He has never once tried to influence my editorship, though I'm sure some of my decisions have left him wondering about the wisdom of his choice. Kutler introduced me to the professionals at Johns Hopkins University Press who continue to do a first-rate job publishing RAH. I offer my thanks to William Breichner at JHUP for his friendship and support.

Without Kathleen Feeley, associate editor, there would not have been a journal these past ten years. Kathy started with me as a graduate student and is now an assistant professor at the University of Redlands. She has edited every single...