Gnip is on the right track here though I would like to suggest a few corrections to his last statement The reason the book received so much negative feedback from academics was not only because of its high profile but it certainly did play a major role Historians did definitely want to counter the widespread praise the book was receiving from journalists and other nonspecialists but it was also the books clear and obvious failings that drew a lot of attention from academics who felt it was their responsibility to expose the books problematic research and unsubstantiated conclusions Any work claiming to provide a comprehensive biography of one of the worlds most famous or infamous leaders will get noticed and will certainly be watched closely by academics specializing in China studies As someone currently working within this very millieu I can say that most specialists I know of have spoken to were at least aware of the book Gnip is however correct that the published response to the book such as the Benton volume or the China Journal response were unusual as I have stated before in this articles discussion I think this is the part that is getting lost on John Smiths unfortunately Though I may be splitting hairs rehashing Gnips words what I am trying to clarify is that people should not be under the impression that academics only noticed the book due it its huge publicity It is not correct to say that without its high profile the academic world would never have known about such a book Professional historians deal daily with the low profile often reviewing books that never become very popular or wellknown ie they dont sell very well outside of academia In fact they frequently research and dissect works that few outside of a very small circle of individuals will ever read In this sense academics are very insulated in what they do and are often disconnected from the general public That is not to say however that they are unaware of new publications outside of academia particularly those reevaluating major figures in history Also Bentons volume Was Mao Really a Monster was not in my opinion a major contributor to the books popularity as Gnip suggests As you know MTUS was first published in  and this collection of reviews was only published in  quite some time after the book had already become popular and as you know the reviews found in the volume had been previously published elsewhere What is important about this recent volume is not how it contributed to the books popularity in my opinion but rather as a reflection of how distressed the academic community truly is by the MTUSs continued popularity This last fact is what I am concerned does not quite get across in the article as it stands Unfortunately Im not sure how to appropriately correct that issue I think that is what Midnightblueowl has been trying to address and what I myself tried to do some time ago