Here's what I wrote to a friend earlier today who asked my thoughts on Judt: "Judt is a smart guy, and both knowledgeable and a decent writer, but a bit too high-handed for my taste--especially as he strays very casually onto turf that he isn't an expert in. Always worth reading, I think, but there are times when I know more about the subject than he does, and I would be much less categorical or dismissive than he is, and I think to myself, where does he get off being so snippy?"
Re the books, I think the Zakaria is an excellent and stimulating read, lots of good nuggets of history and thought packaged in lively writing, but I'm not sure the parts add up to a great whole.
I haven't read the Kagan, but would like to when I get a chance. He's smart and writes very well and I thought the original article excellent.
I thought the Mandelbaum book was ho-hum--a not particularly interesting or ground-breaking survey of where the world is now. Maybe others with less background would find it informative or stimulating; I found it stale and unnecessary.
I thought the Kupchan was in parts like the Mandelbaum--some potted history that might be good for a newcomer but was old hat to a more knowledgeable reader--but in parts more worthwhile, because it sustained a single big thesis that nobody else agrees with (i.e., US hegemony will decline soon). Provocative, but probably wrong. I liked his discussion of European integration, although not his discussion of transatlantic relations.
Haven't read the Calleo, and don't plan to.
tb@oneminutecritic.com |
