Well, you know my review preference is for those longish New York Review of Books things, in which we learn as much about the topic and the reviewer's knowledge of it, as about the book. And it seems to me one of the preeminent, if I may use that word, functions of good reviews in a journal like FA, is to use that sort of function to alert readers to the best books. Since, even us retired folk, don't have time to keep up.
So, it should be no surprise, I like the longer format. I tended, at best, to skim the shorter ones.
As for the specific reviews, the best index of what they meant is whether I immediately reserved a copy of the book at the library. Berman's review of Muller's book led me to do so; though I expect to find that the review is better than the book. I've already read the Helms autobiography and will now consider reading the Colby bio but, all in all, the review, which was interesting, led me to consider putting it on the back burner. Next, when I see Gabriel Almond's name as author or co-author of a book, I skip past it on the shelf. I may, however, take a look because the project strikes me as interesting and extremely important. But it requires an anthropological kind of data base. Comparative politics is not exactly the right kind of frame. Etc.
The short of it is, I like the longer format. Would love to see some genuinely classic book given long reviews by two diametrically opposed types, willing to be frank with their reviews. You guys still seem a bit too staid for that sort of thing. imho.
Well, you asked. |
