Sunday February 19, 2006 
brainstorms
ozan (oz) yigit's noteblog at sun. all my text and photography is released under a cc attribution-noncommercial-noderivs license. all my poetry requires explicit permission.
All
|
books
|
design
|
general
|
humor
|
java
|
music
|
opensource
|
photography
|
poetry
|
programming
|
sf
|
skeptic
|
tools
Sunday February 19, 2006 what makes a good review? balance, clarity, consistency, understanding, respect for the material and the author, and an ability to keep acidic ad-hominem impulses under control [sometimes known as professionalism] come to mind. alas, this is evidently hard work for difficult and possibly annoying material. today's NYT review [requires login] of dennett's breaking the spell by leon wieseltier is an undergrad-textbook example of how not to review a book. deeply disappointing.
[updated NYT link. thanks geoff!]
[there has been a number of awful reviews of this book and i expect more; here awful describes the overall quality of the review workmanship. these could have been written for some other book i am now reading; my response would be the same. enough with these insulting, bubble-gum and razor-wire "reviews".]
(2006-02-19 10:57:27.0) Permalink Comments [5]Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.
Calendar
| « December 2009 | ||||||
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
| Today | ||||||
Search
RSS Feeds
All
/books
/design
/general
/humor
/java
/music
/opensource
/photography
/poetry
/programming
/sf
/skeptic
/tools
Links
- sun bloggers
- adam leventhal
- alec muffett
- bart smaalders
- bill sommerfeld
- bryan cantrill
- linda skrocki
- blogroll
- apophenia
- boingboing
- copyrightwatch
- cringely
- ed felten
- elizabeth bear
- evolutionblog
- guy kawasaki
- ken mcleod
- michael geist
- recursivity
- talkreason
- truthdig
- bruce schneier
- charles stross
- david brin
- larry lessig
- scott mccloud
- news
- NY Times
- the star
- CBC
- globe&mail
Recent Entries
- plimpplamppletteren [last entry]
- rootless
- google map of personal history
- secondary addiction parts II and III
- poverty of information theory
- a zen koan
- quick notes from a boat
- gone sailing, photographing...
- recently noted quotes
- ev (evolution of biological information)
- sixty-seven national academies of science on evolution
- quick notes
- canadian diversity study
- not to have a mind is being very wasteful
- r6rs syntax-case macros
- recently noted quotes
- recently noted books
- elements of style: unix as literature
- random 10 [meme]
- what is wrong with ruse?
- about time
- comics, strange loops... [two books]
- recently noted quotes
- zphone
- startup lessons...
Navigation
Referers
Today's Page Hits: 122
geoff, thanks for the comments and the link. i think html formatting is always on; this comment for example is in a paragraph block.
Posted by oz on February 19, 2006 at 11:12 PM EST #
I found an online link. Maybe it only works for me. Anyway, I read the review, and I was appalled by it. The first paragraph was sophomoric, and the rest follows suit.
Posted by Geoff Arnold on February 20, 2006 at 11:28 AM EST #
Here are a couple of quotes from the NYT Book Review discussion forums.
As a student of philosophy and psychology... I am dismayed to see that the NYTimes is continuing to ask literary critics to review philosophical books about science. It's like asking a ballerina to review an auto show. Mr. Weiseltier clearly does not understand what materialist philosophy of mind is actually about, he cites reductionism as if he just made the term up himself (and uses it as an epithet), and cites lukewarm metaphorical religion as if it is somehow more rational than literalism or extremism. Oh give me a break. Is there no scholar in the fields of philosophy or psychology that disagrees with Mr. Dennett available to review him?
The only thing clear from Wieseltier's review is that Dennett's book touched a raw nerve and generated a lot of rage and incoherence. It doesn't give much of an idea of what the book is about, or even what Wieseltier's own views are. The biggest mystery is why the Times gave two pages to a hysterical and often personal attack, especially since the book wouldn't deserve any attention at all if it were as bad as Wieseltier says it is. The review is a literary equivalent of the cartoon riots.
Posted by Geoff Arnold on February 20, 2006 at 11:33 AM EST #
It turns out that Wiseltier is an author, of sorts. He wrote an interminable piece of self-indulgent rubbish called Kaddish, and a collection of forgettable aphorisms (if that isn't a contradiction) on the subject of identity.
Posted by Geoff Arnold on February 20, 2006 at 11:45 PM EST #
i am really curious what prompted NYT to commission weiseltier for the review. perhaps they too now depend on obnoxious spectacle [and resulting publicity] rather than substance for their survival? i suppose one should not expect london review of books or new york review of books class material from NYT...
Posted by oz on February 21, 2006 at 09:58 AM EST #