Sunday, April 22, 2007

Today's Inquirer reviews ...

... Mohsin Hamid tells John Freeman he loves the U.S., but: Author loves U.S., but says, 'My world has been split apart'.

... but Vikran Johri has a hard time finding that love in Hamid's The Reluctant Fundamentalist: A perplexing shift to hatred of America.

... David Hiltbrand has some reservations, but on the whole finds Scott Stein's Mean Martin Manning enjoyable: Urban hermit's rescuers. I think it worth mentioning that the photo editor who scanned the book cover into the system came over to me and said she started reading the book and became so absorbed she realized she had forgotten to scan it. So she borrowed it to read on vacation. Proof, if any were needed, that reviewing is far from being an exact science. I may read reviews differently from the way many others do: I am less interested in the reviewers judgment of a book than I am in his reporting of it. So David's review struck me as fundamentally positive and I thought it would prompt most readers to take a look at Scott's book, irrespective of David's quibbles. But, one of the great things about the Internet and blogging, is that it makes dialogue possible. So here's Scott's Response to a review.

Katie Haegel looks at Getting a handle on just what is e-literature.

Carlin Romano recommends a Scholar's canny look at hip-hop's denigration of black women.

Susan Balee is disappointed in Tracy Chevalier's take on Blake: Been done before, and done far better.

Sandy Bauers listens to a couple of physicians: Two books by doctors explore controversial, intriguing topics.

No comments:

Post a Comment