I have the same approach to books I review. If I don’t like it, no need to take up anyone’s precious time. Like all rules, there are exceptions and I reviewed a Pulitzer winning novel I intensely disliked because it lacked verisimilitude on a grand scale. Because it won a prestigious award, it was fair game. It also taught me quite a bit about how some books are perceived and the marketing persuasion an award, deserved or not, brings with it. Thanks, Virginia, for the post.
I’ll get back to reading The Power of Glamour. I’ve enjoyed it so far. Moved from Idaho to North Carolina this summer so the book is packed away in a box. Need to locate all the books I was reading before the move.
Way to go, Virginia. Yet more uniquely interesting content to consume narratively as well as visually. Regarding the book review (of a book I have not read), I suspect the author's POV is religiously (not to be confused with spiritually) motivated, that is, by a yearning for a purportedly "moral" past in critiquing the the seemingly immoral present. My rule is it's always the person, never the tool. I'm reminded of this by the author's sentimental-sounding attachment to telephone calls, which then propels my memory back to the big screen and the movie *Inherit the Wind*. In it (as I'm sure you know), Spencer Tracy (a stand-in for Clarence Darrow), discussing the reality of technological trade-offs, tells the jury (paraphrasing), "Yes you can talk to others on the telephone, but in doing so, you lose the charm of distance." People, especially decidedly religious ones, are often tormented by trade-offs and (as reviewer 2 might say) the inevitable lag that makes viewing reality especially frought. (An aside: As a socially disaffected person, I'd be lost without the digital world. Also, elicited by your mention of the Reformation and the Thirty Years War, I believe our current social difficulties far more resemble the Reformation than, as many proclaim, the American Civil War.) . . . As for your unique POV, who would know about the connection of technology and the material world without *The Fabric if Civilization* and your sweeping but down-to-earth discussion of the connection between milk, textiles, and history? Brilliant (in the multifaceted meaning given to that word by the Brits). And, finally, I immediately was taken by your shirt; it makes you look very chic as well as lovely. And then to also get the joke? Priceless.
I kept thinking that "milk bar" sounded suspiciously like "Mars bar." Did you know that the U.S. Mars bar (assuming it's still available here) is different from the UK/European one? I'm guessing from your first sentence the answer is yes.
Weirdly enough, I’m partway through listening to an interview with Rosen about that very book you recently reviewed and paused to read this.
I saw that Jonah Goldberg has her on his podcast.
Yes, that was what I was listening to.
I have the same approach to books I review. If I don’t like it, no need to take up anyone’s precious time. Like all rules, there are exceptions and I reviewed a Pulitzer winning novel I intensely disliked because it lacked verisimilitude on a grand scale. Because it won a prestigious award, it was fair game. It also taught me quite a bit about how some books are perceived and the marketing persuasion an award, deserved or not, brings with it. Thanks, Virginia, for the post.
It's amusing to me that Branden, the ur-Objectivist, thought he could work the refs instead of, you know, countering speech with speech.
I’ll get back to reading The Power of Glamour. I’ve enjoyed it so far. Moved from Idaho to North Carolina this summer so the book is packed away in a box. Need to locate all the books I was reading before the move.
Watched the video, fun!
Way to go, Virginia. Yet more uniquely interesting content to consume narratively as well as visually. Regarding the book review (of a book I have not read), I suspect the author's POV is religiously (not to be confused with spiritually) motivated, that is, by a yearning for a purportedly "moral" past in critiquing the the seemingly immoral present. My rule is it's always the person, never the tool. I'm reminded of this by the author's sentimental-sounding attachment to telephone calls, which then propels my memory back to the big screen and the movie *Inherit the Wind*. In it (as I'm sure you know), Spencer Tracy (a stand-in for Clarence Darrow), discussing the reality of technological trade-offs, tells the jury (paraphrasing), "Yes you can talk to others on the telephone, but in doing so, you lose the charm of distance." People, especially decidedly religious ones, are often tormented by trade-offs and (as reviewer 2 might say) the inevitable lag that makes viewing reality especially frought. (An aside: As a socially disaffected person, I'd be lost without the digital world. Also, elicited by your mention of the Reformation and the Thirty Years War, I believe our current social difficulties far more resemble the Reformation than, as many proclaim, the American Civil War.) . . . As for your unique POV, who would know about the connection of technology and the material world without *The Fabric if Civilization* and your sweeping but down-to-earth discussion of the connection between milk, textiles, and history? Brilliant (in the multifaceted meaning given to that word by the Brits). And, finally, I immediately was taken by your shirt; it makes you look very chic as well as lovely. And then to also get the joke? Priceless.
Nice "Inherit the Wind" reference!
The best video about fabrics in the galaxy! You should reward yourself with a candy bar.
I kept thinking that "milk bar" sounded suspiciously like "Mars bar." Did you know that the U.S. Mars bar (assuming it's still available here) is different from the UK/European one? I'm guessing from your first sentence the answer is yes.