How Not To Write A Book Review

Speaking of strange book reviews, like the one of Joe Conason's Big Lies in the New York Times (insightfully critiqued by Jesse Taylor here, the Washington Post also has a strange review of Joe's book.

The first four paragraphs are taken up with a point that could be covered in one sentence: "Joe Conason is a self-proclaimed liberal."

The reviewer, someone I have never heard of, drops this bombshell at paragraph four:

A reader's reaction to any politically partisan book -- Conason's, Alterman's, Michael Moore's, Coulter's, Limbaugh's -- is bound to depend on his or her worldview.

You think? How about jocks: Do they like P.E. more than the unathletic kids? Do rich landowners like capital gains tax cuts more than unemployed vagrants?

After four paragraphs of this crap, the reviewer gets to the meat of the book ... but not really. Instead he says Conason should have interviewed Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter, even though it's doubtful they'd talk to him. And then the reviewer says, "granted, the book's credibility would be heightened if Conason spent more space examining the alleged hypocrisy and lies of, say, Bill Clinton." But, really, how much more credibility would the book have if Conason just put a new title on The Hunting Of The President? I'm guessing not much.

The reviewer does allow that Joe's book is more civil and thoughtful than the crap put out by Coulter and O'Reilly, but that's a given. In all, there's little description of specifics and nothing to make the book sound particularly interesting. It's a positive review, but entirely inconsequential. Post readers would have been better served with a thorough description of what's in the book, not a bunch of gripes about what's not in it.