Kirn's Slate review (some spoilers)

[davemarc]

> From: RICHARD ROMEO <RR.TFCNY at mail.fdncenter.org>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Why this guy is full of shit:
> 1.  M&D is not written for highbrow academics, is not word play, is not 
> tedious, has something to say to even Joe Six-Pack here
> 2.  Observation of Transit of Venus was not to determine longitude but 
> the solar parallax, right?
> 3.  He claims Dixon is the object of seduction by the 3 dutch sisters and

> mother--that's Mason, i'n it?
> 4.  constantly referring to M&D both as astronomers--most reviewers in 
> fact make the mistake--Mason is annoyed repeatedly that Dixon is referred

> to as a fellow star-gazer throughout
> 5.  Writing a review without finishing the fucking thing (nice response, 
> davemarc in that NY Press)
> -----------
A-and that's just for starters.  Tho' for the record I'll repeat that I
liked Jim Knipfel's review in the NYPress.  I was disappointed that the
editors ran the letter but didn't give Knipfel room to answer my questions
as to whether he had finished the book and/or wanted to add anything.  The
difference between his review and Kirn's (besides love/hate, respectively)
is that Knipfel made much loss of a pretense about judging the book as a
whole, whereas Kirn flaunts his ignorance, judging the book as a whole
without even coming close to finishing it.  I don't necessarily have a
problem with critics who don't finish reading books--as long as they don't
overstate their cases.  Kirn overstates like crazy.  I would've had more
respect for his review had he limited it to a critique of why he quit it
(say that five times fast, if you dare), without the presumption of judging
the book as a whole.

davemarc