First impressions are that this is going to be an interesting read, with lots of individual pieces within it. This goes two ways- first, it’s a fascinating silva rerum, casting sidelights on the subject from many different angles, and ensuring that the individual pieces, the little stories that inform the narrative, each get their own ray of illumination. One is bound to remember one or two amidst the collection. By the same token it seems to be suffering as an extended essay,reading instead as a series of themed pieces. This is by no means a bad thing, nor, really is it a bad way to write a book, per se. But the argument arrives in a sedimentary manner, not through the guidance of the author as intellectual champion- despite the fact that it’s the author’s hand guiding the shovel.

Another way of criticising this method would be that it comes off as somewhat journalistic: the research comes in digestible chunks and serves to confirm the story as reported.

Despite my criticisms, I really enjoy this sort of reading. It’s not as taxing as other sorts of non-fiction reading, and one tends to remember more facts, even if the great ideas tend not to come to the surface. I suppose that this is the dilemma faced by non-fiction authors: whether to serve the average reader something more palatable, or to run the risk of believing so strongly in their thesis that they sacrifice entertainment for difficult-to-read expressive clarity. Is there a way to have both?

(more on this book when I’m finished with it).

Technorati Tags: book review world writing