There's a link on the home page to a book review that will apparently appear in tomorrow's Book Review section of the Sunday New York Times. I don't know whether the book ("Nazi Games") is any good, but the review is terrible. It completely ignores the fact that several other books have been written about this subject, including Richard D. Mandell's The Nazi Olympics, which I think has always been regarded as a good, if not definitive, account.
What I would think any potential reader would want to know is where this new book stands in the field. What ground does it cover that others do not? What important differences are there between the author's views and those of his predecessors? In most good reviews of non-fiction books, this is basic stuff.
Unfortunately, this review is not worthy of The New York Times. (Or maybe, sadly, these days, it is.)
What I would think any potential reader would want to know is where this new book stands in the field. What ground does it cover that others do not? What important differences are there between the author's views and those of his predecessors? In most good reviews of non-fiction books, this is basic stuff.
Unfortunately, this review is not worthy of The New York Times. (Or maybe, sadly, these days, it is.)
Comment