October 10, 2005

The Review Reviewed

I have now started a blog that will be a place I'll post some of my longer and more thoughtful entries, Vox in Sox.

I've posted a few times now, but the most recent entry is a retort to the new issue of the Review. If you'd like to see it systematically taken apart and reduced to shreds, check it out.

[I'll still post here, of course, but mainly links without much commentary]


  1. John N.12:24 AM

    While I'm sure the critique (one of the first I've seen in such detail) is appreciated, you're just wrong on many of your points. I won't even mention your immaturity that rivals that of the Review, Free Press, and other campus organizations combined. Well done, sir. My own analysis to follow.

  2. Anonymous2:54 AM

    Why do need another blog when you do most of the posting on this one, and also Free Dartmouth? Smacks of an inability to focus...

  3. John N.--I await your analysis avidly. And nice use of preterition, though I should think by now, if you're reading LGB, you wouldn't expect the maturity of, say Eugene Volokh, coming from me. But sorry to disappoint.

    anonymous--a) Free Dartmouth is dead. b) I want to do something different with the other blog; and we're trying to get new posters so it won't just be me. Patience, please.

  4. Anonymous1:59 PM

    If by "systematically taken apart," you mean "complained about and disagreed with," then yes. It's a laudable endeavor to actually engage with their arguments rather than either decrying the whole publication as a bunch of racists or just assuming that the thesaurus use makes it over one's head and well-written.

    Even so, your blog posts are interesting, but hardly "reduce [it] to shreds."

    This sentence is correct for at least a subset of the articles, but really, so what?

    It is not well-written, or not in the sense that means more than inflated language, arrogance, and frequent use of a thesaurus.

    My impression of the Review is that the quality is variable. Some of the authors love to open by flaunting their vocabulary and the fact that they've read (or heard of) a lot of old books. Some of these authors follow up with an argument, while others merely spend the rest of the article masturbating to their supposed accomplishments and never get around to making a point. Every year, there seems to be a quota on the staff for at least one person like this. The amusing thing is that these people are often quite good at using the thesaurus words.

    Others are some of the most brilliant and talented people I've met at Dartmouth, and I think it's unfair to say that "[i]n terms of real thought and introspective analysis, their paper is totally arid." I read this blog because I find your posts in particular to be thoughtful and worth thinking about. This one seems to me to be an exception.

  5. my apologies to FreeDartmouth--it is no longer dead--Nathan Empsall, an 09--has begun posting again. I did not know this when I commented above. Good luck, Nathan.