

Classic Books Reviewed in The Atlantic - dragonquest
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/06/15-classic-books-reviewed-in-the-atlantic/239690/

======
hugh3
Fascinating.

So far I'm only up to _Leaves of Grass_ , but I'm struck by the prose style of
the earlier reviewers. Even the most pompous and pedantic of today's book
reviewers would never write like this:

 _But multitudinousness cannot make the spectacle of his morbidness any more
acceptable. It cannot palliate the gross impropriety of which he is guilty, in
publishing what is unfit for repetition; an impropriety doubled by the
retention of this disgusting stuff in a new edition issued after many years,
during which the author has had ample opportunity to free himself from his
youthful crudities._

though whether this is an indication of the dumbing down of the audience or
merely some restraint on the part of overeducated book reviewers is unclear.

~~~
DavidAdams
The Atlantic is, IMO, an excellent and approachable publication today,
however, as a regular reader, I must note that they still let the pompous and
pedantic flag fly in the book reviews that appear in the final pages of each
issue.

~~~
klbarry
If I may ask, what are the best features of the Atlantic (from what do you
derive the most value)? I am thinking about a subscription.

~~~
forkandwait
I am a subscriber and what I like most is that the articles are long, full of
detailed reasoning behind any policy they advocate for, and mostly non-
partisan. When they argue for or against something (say business regulation),
they don't make sweeping generalizations (all regulation is bad! corporations
are bad!), but rather are specific about where and when they would apply the
policy, are careful to admit unknowns and limit their scope, give examples of
the opposing view, and give detailed reasons for advocacy (as a opposed to
general principles).

I personally want to vomit whenever I read the WSJ or the Nation -- both full
of smart people who are true believers -- I think true believers are the bane
of rational conversation and social progress.

------
hristov
Very interesting. It is interesting to compare the reviews of Great
Expectations and Les Miz. They correctly called Great Expectations a
masterpiece, but the Les Miz review was simply awful.

They spent half of the review complaining about how the author was paid too
much for the book and how the poor publisher had to suffer so much trying to
sell it. And then they attack the book for trying to replace the bible (!!!)
for being too nice to the poor and unfortunate and being dangerous for the
undeveloped minds of ordinary people. And then they say: "The bigotries of
virtue are better than the charities of vice." Unfortunately, the author of
that review probably did not live to see the second world war and realize how
wrong he was about that.

