Is it a good review? A bad one? I don’t really know what to tell you, beyond that it’s a little strange and I don’t know how to react to it.
{ 2007 03 31 }
The Cheater’s Guide to Baseball Blog
Baseball, Cheating, and Rules discussion at the author’s blog for the Cheater’s Guide to Baseball
-
Home
-
Buy the book
The Cheater's Guide to Baseball
"It's all right here, from Vaseline to superballs to licorice, from Arnold Rothstein to Gaylord Perry to Sammy Sosa - a book sure to find its place in the pantheon of underground manuals. Wielding his sardonic humor like a freshly corked bat-lightly yet forcefully - Derek Zumsteg knocks it out of the park. The Cheater's Guide to Baseball is funny, true and entirely original." -- Jeremy Schaap, ESPN correspondent and author of CINDERELLA MAN and TRIUMPH
terry | 31-Mar-07 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
I’m thinking he didn’t like it so much and he’s probably not going to buy you a beer either…
John Beamer | 31-Mar-07 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
It is certainly unclear what his position is. A strange review … I’m not sure he respects you that much as both an outsider and a blogger.
This line in the review is particularly odd:
In “The Worst Thing Ever to Happen to Baseball,” Zumsteg discusses the Black Sox scandal, a story more fully recounted elsewhere in real books.
Also it’s clear he doesn’t have a great sense of humor either — I’m probbaly the only person who found Ball Four to be a bit of a snooze fest!
terry | 01-Apr-07 at 4:35 am | Permalink
Hopefully, the Times review will get people over to Amazon…where the reviews so far are very, very good,,,
Bob Montgomery | 04-Apr-07 at 7:28 am | Permalink
Weird that the guy who wrote “Ball Four” comes across as such an old, crotchety, insider who hates these new-fangled “bloggers” who think they know anything about baseball.
Paul Cox | 04-Apr-07 at 11:26 am | Permalink
Bouton is a little strange and people don’t quite know how to react to him, either, so I suppose it makes senes that his review would be that way.
I think the problem with the review is that it’s more about DMZ than it is about the book. Bouton makes the mistake (well, in a book review, I think it’s a mistake) of reading too much into the author from the writing, instead of just letting the writing speak for itself.
If we turn that same look onto Bouton’s review, we note that he’s got a few issues himself. He’s got the player’s not-all-that-well-hidden disdain for fans who’re really into the game. And as Bob points out, it’s funny that he’s got a bit of an issue with bloggers.
I’d also add that he seems a bit put out that someone’s cranked out what Bouton sees as an “instruction manual” for cheating, considering that a huge part of the uproar over “Ball Four” was that he exposed secrets that were previously hidden.
I don’t think it’s a good review, or a bad review; I think it’s barely even a “review”, because generally I expect reviews to tell us three main things:
1) whether or not the reviewer liked the book
2) whether or not the book was well-written
3) whether or not the book was entertaining.
Lots of reviewers will say a book is well-written (or well crafted) but not particularly entertaining; sometimes books can be entertaining but not all that well-written; and whether or not they actually *like* the book is a crapshoot.
Obviously getting the #2 and #3 factors right will help with #1.
Paul
Seattle, WA