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

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!