Liz Phair’s book review, Stray Cat Blues, is a review of Keith Richards’ new autobiography Life. The review an insightful and interesting look into the rock ‘n’ roll life of the guitarist, but as far as reviewing and analyzing the book the review falls short. Filled with anecdotes and brief histories of his upbringing I feel like I have learnt something and know Richards a little better after reading Phair’s article but I am non-the-wiser as to the quality of Richards’ autobiography.
Phair opens her review by thoroughly appraising the rock icon, making it clear that anything said about the autobiography will be tainted by bias. Phair states “Music is at the core of Life,” but then spends the rest of her review writing about drugs and scandal. After the opening paragraph it almost seems like the next couple of pages is just one digression after the next and the reader is so far out on a limb it a jolt when Phair eventually begins a topic with “One theme in the book that really stuns is…” one has forgotten one is reading a book review. Phair does write a very interesting story of Keith Richards’ hiccups and adventures during her tangents but the article should not be found under ‘Book Reviews’ if the reader forgets there is any book involved.
After the initial wanderings and amusing, but off topic, tales Phair sticks to a choppy and slightly confusing structure. One paragraph of Richards’ history followed by a paragraph of loose connection to Life, bringing up vague themes and random quotes. This cut and paste style leads to multiple contradictions. Early on Phair states that “Disloyalty is about as low as you can go in his book” however half of Phair’s anecdotes are about the betrayal strewn relationship of Jagger and Richards.
The tone of Phair’s review is very informal. She writes as if she were simply talking to a fellow ‘Keef’ fanatic. One gets the feeling she is advertizing the book, not reviewing it. The fact the she strays on tangents only adds to the sales pitch feel. Caught up in her pro-Richards’ rant she fails to say if a non-Richards’ fan would enjoy the book; obviously those, very few, who actually do not like Keith will never read Life but she does not elaborate for those who appreciate his music but are not crazy about him.
An interesting essay about an interesting icon, but not a review of a book. Next time Phair should either stick to her job and write a review or just ghost write an autobiography for Richards herself, another fact she missed— Life is ghost-written.
Paul Krugman’s latest editorial for the New York Times, The Hijacked Commission, is a biting critique of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Krugman opens with a stab at so-called bipartisanship; the cochairmen of the commission are from opposing parties, Krugman begins his argument by summarizing the “supposedly bipartisan” panel’s work as the usual “compromise between the center-right and the hard-right.” Krugman, using reader-inclusive techniques and a well structured argument, goes on to refute all the work of the Commission.
The editorial has all the elements of a tirade without anger and with reason. Krugman uses ‘we’ to include the reader in his view point, so automatically one has a tendency to agree with him. An even more personal ‘you’ is used when Krugman is talking about a crux of his argument, such as tax reform and social security, to show that these issues really affect the reader. Inquiries a reader are likely to make appear in the form of rhetorical questions. These are included to lead in to new issues and to bring up counter-arguments, however Krugman neatly swats them down creating a mocking tone; but the conviction of his reasons and evidence does convey serious, truthful and slightly depressing undertones.
Krugman’s voice goes hand-in-hand with the aforementioned tone of mockery. He is eloquent and witty but his editorials are written for a relatively broad audience, therefore his voice seems almost colloquial, connecting to the reader in instances such as “And how is this to be achieved? By ‘establishing a process to regularly evaluate cost growth’ and taking ‘additional steps as needed.’ What does that mean? I have no idea.” Krugman voice draws the reader onto his side very similar to his language techniques. Of the commission he states “it was even worse than the cynics expected.” This adds to his own cynical and mocking tone. He never misses an opportunity to make fun of the power point, pointing out “that the PowerPoint contains nice-looking charts”. He is making a very serious point, however, and he uses his intellect, not mocking to reiterate it.
As a regular columnist Krugman is no stranger to writing a well structured and convincing argument and this week’s is no exception. Krugman opens the editorial by discrediting the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. And continues to refute them in every possible way complete with solid evidence and example that play on the reader’s emotions.
This editorial is an adequate AP essay. Technique is perfect along with structure. He has a strong and opinionated voice but it does not take away from its credibility.
