Another Non-Review Finds Its Way into the NYT Book Review

Dahlia Lithwick shows up in the NYTBR ostensibly to review a new Clarence Thomas bio, Kenneth Foskett's Judging Thomas, but she dispenses with that task in the first three short paragraphs, at which point she devotes the remainder of the article to her own theories about Thomas' psychological condition and an unfavorable extended comparison to Sandra Day O'Connor. It's an op-ed piece, not a book review--and a fairly weak op-ed piece at that, certainly not anywhere near as effective as Lithwick's better material in the Times over the last few weeks or in Slate.

Let's get back to the main point, which is that it isn't a book review. I've mentioned a few times here that I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of discussing current affairs through the framework of recently published non-fiction, but only if the reviewer seriously engages the actual book under consideration, rather than using it as a convenient hook for one's own hobby horses. If I see any fault with recent developments at NYTBR, it's in "reviews" like Lithwick's and Leon Wieseltier's that push the book into the background. At least Lithwick's was only one-third the length as Wieseltier's, and not nearly as cranky.