Call for Abstracts (second) with extended deadline (Jan 20)
1st Annual Rockford College Sports Studies Symposium:
An interdisciplinary conference on the study of Sport
Date: April 28, 2012
Rockford College
5050 E. State. St.
Rockford, IL 61108
Whether one is a participant, a casual spectator, a die-hard fan, or a critic, sport, in all its varieties and forms, play a significant role in the lives of most people through out the world. Sports and competitions have long been a part of human civilization and raise a wide range of important philosophical and ethical issues.
This symposium will bring together a panel of scholars to discuss philosophical themes or issues arising in the study of Sport. The focus of the panel will depend, in part, on the submitted abstracts. Each presenter on a panel will have 20 minutes for their presentation. This will be followed by 10-15 minutes for panelists to respond to each other and then 15 minutes or more for audience Q&A. There will also be a panel on the Rhetoric of Sport.
Abstract Submission:
Submissions are welcome on any philosophical theme or issue arising in the study of Sport. Abstract should be 300-500 words. Send via email (as PDF) to sklein_at_rockford_dot_edu.
New Deadline: January 20th, 2012
Notification of Acceptance: February 1st, 2012
If you have any questions, please contact Shawn Klein (Assistant Professor, Philosophy Department) at 815-226-4115 or sklein_at_rockford_dot_edu or Michael Perry (Assistant Professor, English Department) at 815-226-4098 or mperry_at_rockford_dot_edu.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Review: The Habit of Thought: From Socratic Seminars to Socratic Practice
The Habit of Thought: From Socratic Seminars to Socratic Practice by Michael Strong
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
I found this very useful and have already purchased several books recommended here. I hope to implement much of what he suggests in future classes.
View all my reviews
Review: Heat Rises
Heat Rises by Richard Castle
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
I had some trouble getting into this third Castle novel, seemed to be spinning its wheels. Too much Heat and Rook "gushiness." But half way through it started to pick up and redeemed itself. There were several funny Castle/Firefly references that'll make fans laugh.
View all my reviews
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Review: Red Harvest
Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammett
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
Classic noir. Love the language and style. Makes me want to go back and reread The Maltese Falcon.
View all my reviews
Review: Red Harvest
Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammett
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
Classic noir. Love the language and style.
View all my reviews
Friday, October 21, 2011
CFA: Sports Studies Symposium
Call for Abstracts
1st Annual Rockford College Sports Studies Symposium:
An interdisciplinary conference on the study of Sport
Date: April 28, 2012
Rockford College
5050 E. State. St.
Rockford, IL 61073
Whether one is a participant, a casual spectator, a die-hard fan, or a critic, sport, in all its varieties and forms, play a significant role in the lives of most people through out the world. Sports and competitions have long been a part of human civilization and raise a wide range of important philosophical and ethical issues.
This symposium will bring together a panel of scholars to discuss philosophical themes or issues arising in the study of Sport. The focus of the panel will depend, in part, on the submitted abstracts. Each presenter on a panel will have 20 minutes for their presentation. This will be followed by 10-15 minutes for panelists to respond to each other and then 15 minutes or more for audience Q&A. There will also be a panel on the Rhetoric of Sport.
Abstract Submission:
Submissions are welcome on any philosophical theme or issue arising in the study of Sport. Abstract should be 300-500 words. Send via email (as PDF) to sklein_at_rockford_dot_edu.
Deadline: January 6th, 2012
Notification of Acceptance: February 1st, 2012
If you have any questions, please contact Shawn Klein (Assistant Professor, Philosophy Department) at 815-226-4115 or sklein_at_rockford_dot_edu or Michael Perry (Assistant Professor, English Department) at 815-226-4098 or mperry_at_rockford_dot_edu.
1st Annual Rockford College Sports Studies Symposium:
An interdisciplinary conference on the study of Sport
Date: April 28, 2012
Rockford College
5050 E. State. St.
Rockford, IL 61073
Whether one is a participant, a casual spectator, a die-hard fan, or a critic, sport, in all its varieties and forms, play a significant role in the lives of most people through out the world. Sports and competitions have long been a part of human civilization and raise a wide range of important philosophical and ethical issues.
This symposium will bring together a panel of scholars to discuss philosophical themes or issues arising in the study of Sport. The focus of the panel will depend, in part, on the submitted abstracts. Each presenter on a panel will have 20 minutes for their presentation. This will be followed by 10-15 minutes for panelists to respond to each other and then 15 minutes or more for audience Q&A. There will also be a panel on the Rhetoric of Sport.
Abstract Submission:
Submissions are welcome on any philosophical theme or issue arising in the study of Sport. Abstract should be 300-500 words. Send via email (as PDF) to sklein_at_rockford_dot_edu.
Deadline: January 6th, 2012
Notification of Acceptance: February 1st, 2012
If you have any questions, please contact Shawn Klein (Assistant Professor, Philosophy Department) at 815-226-4115 or sklein_at_rockford_dot_edu or Michael Perry (Assistant Professor, English Department) at 815-226-4098 or mperry_at_rockford_dot_edu.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Review: Deal Breaker
Deal Breaker by Harlan Coben
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
I thoroughly enjoyed this mystery. In a rarity for me, I had no idea who did it until the murderer was revealed. It emulates a lot from Parker's Spenser, but still has enough unique in the character to carry itself without being derivative. I look forward to reading more in the Myron Bolitar series.
View all my reviews
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Review: Gregor the Overlander
Gregor the Overlander by Suzanne Collins
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
I really enjoyed this. It is definitely targeted at a younger audience than Collins' Hunger Games, but it is still worth reading if you like this sort of thing. Collins does a great job of getting inside the head of young adults. She doesn't over-simplify them. She avoids the whininess of some other authors in the young adult genre. She also creates an unique and interesting world in the Underland. We learn a lot about it, but she leaves a lot there to be explored in later books.
View all my reviews
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Review: The Kill Artist
The Kill Artist by Daniel Silva
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
A great thriller with lots of action and interesting twists. The added element of the Israeli-Arab conflict makes it stand out from the standard issue spy thriller. I am definitely going to read more in this series. That said, I was not crazy about the ending, and there were minor aspects of the plot that didn't quite work for me.
View all my reviews
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Review: The Lions of Lucerne
The Lions of Lucerne by Brad Thor
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
Everything I've heard people tell me about Brad Thor is true. This was an exciting, thrilling read. Great twists and turns (even if not completely fooled by them, they were still fun). Can't wait to read the next one.
View all my reviews
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Review: The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics
The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics by David Harriman
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Harriman presents his application of Rand's theory of concepts to an elaboration and defense of a theory of induction, particularly in physics. He draws interesting and novel connections between concept-formation, abstraction, and induction. He makes some strong and controversial claims about induction and certainty, some of which I am still mulling over. The basic format is to present the theory in outline and then, using the history of science, to show how induction in physics has worked. His presentation is clear and concise. His narrative is clean, without much of the distracting polemics sometimes seen in some followers of Rand and Peikoff. There is some controversy about some of the details of the history he presents. Having little expertise or experience in this area, I am not competent to judge this. If the criticisms are accurate, this would surely be a fault of the book. It would demonstrate carelessness or sloppiness. Nevertheless, I do not think these alleged faults, on their own, undermine Harriman's central claims about induction. He is not after all engaged in the history of science as such, but using that history as a way of illustrating the theory of induction. I say this not to excuse such possible errors, but only to put them into context. Even with these possible faults, I'd recommend the book to those interested in Rand, epistemology, or the history of science.
View all my reviews
Saturday, July 09, 2011
Review: HUNTER: A Thriller
HUNTER: A Thriller by Robert Bidinotto
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
Hunter, the first novel by Robert Bidinotto, is an exciting, action packed thriller. Think Batman meets Jason Bourne (sort of). The plot of the book centers around the actions of a vigilante who is avenging the victims of a porous legal system by taking out the brutal criminals who have thus far escaped justice. It also raises interesting philosophical questions about justice, the legal system, and punishment. Oh, and it's a love story, too. I'm looking forward to more Dylan Hunter novels.
View all my reviews
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Review: Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think
Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think by Bryan Caplan
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
An interesting read. I am not sure I buy all his conclusions about the (lack of) long-term effects of parenting, but his overall point makes sense. No need to be a "tiger mom": give your kids love and a rational space to live in, and the rest is up to them. But as I came into the book with that view, Caplan's book does little to lower my 'price' for more kids. And anyway, it won't convince Kristen!
View all my reviews
Monday, May 30, 2011
Philosophy of Harry Potter Abstract
This is my abstract for the paper I will be presenting at "The Power to Imagine Better: The Philosophy of Harry Potter" at Marymount Manhattan College in New York City.
Harry Potter and Humanity: Choices, Love, and Death
In this paper, I analyze how the Harry Potter novels bring to our awareness two fundamental parts of the human condition: the importance of one’s choices and the inevitable of one’s mortality.
Lord Voldemort, in his ruthless search for immortality, never accepts his own humanity; he openly rejects it. I argue it is this choice that makes his irredeemable evil, and his ultimate defeat, possible.
On the other hand, it is Harry’s acceptance of his mortality that allows him to embrace his humanity. It is this recognition that gives Harry the power defeat Voldemort. More than that, it makes it possible for Harry to develop into a realized, virtuous adult. In his acceptance of his mortality, the boy that lived is able more fully and wholly to live.
Harry Potter and Humanity: Choices, Love, and Death
In this paper, I analyze how the Harry Potter novels bring to our awareness two fundamental parts of the human condition: the importance of one’s choices and the inevitable of one’s mortality.
Lord Voldemort, in his ruthless search for immortality, never accepts his own humanity; he openly rejects it. I argue it is this choice that makes his irredeemable evil, and his ultimate defeat, possible.
On the other hand, it is Harry’s acceptance of his mortality that allows him to embrace his humanity. It is this recognition that gives Harry the power defeat Voldemort. More than that, it makes it possible for Harry to develop into a realized, virtuous adult. In his acceptance of his mortality, the boy that lived is able more fully and wholly to live.
IAPS Abstract
The following is an abstract of the paper I will be presenting at the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport (IAPS) in September at The College at Brockport, SUNY (More here). I will also be giving a version of this paper at the APA Eastern Division on a panel for the American Association for the Philosophic Study of Sport (AAPSS).
Commercial Sport and Corruption: A Critique
There is a common view, not just in sport, that when one's goals centrally involve the pursuit of greater wealth that one's attitude towards other important values will be diminished or corrupted. William Morgan has expressed this most clearly in his claim that when the external goods of the market become ends of sport they deprive "their practitioners of any reason, let alone a compelling one, to value or engage the particular competitive challenges they present, the select athletic skills they call upon, and human qualities and virtues they excite" (147). This paper is part of a broader project to defend the value of commercial sport, but here I focus only on the argument that commercial sport, sport where money is an end at which participants and practitioners aim, undermines the participants' relationship to the other ends of sport. I first outline the argument that commercialism in sport is corrupting. Then I analyze and challenge three presumptions that underpin this argument.
First, one major presumption of this argument is that goods and values can be divided, in a non-question-begging and non-arbitrary way, into internal and external goods and values. This distinction is foundational to most arguments against commercial sport, so if it cannot be maintained, these arguments would be seriously weakened.
Second, the corruption argument rests on the claim that external goods drive out internal ones. That is, as participants pursue external goods, like money, they necessarily diminish their relationship to the internal goods. Part of the claim here is that the internal and external goods necessarily conflict or pull the agent in different directions. Even if the external/internal distinction can be maintained, it is far from clear that these ends cannot co-exist in a mutually supporting way or that there is not sufficient moral space for both kinds of goods in a practice. Moreover, the corruption argument is weakened if external goods, pace Morgan, can provide compelling reasons to pursue and support the internal goods.
Lastly, the argument that commercial sport is corrupting presumes that internal values and goods are more morally important than external ones. This may sometimes be the case, but it hardly seems to be necessarily the case. The argument, without an additional reason to privilege internal goods, loses considerable force if external goods can also have moral importance and significance.
References:
Morgan, W. (1994). Leftist theories of sport: A critique and reconstruction, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Commercial Sport and Corruption: A Critique
There is a common view, not just in sport, that when one's goals centrally involve the pursuit of greater wealth that one's attitude towards other important values will be diminished or corrupted. William Morgan has expressed this most clearly in his claim that when the external goods of the market become ends of sport they deprive "their practitioners of any reason, let alone a compelling one, to value or engage the particular competitive challenges they present, the select athletic skills they call upon, and human qualities and virtues they excite" (147). This paper is part of a broader project to defend the value of commercial sport, but here I focus only on the argument that commercial sport, sport where money is an end at which participants and practitioners aim, undermines the participants' relationship to the other ends of sport. I first outline the argument that commercialism in sport is corrupting. Then I analyze and challenge three presumptions that underpin this argument.
First, one major presumption of this argument is that goods and values can be divided, in a non-question-begging and non-arbitrary way, into internal and external goods and values. This distinction is foundational to most arguments against commercial sport, so if it cannot be maintained, these arguments would be seriously weakened.
Second, the corruption argument rests on the claim that external goods drive out internal ones. That is, as participants pursue external goods, like money, they necessarily diminish their relationship to the internal goods. Part of the claim here is that the internal and external goods necessarily conflict or pull the agent in different directions. Even if the external/internal distinction can be maintained, it is far from clear that these ends cannot co-exist in a mutually supporting way or that there is not sufficient moral space for both kinds of goods in a practice. Moreover, the corruption argument is weakened if external goods, pace Morgan, can provide compelling reasons to pursue and support the internal goods.
Lastly, the argument that commercial sport is corrupting presumes that internal values and goods are more morally important than external ones. This may sometimes be the case, but it hardly seems to be necessarily the case. The argument, without an additional reason to privilege internal goods, loses considerable force if external goods can also have moral importance and significance.
References:
Morgan, W. (1994). Leftist theories of sport: A critique and reconstruction, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Justice. Served.
Twitter and Facebook have really changed everything. I’d wager more people under 40 than not found this news of OBL’s death first through one of these. (After an ambiguous text from my brother, I checked Twitter). But even more than that, it was amazing to witness all the myriad of responses from people all over. The responses are so raw. People typing away what they think at the moment, without much reflection or filtering. The comments not censored or cleansed by intervening media. It is not pooled together in to some meaningless aggregate or in to some statistic in polling numbers.
Some people are gleefully. Others are more guarded, reluctant to celebrate death, but glad to see justice served. Some folks seeing this a perfect time to score stupid and snarky political points(from all sides). Thankfully, many more seeing it as a time to remember those who have been murdered as a result of this terrorist. Others seeing this as relatively unimportant because it doesn’t seem to really change anything. Just as many seeing OBL’s death as a major game changer. We are a complicated, paradoxical people!
And I am as paradoxical, experiencing all of the above over the last 12 hours.
My first thought was: burn mother fucker, burn. But then as the news set in, I became more guarded. Certainly glad to hear the news of his death, but didn’t feel celebratory. I felt much more somber and reflective.
I admit as well there was a part of me that was somewhat disappointed that this will likely help Obama. I am not proud of that thought; it was inappropriate in my mind to be focusing on political matters and more than that, the man, incompetent and wrong-minded as I regard him, still is our president and did what he promised to do. He deserves credit for that (though most of the credit for this ought to go to CIA and the Seals). And ultimately, I don’t think this “bump” will matter for the ‘12 elections one way or the other.
This news brought me back to those fearful and sad moments of that ironically bright and sunny Tuesday morning. Maybe that is what made me more somber and reflective than celebratory and gleeful. The news of OBL’s death cannot be separated from the thoughts and emotions of that day.
Contradictions don’t exist, but I do share the sense that this doesn’t really change anything and that this is a game changer. On one hand, no troops are coming home as a result of this. There are still very real and very serious threats from al-qaeda and allied groups (and nation-states like Iran). There are many more heads on that hydra that need removal.
On the other hand, this demonstrates both the literal and symbolic failure of OBL’s major strategic goals. Quoting Jim Harper at Cato: “He did not topple any Middle East dictator toward the end of establishing a Muslim caliphate. Indeed, the people of the Middle East have begun toppling their own dictators toward the end (we earnestly hope) of establishing more liberal societies.” (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dead-al-qaedas-leader-and-symbol/)
An evil man with evil ideas has been dispatched. That is a good thing, even if nothing greater comes from this.
Some people are gleefully. Others are more guarded, reluctant to celebrate death, but glad to see justice served. Some folks seeing this a perfect time to score stupid and snarky political points(from all sides). Thankfully, many more seeing it as a time to remember those who have been murdered as a result of this terrorist. Others seeing this as relatively unimportant because it doesn’t seem to really change anything. Just as many seeing OBL’s death as a major game changer. We are a complicated, paradoxical people!
And I am as paradoxical, experiencing all of the above over the last 12 hours.
My first thought was: burn mother fucker, burn. But then as the news set in, I became more guarded. Certainly glad to hear the news of his death, but didn’t feel celebratory. I felt much more somber and reflective.
I admit as well there was a part of me that was somewhat disappointed that this will likely help Obama. I am not proud of that thought; it was inappropriate in my mind to be focusing on political matters and more than that, the man, incompetent and wrong-minded as I regard him, still is our president and did what he promised to do. He deserves credit for that (though most of the credit for this ought to go to CIA and the Seals). And ultimately, I don’t think this “bump” will matter for the ‘12 elections one way or the other.
This news brought me back to those fearful and sad moments of that ironically bright and sunny Tuesday morning. Maybe that is what made me more somber and reflective than celebratory and gleeful. The news of OBL’s death cannot be separated from the thoughts and emotions of that day.
Contradictions don’t exist, but I do share the sense that this doesn’t really change anything and that this is a game changer. On one hand, no troops are coming home as a result of this. There are still very real and very serious threats from al-qaeda and allied groups (and nation-states like Iran). There are many more heads on that hydra that need removal.
On the other hand, this demonstrates both the literal and symbolic failure of OBL’s major strategic goals. Quoting Jim Harper at Cato: “He did not topple any Middle East dictator toward the end of establishing a Muslim caliphate. Indeed, the people of the Middle East have begun toppling their own dictators toward the end (we earnestly hope) of establishing more liberal societies.” (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dead-al-qaedas-leader-and-symbol/)
An evil man with evil ideas has been dispatched. That is a good thing, even if nothing greater comes from this.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Shtetl Days
Shtetl Days by Harry Turtledove is a fascinating short story set in an alternative future where the Nazis have won WW2 and conquered the world. They succeeded in exterminating the Jews but have set up recreated shtetls as tourist destinations. Actors play at living the daily lives of the long destroyed Jews to the delight of on-lookers snapping photos. They even re-enact pogroms! Nevertheless, the law of unintended consequences kicks in and some of the actors begin to wonder which part of their life is just a role being played.
http://www.tor.com/stories/2011/04/shtetl-days
It is free online, but only $0.99 as an ebook.
http://www.tor.com/stories/2011/04/shtetl-days
It is free online, but only $0.99 as an ebook.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Atlas: More! Again!
I am not a movie reviewer or a movie junkie. I don’t have the skills to recognize good editing from great editing, or good acting from great acting, etc. I can tell when things go badly because they interrupt the enjoyment and experience of the film. And I can tell when a film reaches a level of greatness because of the sublime reaction I have to it. But in between these extremes, I don’t have much to go on except my visceral, emotional response. Does it make me laugh, cry at the right points? Am I moved? Do I get the chills? Do I want to see it again? Do the characters and story stay with me for some time after the film ends? Do I get absorbed into the movie so that the world around me falls away and no thoughts of my outside life arise in my consciousness?
In this regard, Atlas Shrugged Part 1 passes with flying colors. Sure it has some technical weaknesses that even a film idiot like me can pick out. Sure there are things in the characters and the story that are missed or could have been done way better. But once the film started, I didn’t look at my watch once. I didn’t think about what papers I needed to grade or classes I need to prep. I didn’t once think to myself: “where is this going? why are they doing this?” I didn’t have one “WTF” moment. There were several moments that I wanted to cheer. When it was over, I had two thoughts: “More!” “Again!”
What this tells me is that, in the essence and for the most part, the filmmakers got the story right, they got the characters right, and they got the sense of life right. Whatever flaws the film has, they never rose to the level of disturbing the experience of the film for me. Moreover, I didn’t think about these flaws until after the movie was over and I started thinking more analytically about the film. Such flaws are not as significant as the ones that pop up while you are watching the film. These more serious flaws disturb the experience, break the absorption. I didn’t experience any such flaws while watching Atlas. There are flaws, to be sure, and these do keep it from being the truly great movie it could have been. But it is still a good, exciting movie.
Some other thoughts:
In this regard, Atlas Shrugged Part 1 passes with flying colors. Sure it has some technical weaknesses that even a film idiot like me can pick out. Sure there are things in the characters and the story that are missed or could have been done way better. But once the film started, I didn’t look at my watch once. I didn’t think about what papers I needed to grade or classes I need to prep. I didn’t once think to myself: “where is this going? why are they doing this?” I didn’t have one “WTF” moment. There were several moments that I wanted to cheer. When it was over, I had two thoughts: “More!” “Again!”
What this tells me is that, in the essence and for the most part, the filmmakers got the story right, they got the characters right, and they got the sense of life right. Whatever flaws the film has, they never rose to the level of disturbing the experience of the film for me. Moreover, I didn’t think about these flaws until after the movie was over and I started thinking more analytically about the film. Such flaws are not as significant as the ones that pop up while you are watching the film. These more serious flaws disturb the experience, break the absorption. I didn’t experience any such flaws while watching Atlas. There are flaws, to be sure, and these do keep it from being the truly great movie it could have been. But it is still a good, exciting movie.
Some other thoughts:
- I have no sense of how some one who has not read the novel would react to the movie. I read Atlas first when I was 13 or 14, and several rereads over the years. It is too much a part of my mental DNA for me to look at the film except through the lens of the novel. My suspicion is that most new to Atlas will have some trouble following things or miss the motivations for various scenes and actions. I am sure that I filled in a lot subconsciously.
- I wonder what the meaning of the fact that (almost) every lover/fan of Atlas that I know either liked or loved the movie; while the critics almost universally pan it. (Rotten Tomatoes has the critics liking it around 10% while the audience liking it around 85%). Surely a large part of this discrepancy is that the critics have an ideological (political or aesthetic) axe to grind. But it doesn’t explain all of it.
- For what it is worth, I thought the acting and casting were very good. Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden and Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt were fantastic. Taylor Schilling was a very good Dagny.
- The scenery was gorgeous. I think the special effects were as good as they needed to be: the running of the John Galt Line over the bridge was thrilling.
- I hope to see it again soon. I’m sure a second viewing will give me new perspective on the film's virtues and flaws. I’ll be sure to update or post a new blog with any new thoughts.
Some Changes
I'm going to be making a bunch of changes to Philosophy Blog over the next few weeks and months. The design needs some updating, but I also want to try to set things up better so that I blog more.
The first change, effective immediately, is that I am shutting off the comments. One of the things that sometimes holds me back from posting blogs is knowing that I am going to have to deal with comment. I often don't have the time or the will to moderate and answer comments. I don't want to just open the comments up because of spam, but also because, as my blog, I don't want repugnant or obnoxious ideas posted or left unanswered in the comment areas.
The first change, effective immediately, is that I am shutting off the comments. One of the things that sometimes holds me back from posting blogs is knowing that I am going to have to deal with comment. I often don't have the time or the will to moderate and answer comments. I don't want to just open the comments up because of spam, but also because, as my blog, I don't want repugnant or obnoxious ideas posted or left unanswered in the comment areas.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Review: Sandy Koufax: A Left's Legacy
Sandy Koufax: A Lefty's Legacy by Jane Leavy
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
Overall, I liked the book and it certainly deepened my interest in and knowledge of Koufax. The chapter on Koufax and his Jewish identity was, to no one's surprise, the most interesting of the book. The chapter that covers the last inning of his perfect game was thrilling. I think Leavy did a good job of showing us Koufax's character. Clearly not an easy guy to get a read on, but she gets him into the book without it devolving to an 'as-told-to' or a 'tell-all'. Nevertheless, I didn't care for Leavy's narrative structure. It jumped around a lot, back to Koufax's early days with the Dodgers, to present day, and to the 60s. She switched from one person's testimony to another so much, I often found myself turning back a few pages to figure who was who.
View all my reviews
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
Overall, I liked the book and it certainly deepened my interest in and knowledge of Koufax. The chapter on Koufax and his Jewish identity was, to no one's surprise, the most interesting of the book. The chapter that covers the last inning of his perfect game was thrilling. I think Leavy did a good job of showing us Koufax's character. Clearly not an easy guy to get a read on, but she gets him into the book without it devolving to an 'as-told-to' or a 'tell-all'. Nevertheless, I didn't care for Leavy's narrative structure. It jumped around a lot, back to Koufax's early days with the Dodgers, to present day, and to the 60s. She switched from one person's testimony to another so much, I often found myself turning back a few pages to figure who was who.
View all my reviews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)