Outside Reading: Book Review due 10/10/10

10/1/10

'Backstage Drama' by Max Boot

Book Review

Max Boot's book review of Bob Woodward's “Obama Wars” is chock full of sarcasm and mockery. The review keeps the reader entertained and convinces them of Woodward's idiocy. His main argument seems to be that Woodward's narrative is redundant and reveals no insight. Therefore, Boot gives him a horrible, scathing review.

Boot successfully discredits Woodward by making him out to be a moron who wants to be taken seriously. He uses verbal irony extensively to mock Woodward. He sarcastically calls Woodward's book his “latest epic of insiderdom” to poke fun at the redundant insider information in the book. By dubbing Woodward “Mr. Behind-the-Scenes”, Boot is criticizing his lack of actual behind the scenes information. Boot proclaims the book to be “inadvertently hilarious and revealing”. These ridicules forces the reader to be unable to take Woodward seriously.

Boot relates reading "Obama's Wars" to feeling “trapped in a daylong meeting in an airless room”. This harsh simile expresses the dryness of the book. He attacks the vagueness of Woodward's sources. “The reader has to take on faith that his reporting is accurate, because the sourcing is so vague ("background interviews" with "firsthand sources").” Boot is also critical of the lack of relevance in the material. He claims the book is in a who-said-what format with no depth or valuable perspectives. Boot writes that “[Woodward] is concerned with the rivalry among power players: Who dissed whom? To which one might respond: Who cares?”

Even though Boot is attacking Woodward profusely, he never comes off as unreliable in his assertions. This is because his attacks aren't random or vague with no evidence. He backs up all of his assertions with viable proofs which allows the reader to trust his declarations.

Boot's rhetoric is effective and his diction is comprehensive. With every assertion he makes, he backs it up with persuasive evidence. He uses a logos argument by appealing to logic. The rhetoric he uses is appropriate for the audience. His diction appeals to people who are educated in government jargon, but it in no way prevents someone who is not from understanding his review. His writing style is clear and concise and he refrains from using the passive voice.

This review doesn't exactly fit any general category of literary criticism such as Formalism or New Historicism. It stands with the more modern criticism whose purpose is to reveal how ludicrous something is, like the satirical news shows The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Through satire and sarcasm, they get their points across effectively.