P.J. Rourke starts his review of Taylor Clark's "Starbucked: A Double Tall Tale of Caffeine, Commerce, and Culture" by jumping right in and panning the book while still trying to praise and encourage the writer. Then the review degrades into what I'm sure Mr. Rourke thought was an amusing anecdote about how he and his money manager did not invest in Starbucks' stock and his friend did not like the coffee. enlightening as it is to the state of Mr. Rourke and his finances if he continues to trust that individual, the story does not further along the review at all. In fact, the whole piece reads like it was written by someone who needed to reach his word limit with no regard for content. The jokes are plentiful and not funny. The criticism is light and is uninformative except to say that Mr. Rourke did not like the book. But he thinks we should read it. His argument is several paragraphs which amount to the little more than he likes Taylor Clark. Not personally, obviously because I doubt they've ever met, but his "intellectual honesty." This is a commendable trait, but that is reason enough for me to read the book and your analysis has not given me reason to continue to read your reviews.

If you would like insight into how P.J. Rourke wrote his review The New York Times has an article on his process.

Powered by ScribeFire.