We made the NYT! [bumped]

BOOKS OF THE TIMES: U.S. as Parent to Countries in Their Teens, By DWIGHT GARNER, New York Times, February 10, 2009

Pretty good review, too. Focused on globalization. Interestingly, contains a link to the big Ignatius article at the NYT's biggest competitor. Picked up nicely on the history component. Adopts the hedgehog-fox paradigm. (But thinks the organizing principles are a little too cute.) Picks up some of the smaller point like Bush and China and Boomers. (Then says Tom's too verbose and arrogant.)

All press is good press, and this press is pretty positive. I'll be interested to hear Tom's take on it.

What do you think?

Comments

[Javaid Akhtar]

Tom has fun with his stuff because he knows it well...maybe its not for everyone.( the reviewer) ...but he has zero quibbles over the ideas/content.I usually read critical reviews for the trashing ( entertainment value) they give rather than to source a book/play/show.

That review would'nt have satisfied that need.

[Critt Jarvis]

It's positive, and right on. Tom turns on the fire hose, for sure. But there's plenty different fires to manage, something for everyone, at every level. Actionable, too.

[michal shapiro]

Condescending, snarky review.

[stuart abrams]

The review was a bit snippy, but frankly, I could see how Dr. Barnett's writing style might not be everybody's cup of tea. Substantively, the review was basically positive. I thought that the headline, "US as Parent To Countries In Their Teens", was a great way of summarizing the thesis of the book in a catchy, simple way that could give the book popular appeal. Could this review provide an opening for another shot at Stewart or Colbert?

[stuart abrams]

That headline reminded me of the title credits of the old TV show, "My Three Sons", with Fred McMurray's foot-tapping in exasperation at the antics of the 3 teenage sons. US=McMurray, and China, Russia, and India=The 3 Sons (I guess the UK would be William Demarest as wise old-timer who has seen it all).

[Jim D]

Good review. Sure it is snarky in the last third but that is what reviewers are for. It doesn't refute the big ideas.

[historyguy99]

Like my fellow commentators have noted, "a bit snarky." It is perhaps more revealing that the reviewer is probably not the target audience. What came to mind to me as I read this piece is what I read in the openng paragraph of chapter five.

"A grand strategy is not an "elevator speech." It cannot be slipped in like a password. Its "why" must be inculcated in younger minds so that when they become older hands, these leaders know which levers of power to pull--and when."

Tom goes on to say that he is targeting more that a party or a generation. He is setting the ground work to reach the next rising generations to have a sense of America's "historical purpose--its political soul."

That said, Tom's target market is those Xers's and Echo boomers, and their children, raised in a multi media soup, of rock concerts, 1000 song M-3 players, text messages and surfing the web. His style of writing suits their style of intergrating information. So when someone from an earlier gen, says that Tom risks saying too much, it is because their synthesizing processes can't keep up.

I think we who are frequent readers, and members of earlier generations have upgraded our chips by exposure to Tom's style.

[steve fox]

I don’t believe it’s constructive to frame the core-gap thesis in terms of a mature parent-immature child dynamic. I see it as needless condensation, which is, itself, a display of immaturity, which, in turn, undercuts the argument. It also makes it potentially more difficult for gap readers to take away some positive inspiration from the work if they see the core’s summary perception of the core-gap relationship as insulting. Respect is key for buy-in.

[stuart abrams]

Steve -The parent/child analogy is not with respect to core/gap, it is with respect to old core/new core. In other words, the US fathered, or mothered, globalization, and the new participants (China, Russia, India, Brazil) are our children growing up into the system, much as we did a century ago.

[Jarrod Myrick]

There's no longer any use begging Colbert (a Canadian). Instead, go New media and radio (easy download). The Atlantic now has their own "channel." Yahoo! is a channel. There are only channels; and there are lots of channels. Colbert and Stewart have been memed off upon plenty. The comment at 5:19, though, is perfect.

[Elmer Humes]

I e-mailed the NYT Book Magazine Sunday to inquire when Great Powers would be included & was delighted to find this review today.(Hopefully, the NYT Sunday Magazine will also have a review soon as well.)1/2 column with a color picture on page C-1 & 4 partial columns on page C-7 with Tom's picture & links to excerpts on nytimes.com/books is a great start.The review was typically critical but did recognize several of Tom's "gems" as well as recognizing his earlier books. He also notes the new book "picks up where 'The Pentagon's New Map' left off" which is deserved recognition that this is a major build from your previous books and not a "rehash".Now that I'm almost finished reading the book I want so much that this becomes a best seller both for Tom but also because I hope many American & World leaders obtain these valuable insights & perspective.

[jason]

At 25, I think I'm in Barnett's target audience and have been following his work for a while. Haven't gotten around to reading GP yet, although it's already sitting on my bookshelf.

If I'm anything like the rest of the target audience, I have to say that the parent-child paradigm is unwise. It does indeed come off as arrogant (he's also starting to get really cocky on this blog, but whatever-it's his blog). I find that cultural relativity is high in my peer group, and American exceptionalism is viewed with skepticism whether or not it's justified. And again, I haven't read GP so I don't know how his writing style has shifted, but to date I've been unimpressed with how he handles rebuttals and counterarguments (dismissively or unseriously).

That said (and I hope it will be taken to heart, even if I'm blown off in this forum), his influence is now unmistakable in my writing and he does make some good arguments. I usually just ignore the "America the wonderful" parts and focus on the rational core of his argument-especially the economics.