I know it’s a bit recherch? to review a book review but I read one this morning that I thought was particularly well written.

It’s a review of Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The book is by Vincent Bugliosi and the review is by Thomas Mallon and it is published in June’s Atlantic. You can read the review online and also an interview with Mallon.

It’s an interesting example of the reviewer using a book to talk about their own experiences. It’s also an example of a review that says more about the reviewer than about the book. In this case, it’s no bad thing but I wonder how long this has been happening.

There are two phrases that I thought were particularly arresting:

“In explaining the assassination, the conference’s registrants cast aside Occam’s razor in favor of a Texas chain saw…”

Incidentally, Occam’s razor is very useful. It says “entitia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” or, in English, entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the most likely. Incidentally, In Our Time did a great programme on William of Ockham (their spelling!) a couple of weeks ago.

Another line that I liked is near the end:

“Similarly, in knocking down the conspiracists’ shantytown of constructs, Bugliosi has had to save the village in order to destroy it…”

I think both examples are clever, to the point and entertaining. It’s hard to write like that and too much of it gives me indigestion but a little bit is pure fizz and ginger.

PS This post was typo city when I first wrote it.� Thanks to readers who spotted them.