Having just read Michael Anton’s review of your book, I think you may have hit a nerve. Two things struck me about his review. At one point he characterizes Straussianism as “careful reading and seeking to understand an author as he understands himself” — but surely this is what Strauss says should be done with the greats like Machiavelli and Hobbes, not just any author. Is Anton leaving a misleading trail or does he count himself as one of the greats? At another point he complains that you ascribe to him a quote by Thomas Wolfe he doesn’t agree with — but doesn’t that basically come straight out of Persecution and the Art of Writing? Quote others saying things you believe to give yourself cover? Is Anton trying to show his Straussian pedigree and writing his review esoterically just because you now have a reputation as a good Straussian reader and he wants to show you up? In any case, it is a strange and woolly review. Congrats on the success of your book. I enjoyed it.
If I do publish a response I will address some of this, they are good questions/observations. On the first I think it’s not quite right to limit the good-faith read to great authors, mainly because you can never know ahead of time who is great. But yeah, at a certain point you do get to make a judgement call and I certainly can’t deny having done that with Anton. On the other point about whether he is being esoteric I have no idea. It is possible but also possible that I just made an interpretive mistake, I will have to look at that bit again.
The danish review is very positive, informative and well written. It is built around your four categories of conservatives, and refers the main thoughts of the most important thinkers in a good way. The review is printed in one of Denmark`s two intellectual weekly newspapers.
I have read your book and enjoyed it, if you can use this word about such a theme. I am norwegian, but we can read Danish without problems. So you are read in Scandinavia too!
Having just read Michael Anton’s review of your book, I think you may have hit a nerve. Two things struck me about his review. At one point he characterizes Straussianism as “careful reading and seeking to understand an author as he understands himself” — but surely this is what Strauss says should be done with the greats like Machiavelli and Hobbes, not just any author. Is Anton leaving a misleading trail or does he count himself as one of the greats? At another point he complains that you ascribe to him a quote by Thomas Wolfe he doesn’t agree with — but doesn’t that basically come straight out of Persecution and the Art of Writing? Quote others saying things you believe to give yourself cover? Is Anton trying to show his Straussian pedigree and writing his review esoterically just because you now have a reputation as a good Straussian reader and he wants to show you up? In any case, it is a strange and woolly review. Congrats on the success of your book. I enjoyed it.
If I do publish a response I will address some of this, they are good questions/observations. On the first I think it’s not quite right to limit the good-faith read to great authors, mainly because you can never know ahead of time who is great. But yeah, at a certain point you do get to make a judgement call and I certainly can’t deny having done that with Anton. On the other point about whether he is being esoteric I have no idea. It is possible but also possible that I just made an interpretive mistake, I will have to look at that bit again.
The danish review is very positive, informative and well written. It is built around your four categories of conservatives, and refers the main thoughts of the most important thinkers in a good way. The review is printed in one of Denmark`s two intellectual weekly newspapers.
I have read your book and enjoyed it, if you can use this word about such a theme. I am norwegian, but we can read Danish without problems. So you are read in Scandinavia too!
Ahh thank you for this!! Much appreciated!
Love all of this for you! Keep on keepin’ on! ❤️