hcq's review
3.0
Like many collections, it's a bit uneven, but it gets much, much better after a weak start.
Disclaimer: I don't like travel writing, in general, so any travel essay has a strike against it going in. That said, those are by far the weakest essays in the book (my husband gave up in the midst of them, and he likes both travel writing and Buckley, so really, they're pretty bad). Buckley also mentions a lot of meals, but doesn't describe them, which makes for very dull reading. "Then we went here, and ate this, and then we went there, and ate that," is not interesting. There's some great food writing out there, which can be evocative and fun, but this is not it.
He also has an unfortunate habit of name-dropping, which is even duller (except for the piece on how to do it, which is perversely rather good).
Happily, Buckley hits his stride when he's writing about other writers he knows and admires, though. There were a couple of pieces on Joseph Heller, for example, which worked surprisingly weIl; instead of coming off as repetitious, it provided some depth and and a sense of continuity and connection, which was great. Buckley's affection for him came through clearly, and it seems both understandable and charming. Come to think of it, too, it's not just other writers; he's also quite good when talking about the elder George Bush, whom he clearly admires very much.
There was also an excellent bit on how to write witty email, in which he used a book about the history of telegrams as a launching pad for some genuinely funny work, and a great description of memorable social faux pas in history.
It's interesting; Buckley originally came up as a comic writer, but the straight-up comic pieces often felt a bit strained. He was at his funniest in the essays that grew organically out of broader topics, like the faux pas. Maybe it's a sign of him mellowing/maturing?
Disclaimer: I don't like travel writing, in general, so any travel essay has a strike against it going in. That said, those are by far the weakest essays in the book (my husband gave up in the midst of them, and he likes both travel writing and Buckley, so really, they're pretty bad). Buckley also mentions a lot of meals, but doesn't describe them, which makes for very dull reading. "Then we went here, and ate this, and then we went there, and ate that," is not interesting. There's some great food writing out there, which can be evocative and fun, but this is not it.
He also has an unfortunate habit of name-dropping, which is even duller (except for the piece on how to do it, which is perversely rather good).
Happily, Buckley hits his stride when he's writing about other writers he knows and admires, though. There were a couple of pieces on Joseph Heller, for example, which worked surprisingly weIl; instead of coming off as repetitious, it provided some depth and and a sense of continuity and connection, which was great. Buckley's affection for him came through clearly, and it seems both understandable and charming. Come to think of it, too, it's not just other writers; he's also quite good when talking about the elder George Bush, whom he clearly admires very much.
There was also an excellent bit on how to write witty email, in which he used a book about the history of telegrams as a launching pad for some genuinely funny work, and a great description of memorable social faux pas in history.
It's interesting; Buckley originally came up as a comic writer, but the straight-up comic pieces often felt a bit strained. He was at his funniest in the essays that grew organically out of broader topics, like the faux pas. Maybe it's a sign of him mellowing/maturing?
More...