Title: Biased and stupid
Product review: Johnson has written a lengthy character assassination on a very select group of public figures -- people who are too secular, or too left-wing, for his taste. It's quite true that Johnson fashions a definition of 'intellectual' that excludes most conservatives and traditionalists (interesting tactic, that), but he also fails to acknowledge the very different aims and drives of, say, Hemingway and Ibsen on the one hand and Marx on the other. Basically, he took his salacious little gossip-pieces where he could get them.By his writings and his own definitions, Johnson can lay no claim to being an intellectual; that's quite true. But he lied and denied about his own dalliances as enthusiastically as did any of the subjects of his book. His hypocrisies are of a more traditional type, which I suppose is appropriate.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
