Negative Positive
Title: Reads with dumb IR undergrad vibe (pretentious, uninformative)
Review: I read this book a long time ago. It reads like what you might get if you asked a typical IR undergrad's thoughts: short, confused, abstract, littered with unnecessary and oh-so-intellectual neologisms. And the book literally has no point. He does not describe how he came up with his 3 categories of state (pre-modern, modern, post-modern), how we move from one state to another, or just his neo-Whiggish assumption the post-modern (European, of course) state is the inevitable end-product.A waste of time, another piece of waste-paper in the contemporary IR debate. Put it beside the rest of the one-track-minded garbage of Huntington, Fukuyama and Kagan.. (And I think of the Cold War generation of IR writers and intellectuals, Raymond Aron, George F. Kennan, Walter Lippmann, we really are being poorly served!)
Is the review positive or negative? 