Negative Positive
Title: The "Same Olds"
Review: I call Halberstam, Roger Angell, Roger Kahn et al, the 'same olds'--they write the same books over and over--all in their very 'intelligent, high brow, upper eastside of new york, 'style.' BORING, except to those at the ultra-in-the-know, New York Times, where they can never do wrong. Because they're smart--like Al Gore was 'smart'. If you're 'smart', the Times thinks you're better, more informed. But, of course this is not true and that's why we have more boring (I use that word specifically) books by these 'smart' baseball 'minds'. This book says nothing new, has no great feeling...it's halberstam though and it must be good--right? he's so smart! How can you go wrong if the New York Times likes it?
Is the review positive or negative? 