Often, I think you're too harsh, especially when reviewing articles that don't interest you, on the flipside, you're often overly kind.
Waldman's omnibus book review was a confusing mishmash, which inspired no interest at all in pursuing any of the titles.
At the end, as poorly alluded to as the rest of the piece, I think Waldman was suggesting nothing more interesting than that history is yet to be written for our recent pandemic - a true claim - and, possibly, a nod to the fact that COVID hasn't ended. I don't think she was saying anything deep, let alone commenting on narrative structure or narrative conclusions. But then again, after so much drivel, I think she was in search of a way to wrap it up, so she latched onto something stemming from the last of her readings, believing it to be a clever ending.
Often, I think you're too harsh, especially when reviewing articles that don't interest you, on the flipside, you're often overly kind. Waldman's omnibus book review was a confusing mishmash, which inspired no interest at all in pursuing any of the titles. At the end, as poorly alluded to as the rest of the piece, I think Waldman was suggesting nothing more interesting than that history is yet to be written for our recent pandemic - a true claim - and, possibly, a nod to the fact that COVID hasn't ended. I don't think she was saying anything deep, let alone commenting on narrative structure or narrative conclusions. But then again, after so much drivel, I think she was in search of a way to wrap it up, so she latched onto something stemming from the last of her readings, believing it to be a clever ending.