Book Review

So I said I'd review the book and here I am, doing so!  The book being, of course, Debunked, by Richard Roeper (which was returned to me signed with a personalized message - sigh).  Ok, moving right along.

The book - hi-fucking-larious!  Almost to the point of embarrassment - I couldn't read it in public because I'd kept on bursting into fits in laughter which got some interesting looks from strangers.  (In response to George W. Bush's suggestion to use less gas in lieu of rising gas prices - 'see, here's the funny thing about gas - we need it to make our cars go!')

What I liked best about the book was the format of short 5-20 page chapters - he didn't drone on and it read just like his daily column in the paper (which I obviously read daily).  Something about his writing style - the dry wit,  perhaps, gets the better of me every time.  

However, I have a few potential criticisms of the book.  Richard Roeper and I are on similar planes - politically, so it was easy for me to read because it reaffirmed my own opinions.  However, I don't know that his book 'reached across the aisle', if you will.  In the same sense that I'd probably wince at Ann Coulter's books, I'm sure this book would have that same eye-rolling effect on those who don't share his beliefs.

Second - I can't help but wonder - what is the controlling purpose of his book?  Brief overview - the subject of this book is Richard going after urban legends and disproving them.   He seems to opt to pull the rug out from under the conspiracy theorists.  For some of the topics he covers - the more trivial, such as evian water - or the more non-credible in the first place, such as the Virgin Mary in the grilled cheese, can easily be 'debunked' in a matter of under ten pages.   However, some of the more serious topics, such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina would realistically require almost entire in-depth books in and of themselves to debunk - he touched on a lot of important, interesting points - but it was a brief synopsis of what would be required to really lay the issue to rest.  

Also, he often used improbability as an argument - which, although it has a point to it (if 9/11 was an inside job, how many people would have had to have been in on it, and what are they odds they would have ALL kept their mouths shut?!  almost impossible), it is not completely airtight.   Although it was a great read, I don't know if this was meant to be more op ed (think Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann) than objective news - it is definitely the former; whether or not that was the intention is the question in my mind.  

My final issue - I can't help but wonder, is he against conspiracy theorists in general?  Aren't we taught to not take things at face value; to question everything?   At least, we should be...that's  the only way to overcome misinformation.  I kind of feel he takes a moment to mock the cynics and the skeptics of  the world - the cynics are my people.  Go ahead, take a shot at Catholics, women, Polacks, U of Illinois grads, any other group I potentially could be associated with - but please, please, PLEASE don't mock the cynics.

However, despite my criticisms (how could I not have them;  I'm a cynic, I question everything), I would still say I highly recommend the book.  It's a quick read - I finished it in four work days.  I dreaded when the el came to a stop because I had to put it down.   This was my first Roeper book - I will definitely have to further explore his library.