Rating: 
Summary: Wow I thought it was the curse of the Babe?
Review: What an eye opener! However, it did get tedious as he was redundant in his writing and added too much other items other than baseball. A recommend read to all my New England friends who have always claimed how open Boston is to all races. I always thought the "Curse of the Bambino" was too simple of an explanation for the Red Sox for not winning. How about one for the Cubs?!?
Rating: 
Summary: Could have used an editor
Review: While the topic is fascinating, and his use of primary sources (especially the Boston media) is laudable, the writing itself is occasionally brutal. It reads like a first draft. He repeats stories multiple times, and makes assertions that he does not back up. I agree with his thesis and his conclusions for the most part, but he dismisses evidence that doesn't fit his view, and he doesn't really try very hard to determine motives. I was hoping for a "smoking gun" in the long debate about who (probably plural) amongst Cronin, Yawkey and Higgins is responsible for this black mark in Red Sox history. Its mainly just he-said, she-said. If you are interested in the topic, as I am, I recommend the book. There are a lot of interesting stories and first-hand accounts. But you might have to cringe a few times while you are reading.
Rating:
Summary: Could have used an editor
Review: While the topic is fascinating, and his use of primary sources (especially the Boston media) is laudable, the writing itself is occasionally brutal. It reads like a first draft. He repeats stories multiple times, and makes assertions that he does not back up. I agree with his thesis and his conclusions for the most part, but he dismisses evidence that doesn't fit his view, and he doesn't really try very hard to determine motives. I was hoping for a "smoking gun" in the long debate about who (probably plural) amongst Cronin, Yawkey and Higgins is responsible for this black mark in Red Sox history. Its mainly just he-said, she-said. If you are interested in the topic, as I am, I recommend the book. There are a lot of interesting stories and first-hand accounts. But you might have to cringe a few times while you are reading.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Topic but writing gets in the way
Review: While this book is about an important topic - racism in the Red Sox organization and baseball in general - it is so poorly written that the writing gets in the way of the ideas.I cannot believe that the other reviewers actually read the book!
Rating: 
Summary: Very poorly written
Review: Without repeating verbatim what A Reader from Colorado wrote (which would be ironic!), it bears repeating that this is a very poorly written book. The research is a good start, the stories compelling, the historical links... well, those are a bit lacking. There is precious little on Boston as a city and its long and rich racial history. Page after page discussing Peter Gammoms is a bit tedious, given why the reader picks up the book (especially given Gammons's writing, which I always find a bit tedious, too). Bryant also fails to utilize any modern analysis tools to back up his thesis (e.g., statistical models for analyzing player performance), an odd choice given his thesis that objectively good players are mishandled for reasons based on race. This isn't necessary, but just another way that Bryant fails to utilize the tools available. In all, it's a good start to a story that should be told by a better writer or a writer with a better editor. Hopefully, this will be the start of something larger. I found the book worth reading because no one else tells the story that should be told, but not because Bryant tells the story very well.
Rating:
Summary: Very poorly written
Review: Without repeating verbatim what A Reader from Colorado wrote (which would be ironic!), it bears repeating that this is a very poorly written book. The research is a good start, the stories compelling, the historical links... well, those are a bit lacking. There is precious little on Boston as a city and its long and rich racial history. Page after page discussing Peter Gammoms is a bit tedious, given why the reader picks up the book (especially given Gammons's writing, which I always find a bit tedious, too). Bryant also fails to utilize any modern analysis tools to back up his thesis (e.g., statistical models for analyzing player performance), an odd choice given his thesis that objectively good players are mishandled for reasons based on race. This isn't necessary, but just another way that Bryant fails to utilize the tools available. In all, it's a good start to a story that should be told by a better writer or a writer with a better editor. Hopefully, this will be the start of something larger. I found the book worth reading because no one else tells the story that should be told, but not because Bryant tells the story very well.
|
