Critical discussion authors, if they are not too occupied talking about themselves and their own books (existent or projected), might reasonably be expected to answer three questions or three clusters of questions: (1) What is the topic of the book, what is it about, what is it trying to do, what is its aim, or maybe what does it assert? (2) Does the book meet its aim, does it deliver the goods, is its message correct or insightful or maybe even just valid and sound, is it a good book, should you read it? and (3) What issues, implications and consequences, criticisms and hesitations, insights and originality might direct ongoing conversation and further thinking by the author, by the speaker, by all of us? In short, a critical discussion reasonably might be expected to provide (1) a description, (2) an evaluation, and (3) some further suggestions.
Now, in taking up...
