Second Reading: Notable and Neglected Books Revisited

by Jonathan Yardley

For seven years, beginning in 2003, the Washington Post ran a series of articles by Jonathan Yardley, the subtitle of which included, "the Post's book critic reconsiders notable and/or neglected books from the past." Yardley's criteria for his selections were admirably informal: "books I remember with affection and admiration but have not read in many years, books I would like to encourage others to discover." His choices, as one might expect, were eclectic: Titles by Hemingway, Steinbeck, Dickens, Carson McCullers, and Anne Tyler rubbed shoulders with books on baseball, football, jazz, and film comedy. This trade paperback collects these gems and it arrives with the best possible endorsement: It is reading that will inspire you to seek out some of these classics.

Genres: Books About Books, Nonfiction, Essays, Literary Criticism, Criticism, Reference, Writing

256 pages, Paperback

First published June 28, 2011

About the author

Jonathan Yardley is a book critic, journalist, and biographer, and the recipient of the 1981 Pulitzer Prize for Criticism.

From 1981 to 2014, he was chief book critic for the Washington Post, where he combined scathingly frank reviews with an appreciation for new talent. He championed the early careers of Michael Chabon, Edward P. Jones, and Anne Tyler, among others.

In addition to biographies of Ring Lardner and Frederick Exley, Yardley published Our Kind of People: The Story of an American Family , a wry memoir about his WASP parents. Second Reading , his most recent book, collects the series of Post columns in which he reconsidered notable or neglected books from the past.

Reviews

[Mary Ronan Drew · Rating 5 out of 5]

For a long time Jonathan Yardley was my favorite book reviewer. (He was eventually displaced by Michael Dirda who for years dictated most of my reading.) His column in the Washington Post Book Review section, back when there was such a section on Sundays, was the first thing I turned to in the newspaper.

Yardley has now published a collection of reviews from his column, Notable and Neglected. As a librarian (ret) I love a good bibliography and this is a dandy. Yardley calls it an autobiography of a lifetime reader, and most of the reviews are of “older” books: The Great Gatsby, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, Mr Blandings Builds his Dream House, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, The Twelve Caesars, The Dreadful Lemon Sky. As this short list indicates, the genres are all over the place. The period covered ranges from Roman times to a dozen years ago.

When this book arrived I opened it more or less in the middle and read the review I found there, Look at Me by Anita Brookner. Yardley points out that when she wrote this in 1983 Brookner almost undoubtedly had read The Great Gatsby and the paragraph near the end of the book where Fitzgerald says of Tom and Daisy: “They were careless people . . . they smashed up things and creatures . . . and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

In Look at Me a couple “who could just as well be Tom and Daisy’s British cousins,” carelessly break the heart of the protagonist. Yardley loved the book when he first read it: “I was stunned by it. . . . I have always harked back to Look at Me as the [Brookner book] that most deeply impressed me, as, indeed, one of the best novels I’d read over the past quarter century. So it was with a certain trepidation that I turned to it for a second reading. . . . Was it really as good – even half as good – as I remembered it?

“The answer: It is, if anything, even better.”

He goes on to write a conventional review of the book. But that recommendation, one of the best novels he has read in 25 years, and he has read thousands, was enough to send me to my Brookner shelf and Look at Me is now top of my reading pile. How can you resist testimony like that?

Second Reading contains 60 reviews and another 34 are listed at the end. The reviews for those are on the Neglected Books website. http://neglectedbooks.com/?page_id=315 (Warning, when you click on Roy Blount’s Three Bricks Shy of a Load you get Barbara Tuchman’s The Proud Tower.)

2011 No 96

[Elizabeth (Alaska) · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1981 Jonathan Yardley was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Critciism for his book reviews. You can well expect, then, that these are very well-written reviews. They are also, for the most part, reviews of books he read many times. These are 60 of the reviews originally published in a series of articles he did while working for the Washington Post 2003-2010. Over half of the books reviewed are novels, but there is some non-fiction as well as a couple of short story collections.

One of the things that surprised me was how much I didn't mind the amount of spoilers contained in the reviews. I usually shun reviews with spoilers. I guess I recognized I'd be reading about so many books back to back and that I probably wouldn't be reading any of them for several months at the earliest, that memory wouldn't serve long enough to actually spoil the books when I finally got to them.

His reviews addressed prose, novel themes, and characterization - all the elements that are important to me in a book. He often gave background about the author - and sometimes about other, similar authors or authors who were publishing about the same time or on similar subjects and weren't similar. This latter was very helpful because one of the main reasons I picked up this book was to learn more about books I might not trip over even with the help of my well read Goodreads friend.

The list of books reviewed (and the reviews!) can be found online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

[John Bohnert · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author and I have few books we like in common.
He goes after a favorite author of mine --- John Steinbeck.
That erased the good feeling I had when he goes after THE CATCHER IN THE RYE a book I detest.

[Theresa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I used to subscribe to the Post Book World by snail mail, and enjoyed the columns of Mr. Yardley and Michael Dirda. This is very well-written, with some books I've already read, some I would never find interesting, and some that I put on my tbr. This is not as much fun as reading the actual books, and I think a print book would have served me better than the e-book checked out to my phone, just for the back and forth skimming I wanted to do. Just a little tedious at times.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a terrific find!

I hadn't expected to read this one so close on the heels of a couple of other similar books-about-books, but when your number comes up in the hold queue there's no choice! Yardley's enthusiasm made reading about titles which I doubt I'd ever read myself a real adventure; moreover, he does a good job of alternating between well-known and obscure authors. Definitely recommended!

[Antigone · Rating 3 out of 5]

Literary criticism is not entertaining. It is the mulling of a mind over literary matters. And whom it becomes important to are those who do a lot of reading. A lonely business, reading. Thoughtful reading, especially. Here is a second person with something to say about a book that's been read, books in general, and connections that may have escaped us. I use literary criticism to broaden and, with a good critic, possibly even deepen the experience of reading.

Jonathan Yardley is a Pulitzer Prize-winning book critic who worked for many years at The Washington Post. His long-running column, "Second Reading," revisited books he'd read in years past. This release is a collection culled from those columns, and it definitely broadened my horizon. It did not, however, deepen it.

For example, I was pleased to hear from someone who didn't think much of Catcher in the Rye. I'm not sure how I feel about that novel - it certainly hadn't come to me at the most conducive stage of my literary development - so it was interesting to encounter a lauded critic who didn't have much use for it. I also benefitted from better introductions to Roald Dahl, Anita Brookner, Eileen Simpson and Flannery O'Connor. Still, I can't say the act of reading itself, through the use of these revisited novels as contemplative fodder, has been in any way improved. While he's brought these works to my attention, Yardley hasn't done much else with them. And he could have. And I wish he had.

[peg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed finding out which books and authors Mr. Yardley considers worth a reread.....added several to my list for a FIRST READ!

[Patty · Rating 3 out of 5]

”I also came to realize that all unwittingly I was writing what amounted to the autobiography of a lifelong reader. No one ever told me what books had to be covered in the series. It was left entirely up to me, so I followed my memory and, in many cases my heart.”

I guess that my interest in books about books comes from the same place within me that made me a librarian. I know that I got interested in working in libraries because of the books. (I stayed because of people, but that is a different story.) As long as I can remember I have kept lists of books. Sometimes I have kept lists of what I have read, sometimes what I want to read and even occasionally lists of books that I think I should read.

Now my lists of books reside here in the ether. I make sure that I keep copies of my lists on my computer, but the lists are no longer tangible. I have some of my notebooks from the past and they are hard to part with. However, I like using Good Reads better than paper. My typing is better than my handwriting and my paper lists never generated more suggestions for me like my Good Read friends do.

Enough about me, this is a review of Yardley’s 60 essays about books he has read and loved. I admire his ability and willingness to do this. I don’t know if there are 60 plus books that I would like to reread. Even if I did, my reviews would not be as wonderful as Yardley’s. He has an excellent memory and many of the copies that he read the first time. That means he has his notes from previous readings. That was helpful and made his essays even better.

Yardley says that he ended up writing about his life as a lifelong reader. I think this is what makes this book so wonderful. Yardley had an opportunity to write about books that will probably never come again. So this book is also a history of a period of time – the last half of the twentieth century. Since I lived through this period of time, I found his reviews especially meaningful.

I don’t know how many of these books I will actually read. However, I am very grateful to know why Yardley feels they are worth reading. This was an excellent book.

[John Bellamy · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is a special genre of books beloved to book junkies, and that is the category of books about books. The world teems with talented writers but it requires a very specialized talent to render the books of others irresistibly appealing to a general audience. There has been a modest plenitude of such titles published over the last century, two older personal favorites being Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “Through the Magic Door” (1907) and Robertson Davies’ “A Voice From the Attic” (1961). Notwithstanding the continuing cultural prestige and influence of the “New York Times Books Review,” however, it remains my firm opinion that the two best book reviewers in the country are Michael Dirda and Jonathan Yardley, both of the “Washington Post.” Happily for chronically ravenous readers, both of them have published collections of their literary journalism and I much recommend Dirda’s Classics for Pleasure and Bound to Please. My favorite tome of this type, however, remains Yardley’s "Second Reading", much of which I was fortunate enough to encounter as its successive originally appeared in the “Post” between 2003 and 2010. "Second Reading" includes almost two-thirds of those pieces, and they comprise a generous feast for readers looking for worthy books to discover or reread.
To be honest, I can’t say whether the fact that I agree with almost all of Yardley’s generally unequivocal literary judgments is due to his persuasive and elegant argumentation or simply because I share most of his distinctly conservative and old-fashioned literary prejudices. He likes narrative and story-telling—so do
I—and is likely to wax wittily choleric when confronting hyper-modernist experimentation and fictional fancy work. (Hint: he doesn’t much like Joyce’s "Ulysses", and isn’t afraid to admit it or his loathing for any other of the overrated titles he attacks.) His taste, like mine runs more to traditional techniques and styles, although his abhorrence for sentimentality exceeds even mine. Hence what are probably his two harshest reconsiderations are dished out to a brace of the most popular works by two of the most enduringly popular American writers: Salinger’s "Catcher in the Rye" and Steinbeck’s "Cannery Row." I won’t spoil the pleasure of reading his deft evisceration of both works by quoting any of his delightfully scathing sentences but suffice it to say they are right on the money.
More important than his strictures on some of the most overrated and (mostly) American literary dinosaurs are Yardley’s discerning resurrections of underrated writers and their too often obscure books. Some of the highlights of his rediscoveries include his generous appreciations of J. F. Powers, Allen Tate and William Bradford Huie (I had never heard of him either!) But whether damning the overpraised or championing the undeservingly forgotten Yardley is always a pleasure to read. As with the late Roger Ebert, you may not agree with his judgments but it is always crystal clear as to how he arrived at them. I should also mention this book provides a bona fide treasure trove of titles suitable, if not outright irresistible to book discussion groups.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

How on earth is one supposed to review a book of book reviews. If my reviews are one day collected into a printed edition (ha!) will I be kicking of some crazy infinite recursion of books of reviews of book reviews? It's turtles all the way down.

Anyway, on to the actual book review. I liked it. Jonathan Yardley is a very engaging writer, even when he basically says the same thing over and over and over again. With, I think, three exceptions, his review of a book is as follows. "This book is amazing, it's prose is magnificent, that this book has fallen out of favor amongst the literati is a crime against art and humanity."

And, adding to my cognitive dissonance, I'm not sure I even *agree* with him. I mean, I can definitely get behind hating on Catcher in the Rye (one of the three less than glowing reviews), and I do adore Mark Twain, Roald Dahl, and The Elements of Style. But calling Steinbeck a writer of limited gifts? Yikes! Furthermore, Yardley adores novels of manners which I cannot stand.

One of my personal literary pet peeves is the use of "well written" and "poorly written" as descriptors, without explanation or defense. Yardley's own personal version of this is to present the reader with a paragraph-length snippet of the novel at hand, and then proclaim that the writing's worth is evident. Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no. Everyone notices different things about a written passage, people respond emotionally to different word choices, etc. Yardley is certainly entitled to his opinions (and indeed, I paid for them...) but a little more detailed exploration of the chosen quotes would have gone a long way towards making this book more interesting and less repetitive.

A few other minor gripes: The worst reviews are the ones where we are merely given a plot synopsis, the best, like the review of Fanny Hill give some context for historical importance, underlying themes, literary merit, and cultural impact of a given book. And, although Yardley reviews a single detective story, there is not a single science fiction or fantasy pick (No, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court does *not* count). And Yardley has the temerity to accuse others of narrow mindedness. Sheesh.

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh, how I miss my Washington Post subscription and, no, it's not the same reading the paper online. Tried. Can't. If you're looking for some oldies but goodies, many of which you may've never heard, read Yardley's collection of lively essays praising the "notable & neglected." I'm upset only because my to-read list has grown to such an extent that I may have to rethink this cloning thing.

[Mark]

I love books about books!

[Trina · Rating 4 out of 5]

For every great writer there need to be equally great readers. Jonathan Yardley may be just that, willing not only to read a work once, but also to re-read it seven or eight times. Yardley has been a columnist and book critic for the Washington Post since 1981. He is also the author of six books and winner of a Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism. His reviews of notable and neglected books appeared in a column called “Second Reading.” Idiosyncratic and wide-ranging, these reviews offer discussions of some well-loved books from the past. As “an ardent, constant reader” since the day he was old enough to read, he is unafraid to find merit in books that “the literati scorn.”

One of the great pleasures of reading Yardley is that he doesn’t pull his punches. He smacks J.D. Salinger and Ernest Hemingway around for having written “two of the worst” books in American literature, and finds Louis Armstrong “a remarkably talented writer” who “uses words like he strings notes together, artistically and vividly.” Yardley revisits books that meant the most to him, from the Hornblower saga to the letters of Flannery O’Connor, essays of Nora Ephron, and stories of Peter Taylor that have fallen into neglect or gone underappreciated for too long.

In fact, reading these reviews has a way of making you want to reach for the book to savor it again. Even when he dislikes a writer, Yardley manages to sound fair; the tone is always balanced and inclusive of the reader. In his review of A Moveable Feast, he moves from an autobiographical point of view (“I remember very well its publication in 1964”) to the editorial we (“Thus we find …”) to the neutral, objective tone of critic: “However one may feel about the literary style that emerged from this protracted period of self-discipline and self-denial, there can be no disputing the seriousness of Hemingway’s purpose or the dedication he brought to the task.”

Taken together, these reviews read a little bit like a refresher course in Great Books. They will appeal to many book groups looking for a guide to their own selections. Yardley makes a strong case for why a book captivated him first and then why it’s held up over time. He often tries to set aside his modern, current impressions to see it the way contemporaries might have read a work, like The Great Gatsby, when it first came out. He also manages “to strike the right balance between story and self.”

Fans of the classics will find great enjoyment in revisiting them here. As Yardley says, “I aim to continue on myself, as the pleasures of these books have never dimmed for me.”

Note: Originally published in Foreword Reviews https://www.forewordreviews.com/revie...

[Trevor Seigler · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I got a job as a substitute teacher, one of the pleasures of the job (apart from working with kids) was the down-time that I would often get in between classes, or when the students had an assigned reading time and I wasn't expected to do much more than observe and monitor their behavior. This left a lot of time for reading, but as I soon discovered, getting engrossed in a first-time read could distract me from any shenanigans being planned against me by resourceful kids from a variety of age ranges. So I started re-reading books to ensure that, no matter how much I was invested in the book, I could stop it for a minute or two to mitigate any behavior that would be occurring. So I think I might be the perfect audience for this book.

"Second Reading" is a collection of literary critic and reviewer Jonathan Yardley's column on second (or third, or fourth) trips through previously read and loved books, and the ways in which some returns reaffirm what he thought the first time and some cause him to wonder what he was thinking the first time around. It's fun without being too beholden to in-depth, serious discussions, and part of the appeal is comparing his takes on familiar books with my own (to wit: he's now in his eighties and a white male of a certain generation, too old to be a Boomer but certainly full of some of that curious mixture of entitlement and little reflection on his own privilege as a white male, so yeah. Be prepared for some takes of his that aren't always the best). He's wrong about late-period Toni Morrison, IMHO, and I don't think he's terribly open to the notion that books about feminist ideas are welcome. But for the most part, I think of him as a nice tour guide through a lot of literature, some of it well-known and some of it obscure. I did a little fist-pump when I came across his review of a John D. MacDonald thriller (the Travis McGee series was one of my favorite discoveries last year), and I think he's right about the second-rate Faulkner elements of William Styron's "Lie Down in Darkness."

Like any good literature survey, you'll find some opinions you agree with, but many that you don't. Yardley is an intelligent, intellectually curious reader (even though I don't share his fascination with "how the other, richer half lives," I'll concede that he's right about some great books included here, like Jim Brosnan's "The Long Season"). "Second Reading" might inspire you to pick that book back off of the shelf, or try it for the first time. That's really the most any survey like this can ask.

[Elizabeth du Fresne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yardley and I Could Read Together

It was in the mid seventies when I first encountered Yardley when he was the book editor of the Miami Herald. We are only three years apart in age. I was a trial lawyer in my 30's and a lifelong reader. His reviews often reflected my own opinions on fiction of the time. I became a fan and later followed his columns in the Washington Post. Faulkner is my favorite American author followed by Fitzgerald. He frequently refer red favorably to both and his taste frequently reflected my own. Thus I thought him brilliant. Second Reading collects columns I enjoyed when they came out -- and I deeply enjoyed giving them their own second reading.

[Dee · Rating 4 out of 5]

I discovered John Cheever in this book whom I had only heard referenced in a hilarious episode of the Seinfeld show: The Cheever Letters. I think I’ll check him out. Pretty good book about books overall. Good critic reviews. Not all are positive but honest I believe. But, in spite of the few books Yardley doesn’t care for, he’s still giving readers a chance to judge for themselves.

[KJ · Rating 2 out of 5]

It turns out that Yardley and I just don't have similar tastes. I had high hopes for this book, but the author had very little to say about the books he wanted to discuss. I came away without a strong impression of any of them, much less anything to add to my shelf.

[Terry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not going to read the whole thing, but got about halfway through and found it very helpful for suggesting some other books I'll be reading soon.

Kind of like Dirda's "Classics for Pleasure," which I browsed through last year.

[Jeffrey Gao · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, the totally honest, spot on, and deliciously roasting Catcher in the Rye review is alone reason to recommend this.
I do question his praise of the forgettable not-so Great Gatsby though; What even is a Gatsby?
Overall, a well written and deft collection of book reviews!

[Lorraine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I haven't read most of the books that Yardley reviews in this collection, but seeing where our opinions diverge and coincide on books I have read is interesting. And reading this book has made my to-read list a bit longer. :)

[Bill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Yardley revisits a host of mostly second rate novels from the 40's and 50's. Not my cup of tea.

[A Poste · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some great and thoughtful book reviews. More at www.neglectedbooks.com

Ones I read:
- Notes of a Native Son, by James Baldwin
- The Elements of Style, by William Strunk, E.B. White (really great review)
- Black Boy, by Richard Wright

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book and a joy to read. I really have not finished it "per se" because I keep doing some of my own rereading of it. Very nice selection of writers and books; some well known, others not so well known.

If you'd like to revisit some books that you have read or take a look at potential books to read, this collection is a nice guide.

There is also a website in the book for other second reads that were not included in the book. Highlights include Dickens and Jerry Kramer's book Instant Replay.

[Andree · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this. It's interesting and well done. I haven't read most of the books it discusses (and I probably never will), but I enjoyed hearing about them. Some of the second readings made me want to check out the books myself. A small number I even added to GoodReads. Obviously I don't want to read them all (e.g. I don't care how well written it is, a book about baseball is not going to be something I have any interest in). I didn't expect to read them all. But I really enjoyed the collection.

One observation: It's very American. This is not a bad thing. It's just an observation. Not all of the books are by American authors, of course. But I did find a very high percentage of them were. It was interesting for me, since, as a Canadian, I didn't read a lot of the well, let's call it American canon when I was in school. I've read some, but there are certainly gaps. (I've read more Can-lit and Brit-lit generally, although not by design.) In a ay, I kind of feel like this was a good overview. Kind of a, "Here are some things you might want to look into at some point." Whether I do or not is kind of beside the point.

Another gap that I sometimes felt is the generational one. Again, that's more obersvation than criticism. It's itneresting reading about the author talking about a book that came out in the 60s that he read when it first came out. The result is that there were a couple of these that I really felt like I had no context for. Not a flaw of the book, since it would have been unavoidable given the subject matter and structure of the collection.

I enjoyed most of these, but even if I hadn't, this collection would forever please me for the review of "Catcher in the Rye."

Anyway, this works because Mr. Yardley obviously loves books, has read a lot of them, and thought about each and every re-review. I find that I love reading about books from time to time, and this was a really interesting and entertaining read for me. It definitely expanded my literary horizons, even if just a little.

[Carla · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a lovely little book and so well written. I thoroughly enjoyed this especially the pages on The Great Gatsby , Strunk and White's Elements of Style, and the Bridge of San Luis Rey, which I'd really like to read.

[Colleen Wainwright · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd always thought that, from a book-reading perspective, the very best thing to stumble upon was a list of "Must Read" books from a trusted source wherein one knew and loved 30-40% of the list and hadn't heard of the rest.

After finishing Second Reading, I now know that this is the SECOND very-best thing: far better is finding a book full of beautiful essays from a great lover of books on which ones are worth a re-read. (Because what says "must-read" better than a book one is delighted to read again?)

What's even more fun is that many of these titles are by now-forgotten authors—great, popular writers of their day whose work has, for whatever reason, fallen out of vogue. One's first thought is that anyone whose writing didn't pass the test of time deserves to molder in the scrap heap of literary history, but really, who's to say that some people just didn't have better press? Or luck? Or maybe both? Yardley's "own list of of overlooked and underrated writers is long; in includes in addition to [such writers of great gifts and singular accomplishments as William Humphrey, Dawn Powell, and Jerome Charyn], John P. Marquand, Thomas Savage, Roxana Robinson, Harold Frederic, Elizabeth Spencer, John Oliver Killens and, at or very near the top, Ellen Glasgow", whose memoir The Woman Within he goes on to praise, backing up his rationale with illustrative quotes and incisive critique.

It's a joy to discover a new cache of books to read, but it's no less fun to enjoy by proxy. Even if you aren't moved to read any of the novels, memoirs, or biographies Yardley reviews, you'll likely find yourself curious to revisit some of your own old favorites, or just reinvigorated about reading in general.

[Benjamin Kahn · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book in hopes of finding recommendations, and especially, to discover forgotten writers that I might enjoy. Unfortunately, of the 60 books reviewed, Yardley has only persuaded me to try two or three. Now to be fair, there were a number of books or authors that he praises that I've already read. Still, I found his enthusiasm for most of the books to be non-infectious. There are several reviews where he provides an excerpt of the book as an example of peerless prose, and the excerpt left me unmoved.

I would recommend this book to an American, or someone who's very interested in American history and culture. There are a lot of memoirs by Americans from different walks of life - Louis Armstrong, Benjamin Franklin, Moss Hart, H. L. Mencken, etc. There's a biography of W. C. Fields. There are a lot of works by Southern US writers. Out of the 60 reviews, 47 are American, and I think 21 of those are non-fiction. A lot of his reviews mention "an authentic American voice," "completely in the American grain," "the Golden Age of the American short story," "...this classic, essential, exquisitely American tale" "the personification and embodiment of the American belief in reinvention and in self-actualization." All very interesting, but I'm looking for something with a broader appeal. I tend to prefer fiction as well, so most of the non-fiction doesn't appeal to me.

You do get a lot of autobiography through his reviews. His interest in jazz, in musical theatre, in sports, or at least, in sports writing, are all recurring themes. There are also frequent mentions of his parents and their influence on his reading habits. But in the end, I didn't really find much in his reviews that piqued my interest. A relatively disappointing book.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

I borrowed this from the public library but one could easily have a place to look for ideas about something to read from time to time.

This is a collection of relatively short essays published in the Washington Post Book World - as they appear in this book, they are usually four to six pages. The author is commenting on the pleasures (or lack) of re-reading the sixty books described, but alas I had not read most of them even once.

I had a checklist approach to this book, looking through the table of contents. Had I heard of the author? Most I had heard of, anyway. If I had heard of the author, had I read the particular book described? Or had I read anything by this particular author? Alas I am apparently not very well read because I had read books by less than half of these authors.

I read a selection of essays - mostly those about authors and books I had read, and a few that seemed intriguing for one reason or another. I will order several I have not read from the public library.

The book was exactly what I expected - the essays were not meant to be read sequentially, so I just paged around and read what caught my eye. Generally once I started and essay I would through to the end. They are all good.

The web site Neglected Books has incorporated some of Yardley's Washington Post stories into its site that were not published in the book, however it is not obvious to me how to group them as a set.

[Lisa Hope]

I have been asked to review this. This however is not that review, just my musing so far. The book comes out this month. If you like reading books about books this is good stuff. Really, really good stuff. By turns the reviews are humorous, insightful, accessible, good-hearted and bold. He dares to say what the single greatest work of American literature is, plus what the single greatest American short story is. I won't say which works they are, but you can might be able to guess the first, but probably not the second which is by one of America's finest but most neglected writers. Not only that, but Yardley is also brave enough to take down some sacred cows, two of which I was hoping some one would level. Won't say what those are either. Talk about gutsy, he also admits to liking the word "dis", and is laugh out loud fun about the word "interface." The reviews are not wholly highbrow literature; there are reviews of genre fiction and comic strips, notably the wonderful Pogo.

[Monique · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jonathan Yardley was the book reviewer at the Washington Post until his retirement in 2014. In Second Reading, he revisits books he enjoyed at an earlier time. The authors may have fallen into neglect or the book did not rate as well as some of the better known ones. The reviews were published between March 2003 and January 2010. Yardley is precise and eloquent about the merits of each book and, he weaves in personal experiences or social and biographical comments to situate the book in its period. Fame comes and goes. Some authors are wildly popular in their time and then lapse into obscurity, while others seem able to survive, thanks to the reading public and publishing houses that are willing to continue supporting an author. I will read Poets in their Youth and James Thurber's My Life and hard Times as a follow up to Second Reading. Given my predilection for dead authors, this book is right up my alley. An enjoyable and informative read.