I knew nothing about Hopper, other than his painting "Nighthawks," so was initially glad when I came across this book. As for the art, the book is full of color reproductions, which does display the work well. As for the writing, the author seemed to write the most about the paintings that weren't in the book. Fortunately, I could just look them up online. Seeing them after reading their description, I almost thought the reproductions were left out deliberately, so that the text couldn't be compared to the painting. To give one example, he describes the painting "New York Office" as evoking the works of Hans Hofmann for abstraction; the actual painting looks pretty straightforward representational to me. The closest you could come on some of them are the ones about empty rooms - the geometric shapes of the architecture could theoretically be related to the squares of Albers, but solely because they both have polygons in them, not due to any stylistic affinity. The descriptions of the paintings actually in the book seemed more spot on with art interpretation.
Nonetheless, it did give a good overview of his body of work. Oddly, works from over his whole life were interspersed throughout the whole book, instead of chronologically. Even more odd is that I found myself enjoying it by the end of the book - a painting from the 20's would show up, and I'd think, "this looks like his earlier work," and then saw it was when I read the caption. So it was inadvertantly a lesson in identifying the artist's range.
Here's the major negative of the book, which was not the author's fault. The book did give a good account of his life, which in some ways was unfortunate, because Hopper sounds like he was personally a horrible man. The author kept referring to abuses listed by Hopper's wife in her diary and letters, while hinting that some of them were physical. It almost would have been better if the author had been more specific, since the hints make it seem terrible, giving me little room for doubt. If the author was trying to downplay Hopper's offenses, he did not do a very good job. I found myself wanting to like the work, but then not wanting to, because of how awful Hopper was.
So after reading it, I was a lot more ambivalent toward Hopper, but as a book it was a good overview of his art. To learn about the artist it was really good, but I was a bit less impressed with the artist after reading it.