Talk:The March of Folly

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why are most of the cited reviews negative?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Did the book really receive a generally unfavorable reception, or is this a misleading picture? (this was added 27 April 2017‎ by 2620:0:1045:f:f9d9:d8bf:b984:9993, the SineBot signature was removed for some reason)

These are the referenced reviews. If someone has alternate referenced reviews they can be added. RJFJR (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

NYRB review: self-contradictory?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The New York Review of Books reacted favorably to the book, stating: "Systems and theories therefore should not be imposed on the past. The facts of the past should be allowed to speak for themselves. Why did history have to teach lessons anyway?" etc.

The quotes read more like a criticism, not a "favorable reaction": she DID impose her theory of folly on the past! Wrongly written summary, wrongly chosen quotes, or am I missing smth.? Arminden (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic