Sarah Kells: Outside Reading Book Review

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/books/review/Berenson-t.html
Book Review: Vanished, over "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo"
By Alex Berenson
Oct 3
The book review "Vanished" over "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" opens with a paragraph about Sweden, where the book takes place.  As the paper morphs into the actual review in the second paragraph, the very different paragraphs are useful in emphasizing the differences that Berenson is attempting to show between the impression of Sweden that Swedes want to portray and the Sweden that Stieg Larsson, the author of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" wanted to show.  The harsh diction of the second paragraph balances the more positive view of the first paragraph.
As the review goes on, Berenson incorporates many different types of syntax into the paper to show the points that he wants to emphasize.  For example, he uses many fragments: "Maybe so," and he opens sentences with conjunctions: "Nor will "Girl"...."  One of the main syntax ideas that Berenson includes, however, is probably the use of present tense.  The entire paper is written in present tense, which seems to make it easier to understand - it makes the book seem more recent and modern compared to how it would seem if the review were written in past tense.  This also allows the action to seem more real and forceful than it would otherwise.  Some examples of this writing include "...Henrik has never gotten over it," "The novel perks up as the investigation gains speed...," and "Salander teams with Blomkvist...."
In this book review, the diction makes the action stand out more than it would in most reviews, and it actually makes the paper an interesting piece itself.  The diction is very fast paced, and although the words themselves are not so special, the way that they work together are what make the biggest difference.  "Murky circumstances," and "violent misogynist" are two examples where the combinations of words give the paper a mature and intense feel.
At the end of this review, however, it takes a sudden turn where Berenson begins to put a negative spin on the paper.  This confuses the reader, because so far the book has seemed to be a very good piece of literature, and the last three paragraphs change this completely.  If Berenson had included some of the negative aspects earlier in the paper, the end would probably make more sense.
Overall, this paper is a well written piece, and it includes aspects that have been discussed recently in AP English such as syntax and diction.  The introduction is very well written, as is most of the middle of the paper, but there is no conclusion at all.