This is actually a very enjoyable dialogue. It got to some meaty issues and contentions between the Prince (Latour) and the Wolf (Harman), or between actor-network theory and object-oriented ontology. I came away with the sense that, one, these are two intellectuals who deeply respect each other's work. Prior to reading the book, I had listened to the recorded three hour dialogue and smiled and laughed at the amiable atmosphere created by all involved, and I found nothing of that is missing from the transcript (and I couldn't read Latour's words without hearing his agreeable accent and tone). The second impression I came away with is the emphasis that both philosophy and the sciences need each other in some sense. Not in the sense of either providing the other with a kind of necessary "foundation" (there is a nice discussion of just this problem of foundations in the dialogue). No, rather in the sense that both philosophy and the sciences work with actors at different levels of scale and abstraction, and that, if both sides are open, inspiration and insight can happen between both of them. Latour often mentions his productive relationships and readings of various philosophers, or "the wolves," as he delightfully calls them. Harman continually emphasizes how Latour's work provided the precise strengths he needed to compensate for Heidegger's weaknesses. There was also some tantalizing references to Latour's future text on modes of existence and the concept of plasma. Add to this some brilliant and precise questions by some astute participants---some formidable grad students, some sociologists and social scientists, some professional philosophers, such as Peter Hallward---and you have an event both pleasurable and compelling. The participants' questions and comments, which were submitted to the panel for discussion, are nicely included in full at the end of the book.
Now, if only the trolls and vampires of the blogosphere could become like wolves and princes...