Patchy, dull and deluded,
This review is from: Cycling: A Philosophical Tour De Force (Philosophy for Everyone) (Paperback)
I was attracted to this book exactly because of it being a collection of essays exploring philosophical issues associated with a broad range of cycling-related topics. I am sorry to say that I was disappointed with it. To be honest I haven't read all of it, but I gave up after reading about half the essays because I have better things to do with my life (like cycling!). Most of the pieces I read took some interesting ideas and issues and proceeded to beat them to death with a surprisingly tedious technique. What finally put the lid on it for me was the piece analysing whether Lance Armstrong's cycling career had been successful in philosophical terms. The final crowning piece of evidence the author produced to back up his argument to the affirmative was that Armstrong had used his talents for the good of others as well as himself, and that this was proven by the way that, in his final Tour De France, when realising he was not in a position to win the race himself he selflessly rode in support of the stronger rider Contador "for the good of the team". WHAT??? Does the author actually believe this? Do the editors think this is a well-considered essay?
Overall, some interesting and thought-provoking ideas but like I said, I was disappointed.