Two more reviews of my book to report on. First, a nice one of the US edition in the San Francisco Chronicle, which you can find here. Then a strangely ambivalent one in Harpers, who mischievously got David Bird to do the job. Now, I don't know how you'd feel if you were in my shoes. I'd previously reviewed Bird's book on Understanding wine technology for Harpers, and as an honest reviewer, while I was complimentary about the content, I panned the home-spun design and general low budget appearance of the book. Bird was upset and wrote in to Harpers explaining this. Yet Harpers asked him to review my book. I feel like I have a good relationship with Harpers: they were the first to commission my work, and in recognition of this I have written for them regularly and haven't contributed to any of their competing trade titles. This is my first book, and it's important it gets a good reception with the trade - I've been delighted that so far all reviews have been extremely complimentary. Bird's isn't: he has a string of petty quibbles, yet he tries to balance these with positives, and as a result the whole review has a really odd feel to it. It's the nice reviewer/nasty reviewer routine. It's a bit of fun, perhaps, but I'm not sure it's the best tactic for winning friends and influencing people. I'm a forgiving sort of guy, though, but I hope that it doesn't mean that when I next come to review a book I have to modify my content for fear of the tables reversing: I still thing it's best to say what you think.