So, it's non-fiction mostly because it is reviews? But nearly all the reviews are about fictional literature, right?
Before I posted, to learn more about the NYR I went to their Web site and to their page "About the Review" at
and read.
There, yes, I saw
"Freeman Dyson described the scientist as rebel"
but that's not Dyson's science, e.g., what he did to clean up Feynman's math, what he did in operations research in WWII, etc.
I also saw that they describe themselves as "a literary and critical journal". So, it's about fictional literature.
> Above, you have confined yourself to technical non-fiction
Really, I just gave some examples, but from long reading of HN I do have to conclude that my computer science examples are really typical of some of the best of what is of interest here at HN. So, the "books" of the NYR are not much like the books of HN.
> So the same observation you make about Parks (unconsciously assuming "books" equals fiction) could be made about you.
Not about me but maybe about HN.
I didn't see mention of the Weinberg articles.
Really, the several categories of books, fiction, non-fiction, humanism, literature, etc. aside, the more clear dichotomy is C. P. Snow's Two Cultures -- just two. There HN is firmly in one of these two and the NYR, the other.