The concept was always unique. These books, mostly from academic presses and mostly in the humanities, have long failed to receive the attention they deserve. There are obviously limits to how many books in these areas can be reviewed in the NYT, NYRB and the LRB and other publications of that type. Yet in the field of intellectual history the quality of the interviewers is highly variable. One must be instantly suspicious of those such as Morteza Hajizadeh who are a fixture in this series, reviewing several titles every month. How can a careful reader do justice to these challenging books? It shows in the questions asked, sadly, and it leaves the interviewee struggling to engage satisfactorily with the questioner.

Great discussions - thanks!

Not sure how a 'grants researcher' for medicine & science qualifies as an interviewer on issues dealing with intellectual & religious history. The bench at NB Network can't be that shallow can it?

The host for that episode asked profoundly dumb question. He almost implied the program was about him and his questions.

Seriously disappointed with the increase in low-quality, poorly-researched right wing apologia recently chosen for inclusion. Differing viewpoints is one thing, but please pick books without easily debunked claims in the book description. I know the standards for conservative and right wing intellectuals are lower, but please don’t waste anybody’s time with this recent quasi-red-scare nonsense

Please improve quality of the audio. Also, the podcast host needs to improve her interviewing skills ,

Love the content, hope audio quality will match it soon.