Having heard Simon Sadler deliver a coherent and informed lecture on Archigram in Manchester recently, I was a little surprised to read Murray Fraser's harsh review of Sadler's book The Situationist City (aj 30.4.98). What Fraser says is no doubt true, but does it amount to a reasoned critique of the book? He himself acknowledges the difficulties in producing an academic book on this subject, and then condemns Sadler for addressing the difficulties in a way not to his own tastes. Why does it matter if the introduction is 'apologetic'? More important, why does it matter if Sadler does or does not 'nail his colours to the mast', and why should he declare his support for one school of Situationism as against another?
Fraser seems to attack the book because it does not offer the last word on Situationism, and because there are threads in the wider story which have yet to be weaved in. It is the classic review which criticises what is omitted without properly discussing what is contained.