To review a multiauthored, edited volume is a tedious task. Having to evaluate the views of authors with differing styles, focuses and formats, the reviewer frequently ends up providing a three or four-sentence summary of each chapter sandwiched between a paragraph or two about the book in general. This approach, like cocktail party introductions, has the advantage of breadth and of whetting the appetite of the reader. It, however, often fails to do justice to the individual authors and, in its delirious search for comprehensiveness, risks missing the essential message of the editor as well. A second approach takes the book as a starting point for discussing some theoretical issue and overlooks the specifics of its content. This helps readers to decide whether this book will be of interest to them but does not inform them why this particular volume rather than another should draw their attention. Selectively combining the two approaches, therefore