I recently read a review of a book (The Kingdom of Speech, by Tom Wolfe) I was already uninterested in, based on other mentions of it on various linguistics-oriented blogs. The book has received a huge amount of attention in the mainstream media as one of those books on "linguistics for non-linguists," and apparently contains an attack on Chomsky's approach to linguistic universals, and challenges the importance of his contributions. It also, incidentally, attacks Darwin. So there's that.
I'm no huge fan of Chomsky, but it's not his theoretical work that has annoyed me so much over the years, but rather his "armchair anarchism," and the seeming hypocritical disconnect between his anti-authoritarian politics and his somewhat dogmatic (i.e. authoritarianish) and unquestionably totalizing approach to his field of specialization (syntax). How does a self-avowed anarchist not see the irony in dogmatically propagating a theory with the a Foucauldian title like "government and binding"?
Nevertheless, and setting aside his academic dogmatism, Chomsky's insights to the field of syntax were revolutionary, and even if they are increasingly being called into question by other linguists, he deserves his reputation. His work has been foundational.
Therefore the review is right on target. It rightly defends Chomsky's intellectual legacy, which regardless of the weaknesses of his forays outside of syntax, should be secure.
[daily log: walking, 6.5km]