He would typically have read everything by the author under review; his critical method was not so much to dissect the book or build a systematic argument, but to surround it with a dense inventory of fondly, sometimes mockingly paraphrased plot details and quotes, so that a reader could imbibe its ambience... You either like this sort of criticism or you don’t. Actually, I’m mixed. I like the bravura verbal effects (“angels in the meatloaf”!), the playful wit when he’s on a roll, the range of references, the throwaway insights. But I also get tired of the careening, cumulative lists; I yearn for a more straightforward or prioritized analysis. And sometimes Leonard’s prose preens too much and comes off as cute or glib.