I thought the review showed some insight, but wasn't that also done 35 years ago? Also, the first paragraph seemed to be an extremely long-winded way of saying "some people love him, some hate him."
Sort of ranks up there with "water and oxygen necessary to human life."
Further, the declaration in the second paragraph "Organized in a series of short stories..." makes it sound as if Buk broke upon the scene to get his message across and chose the short story to do so. It wasn't "organized in a series of short stories," it's a book of short stories. Period. The review is drawing too many conclusions (positive or not) on a single volume that was never originally intended to exist.
Maybe I'm being too critical. Yes I am, but sod it.
But I suppose it's good to have folks bringing new generations to Buk's work. And the review was well-written, which appears to be increasingly rare these days.