His ideas are fantastic. Execution and characterization are spotty. Been a while since I read anything of his, but IIRC, he has a tendency to dip into surrealism or absurdity that feels cringey instead of his artistic target.

In some ways, it's similar to a lot of Golden Era SF. You read it for the ideas, not the story.

I do have a favorable opinion of him and his work. I'd really enjoy Doctorow being paired with a traditional fiction author and both being rode herd by a hardass SF editor.

I find the non-fiction stuff he writes good (e.g. The Internet Con, Chokepoint Capitalism). I believe this book is like that?

I found his fiction, based on the one book (The Lost Cause) I read, to be a bit juvenile in style (as in feels like a young adults kind of book) to the point I didn't quite enjoy it, although the topics are interesting enough.

For non-fiction I've read Chokepoint Capitalism and The Internet Con. The Internet Con was a lot like his online essays, to the point where it felt redundant, but he does good essays so if you haven't read them it's a good way to get around his work. Chokepoint Capitalism was a little more novel (probably in part because he coauthoured). Neither were very dry, which is significant for the genre.

Fiction, I've read Walkaway and Unauthorised Bread. Walkaway is good worldbuilding with both fascinating and bizarre ideas, but I don't think it's good fiction. Unauthorised Bread is a short story available online and is excellent.

I highly recommend the recent episode of the QAA podcast with Doctrow, it's an amazing listen!