w/r/t the pedantic point, it seems you're a bit stuck in the prison of the literal here. Sure, the books couldn't sit on a real actual shelf, but do they really need to to be understood as books? I got that they were books before I read anything about it and it was a nice little moment. The current configuration allows for three separate moments of understanding: recognizing the symbol, seeing the letters, and then seeing the books. Ultimately, that seems to me like a more rewarding and memorable experience than the letters MITP + color + typeface (no disrespect, Mr. Spiekermann). MIT press's audience isn't stupid, so in my personal opinion hiding a little puzzle in the logo is a nice touch.

I mostly agree with you in your response to the second point. I don't personally find as much fault with the readability issues because the logo would pretty much always be seen in the context required to make it decipherable, but I can understand why one might take issue with that. Ultimately, its important to remember that the logo is neither the brand nor a stand alone work of art. It is only a part of a system.

I think ultimately the pitfall of the don't make me think school of design is that it is susceptible to joyless, by the numbers design but I understand its utility. Also, ironically, one could probably say the same thing about modernist design.

Your article brings up some interesting points and valid criticisms, but I just don't personally agree with all of your values when it comes to design.