Books to read before you die

On Dec 17, 2:26 am, Dirk Thierbach <dthierb....TakeThisOut@usenet.arcornews.de>
wrote:
> Steve Hayes <hayesm....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:48:45 GMT, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1....TakeThisOut@bigpond.com>
> >>"Derek Broughton" <n....TakeThisOut@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> >>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> [Lord of the *Flies*]
>
> >>>> It was our Rapid Reader course book in English, in Std 8, St, Xavier's
> >>>> School, Doranda, Ranchi, India in 1969. A strange, wrong, book - well
> >>>> written in parts.
>
> >> My classmates found it ridiculous as a whole - looks like the
> >> indoctrination of the concept of evil being inherent in humans did
> >> not make any inroads into their young minds.
>
> Considering that the prevalent idea some time ago was that children
> are "naturally innocent", attributing "indoctrination" to Golding is
> an ... hm, interesting ... idea

Which means, you do not consider it correct?

> And if you have the chance, try to watch some small children. They can
> be very cruel once they discover that they can exercise power over
> others.

There is a certain limit for them, which does not exist for the grown-
ups who have been so indoctrinated along the lines of Golding and Co.
I speak as a person who has had a very happy childhood, who has
brought up two children hopefully the same way, and is married to a
primary schoolteacher who rejoices in teaching small children, with
their lovely, fresh minds.

The limit of cruelty is very low, by adult standards, even for the
wicked small children who have presumably been abused in an abusive
family or social environment. The parents of the small children who
are cruel, are almost invariably nightmarish in character. What
cruelty small kids do, arise from ignorance and not the sort of
viciousness one finds in adults.

As for exercising power over others, only a wretched social system
would empower small kids who could exercise any form of misery over
others.

And this seems to work universally accross cultures, before
> they have had chance to get indoctrinated a lot (in fact, it's usually
> the adults who have to "indoctrinate" them to stop that behaviour.
> But that doesn't seem to work in all cases, unfortunately). Golding
> got this part quite correct, I'd say.

I would not say. You first say "seems" then start to feel pretty
assured near the end of your paragraph. Allow me to sound a
dissenting note.

>
> >> In my case, the parts I liked were those related to Simon, who
> >> stood for research, and thus, when the wrong supernatural elements
> >> in the book are deleted, found out that the reasons for our fears
> >> are unfounded -
>
> And it's the reaction of the other children to this idea that's the
> interesting part. (And if you think of that reaction, maybe it sounds
> now familiar, and you've seen it in other contexts? Maybe even
> recently, when opening your newspaper?

No, not in the least. The newspapers deal of adult behaviour, that of
ill brought of people, usually with bad goals. So I do not take them
very seriously, it is a money making exercise after all, and so, chock
full of sensationalism.

That was the most wrong part of that whole novel (usually a bunch of
harmless non-facts, however these black Golding lies are very devious
and dangerous). I was about 13 when I read it, and it felt most wrong
to me. The children might be scared to see something strange come
down, but most certainly Simon would be recognised and not feared or
killed by the other children. No amount of darkness or fear would
account for their behaviour as given in the novel. There was no way
children could have killed like that out of fear - their first
instinct would be to run away, not surround an kill, an object of fear
that could potentially do great harm to them.

It looks now to me that in this novel, adults (probably abused in
their childhood) are projecting their own wickedness upon small
children, to account for and in a way justify their own ignorance and
resulting wickedness.

> >> ... it is fear for its own sake that is the greatest
> >> enemy, and indeed such was the cause of his death.
>
> Hm. I'd say the cause was not so much fear for it's own sake, but the
> strange effect that happens when individuals switch off their brain and
> turn into a mob -- and in this way actually killing the very thing
> (reason, here in the form of Simon) which could have lessened their
> fear. Tragic, if it wasn't so stupid. Again, any similarities to the
> "adult" world are of cause pure coincidence ...

The mob is "adult" and also ignorant and uncultured when it behaves
evilly. Still, democracy is ultmately based upon mob behaviour. So
it pays to make the population more clever and better, through good
culture, not a set of superstitions based upon fear. Hopefully as a
consequence the mob will be more responsible.

> Do you still think the book is just "wrong"?

After talking to you, I think it is not just wrong, it is unknowingly
the most purely evil book I have ever read. For it conceptually
introduces and in the fashion of inevitability justifies the evil
adults do, by moulding evil into the pure young mind.

Arindam Banerjee.

>
> - Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> "Derek Broughton" <news RemoveThis @pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:3041593.PtQjeHsWea@cedar.serverforest.com...
>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has some strange inclusions, and some strange omissions.
>>>>
>>>> One of the inclusions is "Lord of the Rings".
>>>
>>> It was our Rapid Reader course book in English, in Std 8, St, Xavier's
>>> School, Doranda, Ranchi, India in 1969. A strange, wrong, book - well
>>> written in parts.
>>
>> Wow. You really should check your crossposts before you write things
>> like that.
>
> Oh dear, I usually neglect the crossposts, as I take life as it comes. In
> this case I take it as an obvious issue that the original poster thought
> it meet that all the ngs would be interested in this topic, and wanted
> follow-ups on the topic to be posted to all the ngs. Where am I mistaken
> in taking this approach?

You're not. You're mistaken in trolling: ie, making comments that will be
clearly inflammatory to some of those lists.

>>You're not likely to find much support for that opinion in
>> rec.arts.books.tolkien or alt.books.inklings, and probably not even in
>> alt.books.cs-lewis.
>
> Why? It is religion to them, or what? I mean, is it a matter of faith to
> them that Golding is scripture,

Golding? You really need to be more careful who you're criticizing. "Lord
of the Rings", not "Lord of the Flies"! Still if you'd made the same
comment on a Golding group, I'd call it inflammatory.

>> "Strange" is OK, but "wrong" is quite wrong, and it's true that it's well
>> written in parts, but those are _all_ the parts.
>
> Wow, what support for Golding! I must say that I was being rather kind to
> Golding. My classmates found it ridiculous as a whole

Since we _are_ now discussing Golding, I'd suggest that the evidence of the
effect of _making_ the movie of /Lord of the Flies/ on the children
involved suggests that Golding was right on the mark. They turned into
little savages.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

On Dec 18, 2:18 am, Derek Broughton <n... RemoveThis @pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > "Derek Broughton" <n... RemoveThis @pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> >news:3041593.PtQjeHsWea@cedar.serverforest.com...
> >> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> >>>> It has some strange inclusions, and some strange omissions.
>
> >>>> One of the inclusions is "Lord of the Rings".
>
> >>> It was our Rapid Reader course book in English, in Std 8, St, Xavier's
> >>> School, Doranda, Ranchi, India in 1969. A strange, wrong, book - well
> >>> written in parts.

Here I was wrong. I should have written "Lord of the Flies" by
Golding. That was our rapid reader, and certainly the worst ever book
taught to us in our school (St. Xavier's School, Doranda, Ranchi,
Bihar, India). Wel, the competition was "Pygmalion", "Julius Ceasar",
"A Choice of Poets (including Blake, Keats, Hardy, Eliot, Hopkins,
Thomas, Frost) and a book of selected modern short stories (with
writers like Malamud - I remember his name because it was somewhat
interesting!)

> >> Wow. You really should check your crossposts before you write things
> >> like that.
>
> > Oh dear, I usually neglect the crossposts, as I take life as it comes. In
> > this case I take it as an obvious issue that the original poster thought
> > it meet that all the ngs would be interested in this topic, and wanted
> > follow-ups on the topic to be posted to all the ngs. Where am I mistaken
> > in taking this approach?
>
> You're not. You're mistaken in trolling: ie, making comments that will be
> clearly inflammatory to some of those lists.

So the whole idea behind posting in Usenet is to make comments that
will not be clearly inflammatory to anyone who may be listening? How
can one know that in advance? I mean, it takes all sorts to make a
world, and definitely not all will agree to what is said, unless we
talk utterly inane stuff. I believe that Usenet (which values
originality of expression) suggests that the best one can do is to
write one's honest thoughts on the topic, under one's own name, and
thus taking full resonsibility for what is written, while all the time
adhering to the posting conditions and conventions that one has to
adhere to when having the posting privileges. According to the
original poster, I have written on topic to the subject he raised, so
what is *your* problem really? I have already admitted that I made a
mistake by confusing the word "rings" with "flies" - and there was a
reason for that, for Golding was being discussed in the thread.

> >>You're not likely to find much support for that opinion in
> >> rec.arts.books.tolkien or alt.books.inklings, and probably not even in
> >> alt.books.cs-lewis.
>
> > Why? It is religion to them, or what? I mean, is it a matter of faith to
> > them that Golding is scripture,
>
> Golding? You really need to be more careful who you're criticizing. "Lord
> of the Rings", not "Lord of the Flies"! Still if you'd made the same
> comment on a Golding group, I'd call it inflammatory.

So in a Golding group all they do is praise Golding like he is the
Lord God, well and far beyond criticism? Does that also happen in the
Tolkien groups? Well, if such is so, then these are groups to be
avoided! Certainly I do not intend to cause any misery to anyone
their with my new thoughts that they cannot digest.

> >> "Strange" is OK, but "wrong" is quite wrong, and it's true that it's well
> >> written in parts, but those are _all_ the parts.
>
> > Wow, what support for Golding! I must say that I was being rather kind to
> > Golding. My classmates found it ridiculous as a whole
>
> Since we _are_ now discussing Golding, I'd suggest that the evidence of the
> effect of _making_ the movie of /Lord of the Flies/ on the children
> involved suggests that Golding was right on the mark. They turned into
> little savages.

And why not, since that is exactly what they were intended to be by
the makers!
> --
> derek- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> So in a Golding group all they do is praise Golding like he is the
> Lord God, well and far beyond criticism? Does that also happen in the
> Tolkien groups?

There's nothing wrong with criticism, but saying a book is "wrong" is not
criticism, it's trolling.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

On Dec 19, 12:35 am, Derek Broughton <n... DeleteThis @pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > So in a Golding group all they do is praise Golding like he is the
> > Lord God, well and far beyond criticism? Does that also happen in the
> > Tolkien groups?
>
> There's nothing wrong with criticism, but saying a book is "wrong" is not
> criticism, it's trolling.
> --
> derek

Of course there is everything wrong with criticism from the point of
view of a cultist who finds his cult criticised. Saying a book
(presumably, a secular work, a work of fiction, a novel, so nothing
apparently religious on the surface) is "wrong" amounts to a brief
criticism of it. None other than a cultist could be offended by such
criticism. Evidently, others who have received my detailed
explanation of my initial criticism, after challenging me about it in
an inquiring and certainly not offensive frame of mind, did not feel
it necessary to resort to personal attacks as a result of such initial
criticism from my part. This just shows us, as I said earlier, that
it takes all sorts to make a world! Some people are insecure and
touchy, others are not. So what are you going to do next, declare a
fatwah against me or what?
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

>
> I've read 19 of the 30 listed in my blog below:
>
> http://methodius.blogspot.com/2007/12/books-to-read-before-you-die.html
>
> How many have you read, and can you think of better choices?
>
>

I've only read 10 of them. There were only a few others I'm interested
in reading. I would put Mark Helprin's /Winter's Tale/ on the list,
Dostoyevski's /Crime and Punishment/ belongs there too.

--
Paul M. Dubuc

http://paul.dubuc.org
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

"Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234.RemoveThis@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:21a3d8cf-f8f2-45f0-8edb-855ff79bf35d@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 17, 2:26 am, Dirk Thierbach <dthierb....RemoveThis@usenet.arcornews.de>
> After talking to you, I think it is not just wrong, it is unknowingly
> the most purely evil book I have ever read. For it conceptually
> introduces and in the fashion of inevitability justifies the evil
> adults do, by moulding evil into the pure young mind.

Interesting. The book haunts me still these many years after having read
it; I've always wondered if that is truly the way children would behave. A
larger issue is how that book may have influenced my generation as parents:
namely, to take children seriously as having a conscienceness influenced
perhaps, but apart from their parents.
Of course Lewis' take was kinder and I think more realistic towards children
and their behavior in strange situations. He depicted good and less useful
behavior, but the good in children far outshines the bad in his Narnia
series.
In retrospect, Golding's pessimism is horrific. It seems to have said, kids
are basically bad, which in turn may have had the result of parents
accepting that children will do these things- boys will be boys, kind of
thing.
The entire subject of the influence of children's literature makes for great
discussion. What _is_ good for children to read? And their adult parents
along with them, now that I think of it?
Blessings,
Ann


>
> Arindam Banerjee.
>
>>
>> - Dirk
>
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

"Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234.RemoveThis@bigpond.com> wrote in message >
> Of course there is everything wrong with criticism from the point of
> view of a cultist who finds his cult criticised.
And:
>Evidently, others who have received my detailed
> explanation of my initial criticism, after challenging me about it in
> an inquiring and certainly not offensive frame of mind, did not feel
> it necessary to resort to personal attacks as a result of such initial
> criticism from my part.

You have it right on this, Arindam. Don't be put off. I enjoyed your post,
even though I was surprised to find it on alt.books.cs-lewis!
Blessings,
Ann
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

On Jan 22, 7:30 am, Troels Forchhammer <Tro....TakeThisOut@ThisIsFake.invalid>
wrote:
> In message
> <b7b64189-a423-4344-9a47-f60b4fb71....TakeThisOut@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> Arindam Banerjee <adda1....TakeThisOut@bigpond.com> spoke these staves:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> First a thank you to Ann for bringing this back up
>
> And since we're having all these cross-posts (and I don't know where
> Arindam is posting), I'd better hurry to say that I usually haunt the
> Tolkien groups.
>
> > Saying a book (presumably, a secular work, a work of fiction, a
> > novel, so nothing apparently religious on the surface) is "wrong"
> > amounts to a brief criticism of it.
>
> Would you consider that what could be a 'brief criticism' of one work
> might be considered derogatory if applied to another work?

That would depend upon the validity. We are discussing fiction here,
not fact. Fact cannot be declared wrong, if there is honesty
allowed. However fiction too can be declared "wrong" if it does not
satisfy: as there is inconsistent logic, or unconvincing portrayals.

> When applied to Golding, I presume that you mean that you find the
> basic premise of the book to be wrong? (I haven't actually read it,
> but I know the very basics of the plot -- enough to interpret your
> statement in this way and to disagree with the dismissiveness of the
> statement, even if I don't find the premise 'correct').

Yes. Children do not fight what they fear, they run away from fear.
Fighting fear is very much an adult exercise. I would say, that is
what distinguishes an adult from a child. Thus the killing of Simon
was not convincing.

> Tolkien's work is in many ways fundamentally different from
> Golding's, and simply dismissing it as 'wrong' doesn't really make
> sense (to me, at least).

Look, may I repeat, I confused a work of Tolkien with Golding, and had
Golding in mind, never Tolkien. I have not read Tolkien, and I cannot
make any judgment of his work one way or the other. I regret the
error, yet hold that much has already been made of it.

Not that there's anything wrong with
> disliking it (many excellent people do so), but as a criticism,
> 'wrong' would, in itself, be wrong  it would feel like dismissing
> all fantastic literature as 'wrong' simply because it isn't
> realistic, which would of course be a complete misunderstanding
> regardless of whether one likes that sort of thing or not.
>
> But I'm really more interested in the general question. My thinking
> goes like this: a criticism intended for one work will, if applied to
> another, normally appear to be misunderstanding the work, and, in
> particular if very brief and sharp, may therefore quickly come to
> appear as an arrogant dismissal by someone who doesn't know what
> they're talking about (something which, in my experience, is likely
> to cause some aggravation).
>
> --
> Troels Forchhammer
> Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
> Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
>
>     If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was
>     standing on the shoulders of giants.
>  - Sir Isaac Newton
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

In message
<b7b64189-a423-4344-9a47-f60b4fb71fdf.DeleteThis@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Arindam Banerjee <adda1234.DeleteThis@bigpond.com> spoke these staves:
>

<snip>

First a thank you to Ann for bringing this back up

And since we're having all these cross-posts (and I don't know where
Arindam is posting), I'd better hurry to say that I usually haunt the
Tolkien groups.

> Saying a book (presumably, a secular work, a work of fiction, a
> novel, so nothing apparently religious on the surface) is "wrong"
> amounts to a brief criticism of it.

Would you consider that what could be a 'brief criticism' of one work
might be considered derogatory if applied to another work?

When applied to Golding, I presume that you mean that you find the
basic premise of the book to be wrong? (I haven't actually read it,
but I know the very basics of the plot -- enough to interpret your
statement in this way and to disagree with the dismissiveness of the
statement, even if I don't find the premise 'correct').

Tolkien's work is in many ways fundamentally different from
Golding's, and simply dismissing it as 'wrong' doesn't really make
sense (to me, at least). Not that there's anything wrong with
disliking it (many excellent people do so), but as a criticism,
'wrong' would, in itself, be wrong it would feel like dismissing
all fantastic literature as 'wrong' simply because it isn't
realistic, which would of course be a complete misunderstanding
regardless of whether one likes that sort of thing or not.

But I'm really more interested in the general question. My thinking
goes like this: a criticism intended for one work will, if applied to
another, normally appear to be misunderstanding the work, and, in
particular if very brief and sharp, may therefore quickly come to
appear as an arrogant dismissal by someone who doesn't know what
they're talking about (something which, in my experience, is likely
to cause some aggravation).

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was
standing on the shoulders of giants.
- Sir Isaac Newton
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

On Jan 22, 1:28 am, "AJA" <ahnem....DeleteThis@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1....DeleteThis@bigpond.com> wrote in message >
> > Of course there is everything wrong with criticism from the point of
> > view of a cultist who finds his cult criticised.
> And:
> >Evidently, others who have received my detailed
> > explanation of my initial criticism, after challenging me about it in
> > an inquiring and certainly not offensive frame of mind, did not feel
> > it necessary to resort to personal attacks as a result of such initial
> > criticism from my part.
>
> You have it right on this, Arindam.  Don't be put off.  I enjoyed your post,
> even though I was surprised to find it on alt.books.cs-lewis!
> Blessings,
> Ann

Well, it *is* rare for me to get much support in Usenet. People who
can figure out what I am trying to say are indeed rare.

I hope and believe you will enjoy the following sites:

www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/index.htm
www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/HP.htm

With best wishes,

Arindam Banerjee.
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

>
> Tolkien's work is in many ways fundamentally different from
> Golding's, and simply dismissing it as 'wrong' doesn't really make
> sense (to me, at least). Not that there's anything wrong with
> disliking it (many excellent people do so), but as a criticism,
> 'wrong' would, in itself, be wrong  it would feel like dismissing
> all fantastic literature as 'wrong' simply because it isn't
> realistic, which would of course be a complete misunderstanding
> regardless of whether one likes that sort of thing or not.

While as a matter of principle I stick to writing complete and
balanced fact (as part of my search for truth) and not fiction, the
question of realism is something quite different from fact or
fiction! From the very little criticism I have managed to glean for
my literary efforts, from the general public, I have got the
impression that they think what I write is unrealistic and arrogant;
in any case - it just cannot be! See, there are two styles to
writing. One is that you lead a lucky, wonderful life, and write
about same when the mood comes, and time permits, while evading wifely
interventions. Or you just imagine. I am lucky that I do not need to
write fiction, call me whatever you like!

I don't know about Tolkien, but I have seen one of the Tolkien films
and my impression is that he wrote about adult behaviour. Unlike
Golding. In my class the teacher said that Golding knew about
children because he was a schoolteacher. But when did we Std. 8 kids
ever acknowledge that the teachers understood us? I was once a
ringleader of a move to mass-boycott class, because we felt two of our
friends had been wrongly punished. We all got into trouble for that.
The teaching staff never expected this behaviour from us, which shows,
fat lot they knew about the behaviour of 13 year olds.

> But I'm really more interested in the general question. My thinking
> goes like this: a criticism intended for one work will, if applied to
> another, normally appear to be misunderstanding the work, and, in
> particular if very brief and sharp, may therefore quickly come to
> appear as an arrogant dismissal by someone who doesn't know what
> they're talking about (something which, in my experience, is likely
> to cause some aggravation).

Perfectly correct. Usually I am at the receiving end of such
criticism, when I prove that Einstein's theories of relativity are
nonsense as they are based upon wrong experimental analysis, and that
the law of conservation of energy is valid only in certain special
cases - generally speaking, the undeniable fact of the continuous
energy from the sun and stars and earth reduces that to absolute
rubbish! People who are expected to know, do not even attempt to
argue with me and just say that I am wrong. So much easier, to do
that, you see. But who pays for such blindness? The main opposition
that I have to my work on the Hydrogen Transmission Network which will
solve the world's energy and water issues comes from the scientists
who know that their cherished theories will be completely upset if my
work gets publicity. They would much rather have global warming,
hunger, war, etc. rather than do anything really good. Check out

www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/HP.htm

and let me know how you personally would like to address the issues I
have presented there.

Arindam Banerjee.


>
> --
> Troels Forchhammer
> Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
> Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
>
>     If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was
>     standing on the shoulders of giants.
>  - Sir Isaac Newton
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Troels Forchhammer wrote:

>In message
><b7b64189-a423-4344-9a47-f60b4fb71fdf.TakeThisOut@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Arindam Banerjee <adda1234.TakeThisOut@bigpond.com> spoke these staves:
>>
>> Saying a book (presumably, a secular work, a work of fiction, a
>> novel, so nothing apparently religious on the surface) is "wrong"
>> amounts to a brief criticism of it.
>
>When applied to Golding, I presume that you mean that you find the
>basic premise of the book to be wrong?

I took him to mean "morally wrong". It seemed to me that he found the
premise of the book distasteful, not just factually incorrect.
Apparently, I took him wrong.

>a criticism intended for one work will, if applied to
>another, normally appear to be misunderstanding the work

Ooh, let's play! I'm also posting from RABT, so let's google up some
book reviews and see if they can apply to The Lord of the Rings.

The first google hit on "brief book review" starts out like this:

amanda bright@home, by Danielle Crittenden (Warner, 368 pp., $23.95)

In this charming novel, Danielle Crittenden gives us
a year in the life of Amanda Bright: mother of two, wife
of Bob Clarke, and resident of Washington, D.C. Amanda
is a graduate of Brown who gave up her career to stay
home with the kids. Bob is a Justice Department lawyer.
His public-sector job is a source of pride for them, but
also the cause of their money shortage.

Hoom. Not much grist there: it's just too obvious that this is not
about our book at all! Try again: the third link at the third google
hit: here's the third paragraph:

Incidentally, the expense of sending long messages over
slow international links led to the practice of using codes
to shorten the length of messages -- just as compression is
used on slow links today. There was even an example of pricing
by bandwidth, in France: Local messages, which could use the
high-bandwidth pneumatic tubes were charged at a single rate
for a complete message, vs. long distance messages that were
charged per character transmitted.

Nope: still doesn't work!

I think my conclusion is that if a review can possibly, for even the
briefest moment (say one full paragraph) be confused for a review of
some other work, it is a very, very poorly-written review.

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Who could have forseen that Usenet would sink into a morass
of mindless gibberish." -- Sean Q
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die