Re: reviewing books
"I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so." Sydney Smith, 1771-1845. Bill > Date sent: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:46:51 -0500 > From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: reviewing books > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gerald Levy wrote: > > >Doug has condemned Gillott and Kumar's book without reading it or even > >seeing a copy. If what is good for the goose is good for the gander, then > >Doug should not object to others who have not read _Wall Street_ from > >condemning it sight unseen. Perhaps Doug will now admit that his > >"review" of books prior to reading is more than a little problematic and > >speculative? > > You're right, Jerry, on the strength of this precedent, I think everyone > should condemn Wall Street sight unseen. Or any other book s/he likes to > hate. It's the holiday season; condemn generously! > > Doug > > > >
Re: reviewing books
Gerald Levy wrote: >Doug has condemned Gillott and Kumar's book without reading it or even >seeing a copy. If what is good for the goose is good for the gander, then >Doug should not object to others who have not read _Wall Street_ from >condemning it sight unseen. Perhaps Doug will now admit that his >"review" of books prior to reading is more than a little problematic and >speculative? You're right, Jerry, on the strength of this precedent, I think everyone should condemn Wall Street sight unseen. Or any other book s/he likes to hate. It's the holiday season; condemn generously! Doug
reviewing books
Doug has condemned Gillott and Kumar's book without reading it or even seeing a copy. If what is good for the goose is good for the gander, then Doug should not object to others who have not read _Wall Street_ from condemning it sight unseen. Perhaps Doug will now admit that his "review" of books prior to reading is more than a little problematic and speculative? Jerry
