Hmmm, seems strange to me that you both would independently come to that conclusion.
Joker Send a noteboard - 17/09/2009 08:10:11 PM
It'd be one thing if it were a well-written, well-argued negative review of the book, but that review was mostly summary and very little analysis of what made it a poor novel.
It's not supposed to be a scholarly article.
Just sayin'.
Is there some secret board where fans of this novel meet to discuss how best to refute negative reviews? IS ROBERT STANEK INVOLVED???
The Magicians by Lev Grossman
- 14/09/2009 07:50:28 AM
690 Views
USA Today LAMBASTED this novel. *NM*
- 15/09/2009 07:42:28 PM
203 Views
That was a rather poor review of the book
- 15/09/2009 09:59:27 PM
415 Views
It's a newspaper review... it's supposed to summarize and maybe analyze a little.
- 17/09/2009 02:07:37 AM
413 Views
It's still a poorly done review, even for a newspaper review.
- 17/09/2009 04:28:15 PM
403 Views
Hmmm, seems strange to me that you both would independently come to that conclusion.
- 17/09/2009 08:10:11 PM
443 Views
I know the difference
- 17/09/2009 05:55:46 PM
474 Views
You should apply at USA Today. Show 'em a thing or two!
- 17/09/2009 08:08:39 PM
467 Views
Why not Publishers Weekly?
- 17/09/2009 10:24:57 PM
371 Views
Well, I have a big penis.
- 18/09/2009 04:42:41 AM
397 Views
Junk Comparing Competition. I can see I have accomplished everything I wanted with this review 
- 18/09/2009 06:05:41 AM
376 Views
- 18/09/2009 06:05:41 AM
376 Views
That's basically what it comes down to whenever anyone disagrees with Larry.
- 20/09/2009 12:39:32 AM
419 Views
Well, I didn't like The Grapes of Wrath or The Old Man and the Sea...
- 23/09/2009 05:37:14 PM
498 Views