The whole use of the word 're' in the Englischer langgage confuses me. Because 're', to me, when retached to an innocent word, means to 'do again', don't it? So a book reviewer is looking at it for the second time, right, like a Briticher bucher 'revising' their lessons? So a book person who tells most but not all of the plot and then tells most but not all of what they impolitely think of the book, would be a book 'viewer', wouldn't they, now? Or, even butter, a 'Book Warner', as in warning you what is unreceptible and what is useful to that sort of person who might pay attention to someone who has no visible means of support beyond reading books and kvetching about them.

Anyway, any moron can 'review' a book that is real.
All they has to do is plop their buns in an immobile position and flip the pages while staying awake. I think it takes more guts and imagination, not to mention... well, I said I wouldn't mention it, so I won't. I think it takes more creativity to write reviews of books that don't exist and probably shouldn't. This doesn't strictly speaking make them 'imaginary', because all books are 'imaginary' in one form or another, and all 'reviewers' are 'imaginary', regardless of what their ex's lawyer might say.

The Escape Pod Dreams Archive

TonsilRevenge

22.12.05 Front Page

Back Issue Page