I was listening to this today on NPR. It's a segment pondering what reviews the 'classics' (ah, the classics, ah the canon) would have gotten when they first came out. It's an interesting notion, but it gives me an entirely large procrastination project. Now, I want to go look up some of these 'classics' and find out what people have to say about them.
Anyhow, here's one of Queenan's 'reviews' for Deuteronomy:
"Deuteronomy," for example. Average reader's rating: three stars. I don't get it, Queenan's fanciful reviewer posts. I've read most of the books in this series and they totally kick butt, but this one leaves me scratching my head. Is there a story here? Am I missing something? Why so much talk about clean and unclean beasts? The author really got on a roll with "Genesis" and "Exodus," and I was on the edge of my seat when I read "The Book of Numbers." But this one runs out of gas early. Now, I'm glad I skipped "Leviticus."
Now, I'm off to explore the depths of amazon (huh).
---------------------------------------
P.S. Here's the Wall Street Journal article. The comments, so far, are...interesting.
Posts
1 comments:
A lot of the *classics* were poorly received. Moby Dick was universially panned and Melville died penniless.
Of course Charles Dickens was loved,and I can barely stand his stuff now, so... who's to say?
Post a Comment