"Sounds reasonable."
"So I try reading the New York Times Book Review. Only I can't make heads or tails out of what these reviewers are saying. It's like they're talking in code or something."
So I looked through last week's book review, pulled out some troublesome phrases, and interpreted for my friend. Here then, is the result:
WHEN THEY SAY: THEY REALLY MEAN:
-------------- ----------------
"--Michener's huge, sprawling The first page was too far
work may appear intimidatingly from the last, but I get
large at first glance--" the feeling the author is
hung like a baby's forearm.
"--the result is as It sucked but I learned
exasperating as it is something.
edifying"
"--the whole novel seems to I read it while taking a
exist in a compressed atmosphere" dump.
"--writers are one of the state Oh no, not another Stephen
of Maine's bumper crops" King novel.
"--Even when it is not repetitious It really sucked, and I
the writing is flaccid. " suspect the author is
impotent.
"--one of the dangers in writing Hmmm, what *is* on TV
about TV is--" right now? Cool, that new
Martika video.
"--there are errors of fact" He lied.
"--is problematic" Sucked moose.
"--in a very real sense" In a pig's eye.
"--But the author seems compelled Either the author had
to repeat himself" Mexican food for lunch, or
the author is Billy Joel.
"--restless,clever prose" words that can't sleep but
can solve tricky logic
Problems
"--this small, charming book" no threat to my
soon-to-be-published
magnum opus
"--simply done, yet with a lot see above
of meaning packed into its little
format"
"--pays homage to" plagiarizes
"--is a noted masturbates often and
deconstructionist" with great gusto
-------------------------------------------------------
Hope this helps.