The Motley Fool website likes to probe in to all aspects of stock markets and financial planning, but should they review books?
Finding the Next Starbucks by Michael Moe has been out for a little while now, and Tom Tualli has finally got his copy. Mr. Tualli admits in the beginning his bias for the book and its genre. He also points out that the author has earned respect in the field of economics and analysis. It’s also apparent that Mr. Tualli is an expert as well easily detailing Mr. Moe’s qualifications and his subsequent arguments.
Mr. Tualli lets Mr. Moe do most of the work for him. The brunt of the article is simply a summary of the book and its advise on finding that winning stock. At the very end of the review is an actual criticism of Mr. Moe and the fact that he seems to the book poorly with “fuzzy” information backing up the reasons for actual inning companies.
The article is seriously lacking in any critical thinking about the actual book itself such as format and structure, but there is a strong apparent admiration for the proposals made and the tools given to pick a good stock. In the end Mr. Tualli does what every review should do and says that the book is worth reading.
But this review was not. To answer the above question, The Motley Fool should stick with reviewing companies and not books.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
I enjoy stories told in the graphic mediums. I like art, films and comics /graphic novels. I am also a fan of old Anglo-Saxon Poetry(I am very complex). That is why i was intrigued to read the in the Sunday Times Book Review that there was a review of three new graphic interpretations of the classic Beowulf.
Charles McGrath, the reviewer, starts simply enough wit an explanation of what Beowulf is and why it is still around today. It is not the most exciting introduction but it serves the piece and is much more informative than other first paragraphs. The review continues to tell of the key elements of the story such as the hero and the three monstrous villains.
As if the reader would need to know, McGrath tells us that the story of Beowulf as been retold many times in various forms from books to art to comic books. Here is where the review actually begins to review Gareth Hinds' Beowulf . McGrath praises Hinds for hos artistic style which grows darker as the comic moves from chapter to chapter and comments on the the way the characters are rendered in appropriate modern archetypes; Grendel looks like the "monster from alien and Beowulf is the perfect hero like "Captain America or Green Arrow" McGrath also praises the translation used (A.J. Church)and the choreography of the fight scenes. It seems Mr. McGrath was impressed with Mr. Hinds.
Next is the review of James Rumford's "Beowulf: A Hero's Tale Retold. This adaptation is referred to as more "realistic," due to its emphasis on what are most likely fictitious images of daily life at the time. it is pointed out that this book is more a novel with pictures than a graphic novel and that the prose accompanying the images are suitable and age appropriate.
Finally McGrath exalts the text of Michael Morpurgo's "Beowulf" while pan the insubstantial art. Mr. McGrath would like us to read this edition, but to ignore the images.
The review was satisfactory. Perhaps because the author was examining what he saw as children's literature, he wrote at a child's level. this is completely inappropriate because i know of no child who reads the Sunday Book Review. It is not clear whether McGrath has ever read the original Beowulf in any substantial translation because he refers to it as a "horror yarn." Then there is the unhealthy obsession withh pop culture references from "Alien" and superheroes mentioned above to the Hobbit. Finally, the word choice was very weak and did nothing to express the others views. in the fourth paragraph, he refuses to use the word onomatopoeia when referencing the sound effects used by Hinds only to use the term incorrectly (or at least less well) a few lines down.
As I said above i am a fan of Beowulf and Graphic storytelling. this review made me feel as though I should be ashamed of both. Until I realized that the author obviously did not know what he was talking about.
Charles McGrath, the reviewer, starts simply enough wit an explanation of what Beowulf is and why it is still around today. It is not the most exciting introduction but it serves the piece and is much more informative than other first paragraphs. The review continues to tell of the key elements of the story such as the hero and the three monstrous villains.
As if the reader would need to know, McGrath tells us that the story of Beowulf as been retold many times in various forms from books to art to comic books. Here is where the review actually begins to review Gareth Hinds' Beowulf . McGrath praises Hinds for hos artistic style which grows darker as the comic moves from chapter to chapter and comments on the the way the characters are rendered in appropriate modern archetypes; Grendel looks like the "monster from alien and Beowulf is the perfect hero like "Captain America or Green Arrow" McGrath also praises the translation used (A.J. Church)and the choreography of the fight scenes. It seems Mr. McGrath was impressed with Mr. Hinds.
Next is the review of James Rumford's "Beowulf: A Hero's Tale Retold. This adaptation is referred to as more "realistic," due to its emphasis on what are most likely fictitious images of daily life at the time. it is pointed out that this book is more a novel with pictures than a graphic novel and that the prose accompanying the images are suitable and age appropriate.
Finally McGrath exalts the text of Michael Morpurgo's "Beowulf" while pan the insubstantial art. Mr. McGrath would like us to read this edition, but to ignore the images.
The review was satisfactory. Perhaps because the author was examining what he saw as children's literature, he wrote at a child's level. this is completely inappropriate because i know of no child who reads the Sunday Book Review. It is not clear whether McGrath has ever read the original Beowulf in any substantial translation because he refers to it as a "horror yarn." Then there is the unhealthy obsession withh pop culture references from "Alien" and superheroes mentioned above to the Hobbit. Finally, the word choice was very weak and did nothing to express the others views. in the fourth paragraph, he refuses to use the word onomatopoeia when referencing the sound effects used by Hinds only to use the term incorrectly (or at least less well) a few lines down.
As I said above i am a fan of Beowulf and Graphic storytelling. this review made me feel as though I should be ashamed of both. Until I realized that the author obviously did not know what he was talking about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
