[Ibogaine] Daniel Pinchbeck's new book in NY Times
mysticalpup_dc at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 20 16:36:51 EDT 2006
Sadly, this is true; if only the people they choose to be critics (or the people with EGOS large enough to assume that their righteous, all-knowing Oz-like, one-size-fits-all opinions are grand enough and on-point enough to make a difference) didn't become so pompous, pissy, prissy, pithy, snide, and etc. in their reviews.
But how wonderful for the so-called critics that so many people actually have to rely on them in order to ferret out the good from the bad. Keeps them rolling in the bread, that's for sure. AND they get in to see the movies for free, the plays for free, the TV screenings for free ... and they even get to read Daniel Pinchbeck's book for free.
How about a poll to see how accurate the critics actually are!?
p.s. Almost didn't go to see Da Vinci Code because of the critics (I heard folks booed the movie at the Cannes Film Festival. What an unexpected surprise to find that I actually enjoyed the movie.
Eye of the Bhogi <freedomroot at gmail.com> wrote: On 6/20/06, Dave Brockman <davebroc at gmail.com> wrote:
Dave, I think you are avoiding the nuance I am trying to draw about the intellectual purpose of book reviews. Personally, I don't have enough increments of $30 to buy every book that triggers my interest. Nor time to read the 1008+ tomes already on our shelves. And I have overdue library fines from every place I've had a card in the last seven years...because I keep thinking space will expand enough to let me finish taking those notes and copying those pages and... But this is the endless dilemma of academic culture: so many words, so many new ideas, so little time.
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ibogaine