Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): I really wanted to like this book . If Julia Glass had not set the bar so high with Three Junes, I would have given the book 3 stars instead of 2.  There are sentences, paragraphs, even pages of brilliance in this book, but it is as if winning the National Book Award gave Ms. Glass unconditional confidence in her writing, and character development in particular.  She seemed out of touch with the major demographics the narrative slings around.  As another reviewer wrote, the writing process seemed transparant.  Reading the book, you get the feeling that the characters are what Ms. Glass (a privileged white woman of a certain age) imagines teenagers, or New Mexicans, or black chauffeurs, or Hispanic nannies, or even gay people to be like.  She is like a tourist who voyeuristically delights in other cultures without really understanding them.  The teenagers and the Santa Fe inhabitants are the most painful examples of caricatures.  Greenie might be the most believable, and although I understood why she was falling out of love with her gloomy Alan, I wasn't sucked along with her when she falls in love with "the other Charlie".  He was only very mildly interesting and certainly not worth (even temporarily) losing your child over.  With Saga, she manages to develop her most sympathetic character, but Saga's life is left floating and unresolved at the end.  Even the brief appearance of Fenno, who I loved in Three Junes, lacked intensity and seemed gimmicky.  All and all, a very disappointing second novel.  You have to wonder, since most reviewers are pointing out all of the same problems with character, what good is her editor?
Output (English): NEG