instruction:
In this task, you are given books product reviews in English language. The goal is to classify the review as "POS" if the overall sentiment of the review is positive or as "NEG" if the overall sentiment of the review is negative.
question:
Theatrical Skullduggery . Penelope Fitzgerald is at her most devilishly entrancing in this tale revolving around the London acting school run (and I mean RUN!) by Freddie, a larger-than-life Gorgon whose will cannot be resisted. Fitzgerald has fun skewering the backstage pretentions, intrigue and petty jealousies of the London theater world of the early 1960s, but, clearly loving every seedy corner of it, she celebrates it with such gusto that you want to sign up on the spot for a season or two. That combination of wryness and fondness makes this short novel among Fitzgerald's most satisfying. And when Freddie goes out looking for a pound or two, hang on to your wallets
answer:
POS


question:
Yes, Stephen King really IS that good . HEARTS IN ATLANTIS by Stephen King   THE GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON by Stephen King     Two reviews in one? What up with that? Well, I read HEARTS IN ATLANTIS some time ago and, beyond "rah rah go read this," I said it exposed my inadequacies as a reviewer. How stupid was that? I'm going to try again.     I finished reading MY LIFE by Bill Clinton late one Tuesday afternoon, then immediately picked up THE MAN WHO LOVED TOM GORDON. I figured my old friend Stephen King could clear my exhausted mind. He immediately pulled me in, and I read it in a single sitting. It's gripping stuff. Incredibly realistic, insightful regarding human nature, and it'll scare your pants off. The Master is most definitely at the top of his game with this book. Ditto with ATLANTIS.     Authors, how do you feel when you spend months (years?) writing a book only to have some reader say he polished it off in a single evening? Actually, I think you oughta feel good. No writer, not even Isaac Asimov, could/can be sufficiently prolific to be the only one a reader ever needs. I think this is very cool, and I love working with fellow authors to promote this thing we do.     Okay, back to my book review. King was always great, right? But there came a point where a certain sameness crept in. It's hard to define, perhaps, but you know what I mean. I don't think he was having as much fun as he used to, and after a time, neither were we.     Then came ON WRITING, which I never run out of breath raving about, and now books like these. He's scaling back the supernatural, which never bothered me at all, because he's found even scarier things to write about. The Master has raised his game, and it's a joy to know I've got a big old pile of unread Stephen King novels downstairs. Expect more rave reviews.     Oh, and Stephen, if you're reading this, and you ever get the desire to raise your game yet again, just let me know. I'll go rent a truck and hit you with it. (It's a joke. Just like the idea that YOU subscribe to MY rag. I know you'd rather read DAVE'S RAG.)
answer:
POS


question:
Violates the False Claims Act . Wow. I was shocked. Legitimate statements of liberal Christianity include ones like, 'Transubstantiation is mistaken', 'The Vatican does not have a direct pipeline to God', 'Homosexuality is not a sin', 'Condoms and birth control are morally defensible', NOT 'Jesus never performed miracles', 'The trinity does not exist', 'Jesus is not the Son of God.' It is disingenuous for Spong to assert he is a Christian when he disavows ALL the major tenets of the religion - virgin birth, miracles, incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension, the trinity, and the deity of Jesus. He believes less in a religion per se and more in a code of ethical conduct like, say, Confucianism, and the "patronizing nonsense" (a la C.S. Lewis) that Jesus was simply a great moral teacher. He even says on page 229, "...a religionless Christianity must be born." Religionless Christianty?! That's a contradiction in terms. Mr. Spong sounds like an ethicist, not a religionist. He also owes Saint Paul an apology for rumor-mongering when the man has long been absent and not around to defend himself.    I do admit though, I liked a lot his discourse on the plight of women and mens' subconscious fear of them. I also liked his observations on homosexuality. What he had to say about Judas was also interesting (but misleading as it is based solely on his own suppositions, not evidence). The section on anti-semitism was informative but that whole subject has always struck me as odd to begin with, i.e., that a Christian could hate or resent a Jew. Very odd.    I'm sure we've all noticed that bible-interpetation discussions are on the same road as capital punishment, birth control, gun control, and abortion: I'm Right and You're Wrong Avenue. Especially with bible interpretation, words and phraseology are open to diverse translations, and theologians themselves disagree.    Oh, and here's my two cents on the Council of Nicea. Of course the Christian theologians had to discuss Christian doctrine and record it for posterity. Of course Christianity had to be, dare I say, 'corporatized' in a way. How can the Word spread without an efficient distribution channel? The remarkable thing is that it did not happen much sooner. You see now, though, how it is very easy for anyone with an advanced intellect (such as Spong) to take the very (true) words I have just said in this paragraph and make it sound convincingly like, "You see!..he admits it..corporatized!..distribution channels!..surely there was wheeling and dealing...these people were not serious...blah blah blah."    I offer one piece of advice. However, I admit I base this advice on my belief that: 1) An all-loving God exists, 2) the gospels are historically accurate, 3) Jesus is the incarnated Son of God and 4) the bible is divinely inspired. Whenever a bible passage irks you, enrages you, or just generally creates any type of irritation in you, remember that YOU are the one thinking about it. And you're not God.
answer:

NEG