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.

[EX Q]: I is for Innocent . This book is not as good as some of Grafton's other books but still has the same type of quality that she exhibits in all of her books.  In this one, Kinsey is asked to follow up a deceased PI in solving a 6-year old murder
[EX A]: POS

[EX Q]: The Meaning of Joie-de-Vivre . So that's what Joie-de-Vivre means. It's really not the point whether the anecdotes are based on real facts. It's D.V.'s attitude, her curiosity, her passion for certain things, and her irreverence for the rest is what's most inspiring. The writing, edited by George Plimpton and Christopher Hemphill, is wonderfully imaginative and poetic, be it about Mona Lisa or Buffalo Bill. I recommend it to anyone with an eye for details and a passion for life
[EX A]: POS

[EX Q]: Too many errors and a typical neo-confederate bias of author . I bought this book on the recommendation of several people that I know pretty well, unfortunately, this book is filled with errors upon errors and is filled with a typical neo-confederate bias by the author.  In fact, the book should be called "How confederates saved America" as he gives the credit for the peaceful return of the confederate armies to confederate generals such as Lee, Johnson and Forrest, rather than on Lincoln's instructions to Grant and Sherman and generous terms known as the River Queen Doctrine, "I want no one punished; treat them liberally  all around.  We want those people to return to their allegieance to the United States and submit to the laws".    His errors are numerous.  He talks of the possibility of the confederates disbanding their armies and moving into the hills and waging a guerilla warfare against the US troops and sights examples of how successful this tactic has been throughout time and he includes in these examples the American Revolution.  He states that Francis Marion, Thomas Sumter and Andrew Pickens(who all could be called partisans or guerilla fighters), but then he goes on to state that Nathaniel Greene was a guerilla fighter as well.  Now only someone completely ignorant of US Army history could ever make such a statement.  Nathaniel Greene served in the Continental Army and was the Quartermaster General, he was in no way a guerilla, nor did he use guerilla tactics.  He continues on that Greene used guerilla tactics in battle at Kings Mountain and Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse.  Besides the basic fact that Greene wasn't even at the battles of Kings Mountain and Cowpens, neither one could be said to be guerilla attacks.  At Kings Mountain, the American militia found Patrick Ferguson and his men well entrenched in defenses at the crest of the mountain and formed up and attacked the positions, hardly a guerilla tactic.  Cowpens was fought by Daniel Morgan and was a set piece battle where he destroyed Tarleton's legion.  Greene attacked Cornwallis at Guilford Courthouse in another set piece battle and was winning until Cornwallis took the extreme measure of firing canister directly into the center of the two massed armies, killing and wounding as many of his own men as he did Americans.    None of these battles were guerilla fighting and Greene in no way can be called a guerilla.    The author shows his neo-confederate bias most clearly by restating the apocryphal stories of rape, theft and outright murder by Sherman's troops during the Savannah and Carolina Campaigns as matter of historical facts.  He continually paints the Federals in the worst of lights, while reserving his highest praise and most eloquent prose for the confederates.    He incorrectly quotes Sherman when he claims Sherman said "Sherman himself explained that in his march, he inflicted an astonishing $100 million worth of damage, of which only $20 million was necessary, the rest being "simply waste and destruction"".    He clearly is slanting his own words to convince people that Sherman was in fact "the devil" as the neo-cons believe he is.  Unfortunately, what he CLAIMS Sherman said has no relation to what he actually said.    From the Official Records, Vol 44, page 13; in Sherman's report on his campaign to the War Dept, he states "I estimate the damage done to the State of Georgia and its military resources at $100,000,000; at least, $20,000,000 of which has inured to our advantage, and the remainder is simple waste and destruction."    Sherman does not, as Mr. Winik claims state that only $20 million was necessary, what Sherman said was that his army confiscated and USED(inured means to use) $20 million worth of the property and destroyed the remaining $80 million of confederate civilian and private property that was going to be used against the armed forces of the United States.    If you are a confederate "lost causer" then you will enjoy this novel, however, if you are looking for historical truth, then you should read a different book.    William Hal
[EX A]:
NEG