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.

Q: Not really . I have a hard time understanding what it is that I dislike about the novel. I dislike it almost as much as the movie.  I have been a loyal follower of Smiley and some more after that. Once the Cold War was over, JlC had to look for a new realm. I tried to follow him, but gave up with the Kaukasian troubles, forgot the name of the book.  Maybe it is this: JlC's trade mark, his USP, is the evilness of the other side. With the KGB & Co., that worked perfectly. His readers were willing to stay with him and believe him.  Now he is transferring the KGB style to all sorts of other badies. I think it does not work any more.  It is not that I trust the pharmaceutical companies enough to not be like here insinuated. I do not.  What I do not like, I guess, is the artificial mood of intellectual suffering from the evilness of all kind of conspiracies. Tess in this story seems to be the normal do-gooder who falls foul with the baddies. That is more ok in the book than in the movie. (There, for my eyes, Rachel Weisz does herself discredit.)  What is absolutely not ok is the surrender of command by the narrator mid way. JlC gives up on trying to keep a believable storyline and declines into darkest conspiracy allegations

A: NEG
****
Q: Unkindness as Philosophy . THE FOUNTAINHEAD has been described by one of its many followers - yes, followers, not readers, for the book is essentially unreadable -- as a "passionate defense of individualism [that] presents an exalted view of man's creative potential."   This is a fair description, although it points unintentionally to the book's main flaw:  it is not a novel, but a tract posing as a novel.        Traditional progressive novels tend to be suspicious of the exalted, especially of those who occupy exalted positions based on birth or social class. In the case of Ms. Rand, the exalted are those rare individuals who, like herself, must be allowed to work their will upon the world because they believe themselves exalted.  A circular argument at best, a bad faith argument in truth, this tacit nod to the slow ascent of the common man and woman since the Enlightenment spares Ms. Rand from plumping for monarchy which, even by today's repellent neo-conservatives standards, is universally seen to be repellent.    Because her main character, Howard Roark, architect extraordinaire, is an argument and not recognizably a person, he not surprisingly suffers from a lack of inner-animation.  Sensitive readers will chafe against the underlying and predictable framework that ultimately treats characters as props for Ms. Rand's objectivist philosophy, an anti-progressive stew of prejudices posing as a critique of the welfare state and its "leveling effects."      Here's the problem with her "philosophy:"  for every Howard Roark it raises up as Hero, it writes off millions of people as unworthy of our interest, our sympathy and our compassion. Unkindness is not a philosophy most find acceptable.  With THE FOUNTAINHEAD, Rand attempted to make it so and has managed to fool many.  Because she has, she is therefore lauded by her conservative followers because her apologia absolves them of any responsibility for the fate of their fellow men and women.       Regrettably, this book and her other tendentious work, ATLAS SHRUGGED, have found their way into the backpacks of idealistic college students.  One suspects that many, because their relative youth causes them to see themselves as unique individuals, are seduced by the notion that they, too, are slated for Heroic status.  I have nothing against people having heroes; young people especially should have them.  But Howard Roark is no hero.  He's a stick figure that represents a hero.  I suspect too, that because of their general unreadability, students think the books are "deep."     In retrospect, it seems true that those people whom I knew in college who didn't finish this tract-posing-as-a-novel were people who tended to be relatively reasonable in their social and political views.  Those who did finish it, on the other hand, tended to be immoderate and dogmatic.   Judging by some of the reviews posted here,  this probably remains true today.

A: NEG
****
Q: The book for those who want to know about Tradition &amp; Health . Not only is the inside of the book as fascinating as the beautiful cover, but the text keeps the reader from putting the book down.  I could not stop turning pages and learning more about how Jewish tradition meets issues of  health and illness.  A great read

A:
POS
****