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]: Both sides of the coin... . Wow.  I read this book a few days ago, and definitely have my own opinion on it.  I thought I would come here and see what other folks are saying, and I'm not altogether surprised.  The first thing that continually surprises me when I read a poorly written book is how so many people can think it is, in fact, well-written, if not even brilliant.  There is, of course, no accounting for taste.      What disturbs me more than the inability of people to recognize both poor writing and equally poor scholarship (which suggests a lack in either education or practice) is how people can urge others to have a balanced view on a subject when they quite obviously could not be more imbalanced in their own views.  I urge those of you that see Bush as a righteous man to please "read around."  There are, obviously, dozens of books about this man and his actions that touch on topics that books like God and George W. Bush will not even acknowlege, much less discuss, defend, or justify.  To ignore these other sources of information is to be possibly tragically misinformed.  While I do not doubt that many of the previous reviews come from good and intelligent people, I am forced to wonder how they can support a man who performs acts, or at least allows them to be performed, that are every bit as vile as that which he claims to oppose.  Read other books and you will see.    One subject that always makes me wince is the labeling of those fighting our soldiers as evil.  I am not supporting them or denouncing our own, but merely urging all of us to recognize the humanity of others.  Labeling a people as evil undermines their humanity and suggests that they do not have good reasons to be fighting, but that they fight simply to overcome those who "love freedom."  This is from  page 114 of this very book, (a quote from Phyllis Wheatley) "In every human breast, God has implanted a principle which we call love of freedom."  Here's a 'revolutionary' thought: Everybody loves and wants freedom.  If people are fighting they are fighting for freedom, we simply must ask one question: Freedom from what?  Read around and see for yourself if you can answer such a question.  Also, see if you can discover, honestly and objectively, the freedoms that we are currently fighting for.    Another huge bother for me in this book is that Kengor refers to Texas as the largest state in the nation.  It's difficult to take the rest of his scholarship seriously when he makes such a statement.    Another horrific, to my mind, thought is that Bush, and lots of his followers, truly believes that God wants him to be president.  A megalomaniacal zealot in charge of a cadre of nukes with an "I'm on a mission from God" world view scares the hell out of me.
[A]: NEG


[Q]: Excellent Book---Highly Recommended . Though I have since made a career change, I realized, as I read this book for the umpteenth time a few weeks ago, it was one of the driving forces in my decision to become a counselor.  Many times I have seen in families, the battered women and children I've worked with and counseled, the need to love and be loved, to not be lonely. We are told that we will become more lovable as we choose the right clothes, perfume, shampoo, even toothpaste!  The list of products, guaranteeing that we will have would-be lovers banging at our door, that we will never be lonely as long as we buy these products is endless.  Our media-oriented society measures lovability by: popularity, sex-appeal, the right clothes and products.  Living by these standards alone makes us lonely, especially if we can't live up to them.  These standards are only masks, hiding us from not only our inner selves, but those of others as well.    Marie, the main character in the book "Daughter of Earth" struggles with her loneliness.  She wants what we all want - to be loved and not have to prove that we are adequate enough to be loved. "Marie lives out her whole life struggling to act as a whole person - to give and receive love in a relationship of equality - and to work against oppression - despite the image that inhabits her imagination."    From a very young age, Marie learned of the world's contradictions.  She learned how devalued women were, "that even male animals cost more than female animals and seemed more valuable; that male fowls cost more than females and were chosen with more care."  With the birth of her little brother, Marie realized how important a son was for there was much celebration as cigars and whiskey were passed around.  She also saw how the lives of those in poverty were worthless and that "the companies" these people worked for only cared about the profit they were making rather than the lives and safety of their employees.  "Coal was dear...life was cheap."    As Marie watched married women around her, she realized that the "love expressed in sex enslaves and humiliates" them.  "It is the toll men exact for giving economic protection to their wives.  The weeping of wives - what is more bitter?"  She sees women become powerless as wives and mothers and she in turn seeks a relationship that is equal in giving and receiving love.  She does not want to be like the women in her childhood that have lost the power to make their own choices.    In two relationships, Marie thinks she has found the equality she's been looking for. However, in the end it is not even so: "To her comes the memory of many women who have loved, suffered and remained true to the one man who did not love or remain true to them; to her comes the memory of a man who betrayed many good women for the sake of the one woman who detested and was cruel to him.  She thinks of the great loves that seem to have been great because they were hopeless; of the night that follows the day; of love and hate that are separated by less than a hair's breadth.  And she things of annihilation that irrevocably follows creation.  But above all, she see that she has had to pay with her life's love for the experience for which she was least responsible."    It was through a man named Sardarji, that Marie learned what it meant to love and be loved.  And through her experiences with him she learned that love means to get over who we are because of our culture, our values, or the decisions we make.  Through Sardarji, Marie "touched for the first time a movement of unwavering principle and beauty...and saw that difference of race, color and creed are as shadows on the face of a stream, each lending a beauty of its own; that subjection of any kind and in any place is beneath the dignity of man..."    Sardarji taught Marie that we can't live without loving all humankind; that we must do as Sardarji told Marie: "Make conviction the basis of our actions.  We must fight for what we believe in rather than fighting for something we know nothing about or for something we are told to fight for.  We must think about what it means to fight.  We must know what we are fighting for before we able to help and before we can enlist the help of others."    To break the vicious circle people get caught up in when they try to prove they are adequate to be loved takes knowledge.  For as Marie says to Sardarji, "knowledge without love is useless."  In order to love all humankind "we need to know how others suffer; and if we have already known, that we should not forget." To love without loneliness means that we need to "experience in our hearts again and again the suffering of the dispossessed."
[A]: POS


[Q]: Yawn . This is said to be one of Nadine Gordimer's finest works, and she is a Nobel prize winner, so I hoped for great things when I picked this one out at the bookstore, unfortunately assuming that the Nobel prize would be a guarantee that I would love it.  Well, I didn't love it.  While indeed a competent storytelling, I don't really regard this as literature.  There is not the fire, imagination or creativity one expects, nor the sophistication that should elevate such a work above its peers.  I managed to get to the end, but I can't say that I felt or learned anything at all.  It makes me wonder if there were political, rather than literary reasons that caused the Nobel comittee to honor this author.
[A]:
NEG