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: The Pigman . John and Lorraine are two sophomores who like to make prank calls. When they prank call a man named Angelo Pignati, they quickly become friends. Mr. Pignati is old and could make a great Santa Claus in terms of figure. He likes Bobo the baboon, gourmet food, rollerblading, and pig figures. When Mr. Pignati dies, John and Lorraine feel the only way they can relieve their guilt is to write down what happened in their time together. This is their story

A: POS
****
Q: Good start to what promises to be a fun series . Wanda Nell Culpepper has got a lot on her hands:  she's a single mom with three kids and one grandkid who she works 2 jobs to support.  Her Mother in Law is a monster--and her ex has just shown up waving around a lot of cash.      When Wanda Nell finds her ex stabbed through the throat with a pink lawn flamingo, her troubles have just begun.  The deputy suspects her, dangerous folks are coming after her looking for something that the ex supposedly left with her.     "Flamingo Fatale" is a good read and an interesting cosy; however, I don't think that Evans hits her stride with her first book.  "Murder Over Easy" is much improved and the third in the series actually promises to be more interesting.

A: POS
****
Q: a very bad reason to kill trees . Ok, first of all, read that ttle again. Don't you love how idiotic grown ups sounds when they try to, like, borrow the vernacular twists of their offspring for ironic employment in a, like, polemical setting? Reminds me of Cusack's dad in 'Better off Dead,' the way he keeps trying to talk to his son on his son's level. There's so much bad faith and pretension permeating this book- it's all there in the title...    As for the' author's "polemic," it basically consits of numerous, misinformed, tendentious tracts soldered together into a rusty heap. You've heard this spiel before, most likely from your grandparents or parents who just don't get it- that they had their time. This is our era. Our use of language reflects and underlines our differences from those who came before.     I particularly didn't like his seeming dismissal/blanket statement on hip hop. He really ain't down with the brothas, which is not surprising, given that he's a black intellectual, and there's nothing established black academics like more than a long-winded, whingeing harangue about the endemic evils of hip hop Kulture. Ugh. He doesn't even seem to possess much of a knowledge of hip hop artists or their work... Nada... There is much that I find execrable in said culture and in it's major 'artists' but still how can one overlook its myriad unifying and artistic elements... Even I manage not to fall prey to an all-too-easy reductionist formula, which seems to be the The main point here- the author views the degredation of the english Language through the lens of pop culture at large (as a bad thing, mind you), it begins in the evil counterculture 60's and... you know...     Digressive, ranting out-of-context mixed with counter-intuitive psuedo-linguistic gibberish. For example, the author holds up both Dylan and Tom waits as examples of artists who are reverred not for their songwriting abilities, but more for their authenticity, thir 'genuineness'. This is plain false. Laughably false. I've never met a fan of either artist who wasn't struck by their strange and completely idiosyncratic use of language. Moreover, the author seems to feel that pop culture music is driven by whites emulating blacks. True, up to a point. I love this stance, and from Chuck Berry to James Brown to Miles Davis to Funkadelic to Fishbone to Bad Brains, to the innumerable black influences on The Clash, I will never tire of pointing out that, basically, it's all black music. One would think that, at least on some level, this is a good thing... But no, it leads back to the counter-kulture (with a k) ideals that have subverted language...????     HUH?    The saddest thing is that, as a reactionary elitist, I'm inclined to agree with many of the author's basic points. But both his presentation and his defense of his points were so hare-brained and wrong, I just felt sullied. With friends like these...

A:
NEG
****