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: I truly enjoyed it, but I have a couple concerns . Let me start by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed this work.  If you haven't read Michener before, this is a great place to start.  Typical of Michener, he tells the story of a region over the course of centuries in this book.  Michener has selected a particular river that feeds the Chesapeake, the Choptank, as his primary locale, but has populated it with geotypical persons, plantations, and towns, rather than any specific actual persons or towns from the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake.    Having grown up in Maryland, I experienced a great deal of nostalgia for the areas he describes.  The characters he creates are believable and complex.  The stories he tells across the centuries are compelling.    I do have three concerns.  The first is minor -- in the green-covered paperback the word "scow" (a flat-bottomed boat) has been replaced with the word "snow" in every instance save one.  This makes for some odd reading, especially in the early chapters.    The second seems petty -- I actually believe there is not quite enough information in a nearly 1000-page novel.  He mentions guano trade, which significantly affected the Eastern Shore, only in one sentence at the end of the book.  He doesn't explain some of the early economies very clearly.  (With what was salt purchased from Tortuga?  There was no cash available, and credit with Fithian seems unlikely to have extended there.)  Islands other than the fictional Devon island (e.g. Tighlman Island) suddenly become important at the end of the book, and are referenced as "the old rivals of Patamoke."  If they are old rivals, why didn't they appear before?  Did this get cut out of the book?    My third concern is a very strange charge to levy against Michener.  As anyone who has seen the musical "South Pacific" knows, Michener is strongly opposed to racism.  Certainly in this book there are whites, blacks, and indians of the full range of character and talent.  However, the book still seems to have a strange racist undertone that I can't shake from my mind.  It comes from how Michener ties his story together across the centuries.  Every Janney is feckless (except for the one who becomes a Steed).  Every Steed is enterprising, although not necessarily industrious.  Every Turlock is craven.  Every Cater is proud, even if this is expressed differently across the generations.  Every Paxmore is upstanding, even the sad-sack Pusey Paxmore believes he is acting in an upstanding manor until he looks back on what he's done.  One Steed even refuses to acknowledge her own grandchildren because they have Turlock blood in them, and is praised by the author for doing so.    I realize that Michener was using a shorthand to help the reader keep characters straight across the centuries, but the result is rather too "geneticist," arguing that genes determine destiny

A: POS
****
Q: Needed more suspense. . After Box's first three excellent books, I found this a bit lacking.  It felt very slow at times and had a number of things left unexplained.  I don't mind the element of mysticism but it didn't feel complete.  Joe, his family and friends are great characters, the story definitely had me turning the pages and completing it in a day but it wasn't quite as strong as his previous books.    Don't misunderstand; this is still a very good read and a series I shall continue to follow, but I hope the next entry will have a bit more suspense to it.

A: POS
****
Q: For the philosopher of mind, this is THE start of the road. . *disclaimer: I am writing this as a philosopher of mind so any parts of the book or chapters not related to this are not what I am addressing.*      I do not mean to say that Bennett and Hacker have all the answers, but their "ordinary language" approach, along with their debt to Wittgenstein, Ryle, Kenny and Strawson, says something about their book.  Most contemporary philosophers of mind (Sprague, Strawson and Hacker, among others, excluded) have rightly dismissed the soul, but have decided that there is something "mysterious" about consciousness, or perception or emotion, or what have you.  In response, Bennett and Hacker have shown what "consciousness" really is: the conscious acts of people existing in the world.  This is why we know that other people are conscious actors: they do conscious things such as watch birds, or play chess, or eat ham sandwiches.      If Michael Tye's or David Chalmers' or Colin McGinn's problems of consiousness (e.g. that I can know that you feel the same pain that I feel, or that you see the same color that I see) are indeed problems for you, you should read this book; if it doesn't prove to you that they are not problems at all, at least it will give you a new way of looking at the problems so that you may come to your own interesting conclusions

A:
POS
****