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: 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: Still worth reading . 17 years later and many things have changed. The desire of investors to accurately gauge the stability of the companies in their portfolios remains the same. The incentive of management with stock options to hide the true nature of what the reality of what the company's earnings have been remains strong. Some of the techniques mentioned will be hard to use when companies employ SPEs to hide their true indebtedness and derivative positions mask the Value at Risk. However, many of the technique still have value. The analysis of receivables and inventories can provide insight into the immediate future of the company. The techniques that have lost their clear edge are the debt and write-off analysis. Write-offs are now required by GAAP (although the "big bath" write-offs are still "non-recurring") and SPEs or variable interest entities can obscure debt. It is fascinating in light of Enron, WorldCom, Qwest, Tyco, and Adelphia the stories of companies in the 70s and 80s that were attempting to do the same thing (though often without the fraud). How little man changes through the ages

A: POS
****
Q: Worst book I have read in a long time! . I have never read a Danielle Steel novel, but my friend bought it when we were inter-railing through Europe last week so I picked it up out of sheer boredom. The grammar is atrocious, and the repetitiveness highly irritating. How many times do Sasha and what's his name need to break up and get back together? How often does Sasha need to cry about this artsy guy? This book was so annoying that I had to literally put it down and stop reading it. I will never pick up another Danielle Steel book, and I am still appalled that the publishing world even let this one be published!

A:
NEG
****