Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Because my opinion is so divergent from the other reviews here (all but two gave five-stars), I read them to see what I might have missed. Instead I found myself wondering whether we had read the same book: See "Review the Reviews" below. Reviewer Bukowsky (October 2, 2006) states "... not a handbook or a manual. It is a love letter ..." thereby unintentionally capturing the basic failing of this book - its title states that it is "A Guide ..." What I expected was a series of examples with analysis of what made them work or not work. There were far fewer examples than I expected, the analysis was typically slight, and there was too much extraneous material. For example, in the chapter on "Sentences", too much of the commentary on the examples was simply effusive praise of the sentence's author. I strongly disagreed with Prose's assessment of roughly a third of the sentences cited, but she didn't provide enough analysis for me to understand her point of view (declarations of something as great is not an argument). In the chapter on "Paragraphs", the author starts with an example from Babel's "Crossing into Poland." At first I thought it strange to be using a translated work as an example, but then she presented another translation as a counterpoint. I then thought "What a brilliant way to get examples of the effects of the differences in choices by two professional writers." However, she failed to effectively follow through. Also, I differed with her on the analysis of the passage in question: "... the highroad ... built ... upon the bones of peasants." Her analysis was that it "introduced some element of unease." My analysis was that it -- the thought pattern and jargon -- simply identified the protagonist as a Marxist-Leninist (In discussing the related "My First Goose", Prose identifies the protagonist as a follower of Lenin). In the next portion of "Paragraphs", Prose rambles about the Rex Stout mystery "Plot It Yourself" that hinges on how the paragraph choices were made in three documents. She give less specific insight than you would find in a brief introduction to composition, and essentially punts the issue, saying it is something that has significant impact, but that each writer must develop their own ear for it. The first part of the chapter on "Character" focuses on von Kleist's novella "The Marquise of O-." It present a few passages which are useful illustrations. However, she spends inordinate time on the plot, far beyond what is needed - or useful - to appreciate those passages. I found the disorganized repeated rehashing of the plot elements to be annoying. This might not have been so bad if she hadn't started the chapter with a digression on one college class where she had assigned the novella. Each of the chapters had similar problems. This was a book that I couldn't help putting down, but because of the many positive reviews, I kept picking it back up. I didn't get to the end of most of the chapters: When I found I couldn't tolerate anymore of a chapter, I skipped to the beginning of the next one to see if it was any better. Review of Reviews: When you read the other reviews, ask yourself "Is the reviewer praising the concept of the book, or its implementation?" Is the reviewer talking about being "inspired" - or "motivated" - to learn from reading more closely, or has s/he actually learned an appropriate amount from this book (of 268 pages). That is, is the reviewer responding to the author's gushing about great writing and her teaching of literature, or to the book providing useful insight on how to be a better reader and/or writer? BACKGROUND / CONTEXT of my review: By profession, I am a senior engineer/scientist and have done extensive technical writing, but I have also done extensive advocacy writing - marketing (advocacy of products and services) and political (advocacy of ideas). I am a staunch believer in "close reading" as a way to *learn* better writing, and encourage it by involving all members of my teams in the rewriting/editing process (but without taking it anywhere near the extent that occurs in literary criticism). Less experienced writers are not just given advice on improving their documents, but are expected to provide suggestions on improving documents written by better writers.