Title: crappola
Product review: This book was required for a course I took called "Postmodernism". While I do not dispute the intelligence of these authors, I do question their communicability and the success of their "arguments". The task they take on is to destroy the Hegelian dialectic. Do they succeed? If you were to remove their self-absorbed semantics which riddle the text with unexplained vocabulary, sans apology, you would find there is not much really there. My proof is that a respected and intelligent professor could not interpret, rework and teach the same material much less communicate it. It is an exercise in ambiguity.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
