Title: A poor argument in support of the lasting value of Art
Product review: It is said you should write about what you know, and sadly I think the authors of The Rule of Four have done just that--at least as far it concerns the agonies of deciding which campus house to pledge. The rest of book, the unraveling of yet another literary mystery, is an overwrought effort that takes itself so seriously with so little to go on, that in the end its passions seem little more than the passions of priggish intellectuals and children who have done all their living in books. Most of the elegant bits of so-called philosophy that pad out this uninteresting romp in supposed suspense unravel at the slightest scrutiny into prettily phrased cliches completely lacking in substance or original thought. Read in this context, The Rule of Four provides a poor argument to support its overarching theme - the lasting value of Art.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
