C. Christine Fair

Nope, sorry, I can't do it. Beyond the repetition and endless citation of previous works - to the extent they crowd out the original thesis here, which seems potentially interesting - it is an absolutely maddening experience trying to read a book-length work featuring inline citations and explicative footnotes.

Perhaps the fault in this instance lies with the Oxford University Press (or my own pedantry), but regardless, it makes for a highly unpleasant reading experience. No opportunity to engage with the argument or a narrative, as the interruption from parentheticals is endless and constant.… (plus d'informations)

I think Anon. says it best:

'The written word
Should be clean as bone,
Clear as light,
Firm as stone.
Two words are not
As good as one.'

This book does not hew to this maxim. Painfully veers from same, in fact. I'll give you a taste:

"This plan of attack presumes you are feeding a crowd of eight esurient diners."

"If all of this were not enough to eviscerate the sanctity of..."

There's a lot of high-falutin' language here, in other words. And in several instances, high-falutin' language abused, thusly:

"The lore of Dear Leader's nascence is shrouded in absurdity. ... The short, stocky Elvis impersonator's parturition took place in an army camp in Siberia..." Um, no, that was his mother's parturition.

Also: "I eat pork, drink booze, and think vegetarian cuisine is best left for ruminates."

There's plenty more, but a sample will suffice.

I love my language and do my best not to abuse it. When I find it flayed and bleeding in the gutter, I take umbrage at its abuse. Even in a cookbook. Further, deponent saith not.… (plus d'informations)