In a book review, I expect to see things like: the reviewer’s overview, overall opinion, discussion of what it did well and what it could have done better, some discussion about how it fits in with related works, and some excerpts illustrating these points. In this post I can’t even see any demarcation between reviewer and author, between discussion and literal regurgitation of the text, or between summarising points it raises and exhortation to believe them.
First of all these books is the conversation between buffet, Munger, and seeker (who visit the library of wisdom). The stories, examples are connected with the main problem, and practice is designed by mine and some adopted from others to avoid misjudgment.
My intent is to write the summary and key ideas in a practical manner, so the first-time reader immediately puts it into practice and then working backward to see things that work and don’t. This way internalizing ideas might be a much more effective way.
For the demarcation side, I feel like a knowledge illusion if I argue with the buffet and Munger ideas.
Was this a book review or an infomercial for it?
In a book review, I expect to see things like: the reviewer’s overview, overall opinion, discussion of what it did well and what it could have done better, some discussion about how it fits in with related works, and some excerpts illustrating these points. In this post I can’t even see any demarcation between reviewer and author, between discussion and literal regurgitation of the text, or between summarising points it raises and exhortation to believe them.
Hi
Thanks for showing attention.
First of all these books is the conversation between buffet, Munger, and seeker (who visit the library of wisdom). The stories, examples are connected with the main problem, and practice is designed by mine and some adopted from others to avoid misjudgment.
My intent is to write the summary and key ideas in a practical manner, so the first-time reader immediately puts it into practice and then working backward to see things that work and don’t. This way internalizing ideas might be a much more effective way.
For the demarcation side, I feel like a knowledge illusion if I argue with the buffet and Munger ideas.