Well, I'm barely real.

No, you're totally right. I think there was a qualifier like "dubious" before veracity that got lost somewhere. We'll put it in when I get to the office. Thanks!

My original draft said "hard to bear," which I think has a different connotation. I simply meant that it's got some pretty tough gut punches, but never feels like it's wallowing in misery. Sorry for the confusion.

I wrote about Simmons in my original draft. He's definitely a candidate, though I'm not sure he has the breadth.

It is! Both Andrea Battleground and I are fond of it, so I'd call it something highly enjoyed by the A.V. Club.

I like them better, honestly. At least on their podcast they do a good job actually interviewing scientists and having them explain their findings. Is everything a little cursory? Sure, but they rarely say they know things for a fact, and many of their conclusions are actually counter-intuitive.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't convinced by Gladwell's arguments, but "Goliath actually had a pituitary disorder" is a much more interesting than "if you're lucky, maybe dyslexia will help you!" It wasn't the actual arguing, but the subject matter. You're right, his take on Goliath is…well…totally unverifiable?

It was very hard for me not to bring that up, having a background in math.

Book reviews are typically this long, which can be constraining. If I didn't put my across in a substantive manner, that's on me (I can always improve my writing). Also, you're substantially more thoughtful than the commenter last week who made some insane suggestion about my writing and Nazism, so thanks.

What do you find particularly insincere? Typically we don't cite specific passages, based on the length of the reviews, so I don't really have time to go into a huge amount of detail. With a 500 word length, it's easy to fall to criticisms of being shallow. That being said, and in my defense, I mention particular…

I love that you guys are doing this! Obviously I'm a little more hot on the book than some of you, but still, this is awesome. Great points. It's definitely made me think even more about Bleeding Edge. cc @intermittenthairdresser:disqus , @K.Thrace, @avclub-f121d09285898f1c66d66f1e6f0455a6:disqus .

That's pretty much how I sum up my abilities as a writer.

There are moments that are really interesting, but it never felt emotionally gripping. That being said, it's shortlisted for the Man Booker, so clearly a bunch of people disagree with me on The Lowland's quality.

Well, I will suggest that my spelling of Eichmann is more accurate.

Well, my apologies. If you look at the above comments, I expect you'll get a sense of why I wrote that. As it is, I expect we'll both have to have our political opinions and leave it at that.

Um, maybe? Not really sure what you're asking there.

It struck me as a  (and I know I'm going to get shit for this) better, more mature version of Crying.

That actually occurred to me as well as I was watching that scene. It looked like the greenhouse had some kind of containment system, though (which would make sense, on an outpost like that). It's not explained, so you're right that it is a plot hole, but it's such a small one I'm not that bothered.

My sarcasm reader has been malfunctioning all summer. Well, you're still my favorite @LurkyMcLurkerson:disqus .

Yup, I've answered why we didn't use it above.