Argument: Basically that "Beatrice and Virgil" is the worst book of the decade, because supposedly it mock Jews and the Holocaust by misinformation and a strong lack of merit. The writer feels Martel completely underscored the Holocaust, and trivialized the entire tragic even, by representing the Jews with donkeys to satirize the Holocaust. "There comes a rare time - perhaps once every ten or fifteen years - when you read a book with such dreadful syntax, without even a fiber of merit, so libertine in the manner it insults the audience, and so producing the literary equivalent to being completely submerged into a vat of shit, that the reader, having embarked on the fetid journey, begins to pine for a brutal throng of vigilantes to chop off the author's hands and prevent the hopeless hack from ever holding a pen or setting foot near a laptop again." "This book will fill you with such vileness that you will find yourself instantly ruminating about what an AK-47 might be able to do when fired in the right direction." "The book asks us to sympathize with a douchebag named Henry, whose only real character traits are that he has written a successful book and that he is revered by his readers. Tough life, this Henry." Analysis: The author writes with a lot of passion and eloquence, about his extreme almost dramatic distaste for the book. Even the most simple slightly sarcastic sentence just breathes malice and hate. The man used plentiful support and an easy to read chronological layout that was easy to read which I very much liked.

Argument: Middle Easterners have developed a threatening habit of abstaining from writing religious literature in their countries due to fear of persecution. So rather than the gov't harshly punishing those who expressly talk about religion in their writing, they have developed an unhealthy pattern of self censorship. "'…the present kind of censorship by say, religious conservatives, is much more damaging and much more frightening for the writer because you don't know exactly who you are offending, where the threat is coming from or what the possible punishment might be.'" "This…leads to self-censorship. This means you try to anticipate all these horrible things and guard against it from the beginning." Analysis: It is better to be federally persecuted because at least their are stated boundaries and lines you may not cross, but when the rules aren't expressly stated it becomes hard to know whose sensibilities you might offend with your writing. Thus, the writer may even tone it down more than usual to ensure that they will not be wrongfully punished.

Argument: The author aims to demonstrate that the conspicuous insertion of Yann Martel's religious beliefs in "life of Pi" is destructive to Martel's attempts to encourage his readers to believe in GOD and religion. However, the author quickly asserts that the problem is simply not very relevant! He even goes as far as admitting that he - a firm atheist - began to affirm a faith in god after reading the novel, under the pretense that the impossibility of the tale encourages the growth of the reader's imagination and therefore his/her faith in God. Evidence: "...the fiction...reveals a truth by explicit sermonising rather than as a natural conclusion drawn from the relationships and events it presents, [and] is displeasing, even 'immoral'" "As he travels through the pages...the reader[s]...atheist or already committed follower[s], experience some major revelation to the spirit, coming to, or restoring, a belied in GOD." "...the simple narrative may reveal virtues and ethics, yet is primarily concerned with entertaining the reader...in magical ways which powerfully invoke the active imagination." "...the novel occupies too perfectly 100 chapters. Yet the miraculous outcomes of this definite structure...defy explanation, logic, reality. This is magic realism in its most subversive form..." Thoughts: the author successfully uses significant support to lend credibility to his argument and does a good job of doing so. He did a fantastic job of explaining and defining his view point and overall I thoroughly agree with his criticism of "Life of Pi".