This book is a shame in relation to the historiography of recent years, and years to come. (please flatter this contraction of time to principle), but our dear author, can not be (insert powerful adjective adverb): "completely awful. But why do we cringe?" Since obviously without simulation or conceit, (god knows what those terms really meant in context) we may understand those anonymous "readers" which certain passages will somehow sound creepy or for those readers" (110) of our authors imagination. Do not worry about this civility or decorum of writing style, since you will not be flattered, instead expect desultory and self-congratulatory prefaces, summaries, definitions, and strange conceits of her anonymous reading audience.



How many examples need to be provided to make this look ridiculous.



For example, the premise of Lord Chesterfield's letters to his son, we may intrepidly conclude that "niether should it be extended to any women whatersoever. It is fatally exclusive....as the basic flaw in chesterfields system." I do recall that Chesterfield often prefaced his observations on woman with a modest "generalization" or explained to his son of the generic inconsistency of any individual, and not to shun women from a generic reputation alone. But no! Chesterfield really has a poor opinion of "all" women's virtues, since they are not "moral entities"(61) since "all women are immoral."(57)



Clearly chesterfield has new lessons to teach us, that simulation "is put on in order to look into other people's" cards, (that is the false comprehension of knowledge of the other into one's own conceit)...is clearly "false, mean and criminal"



Another day, someone will ring the door bell and open the door....