[chessforlife]

[ QUOTE ]


Completely disagree, and here's why. I defy you to find a single non-poker player who could read this book from start to finish. A good writer would find ways to make his subject compelling to a lay audience, but the amount of hand-detail trivia makes the book solely of interest to poker geeks.

Unlike Maxwell, both of these guys really have mastered their craft and know how to tell a story.

Maxwell might make a writer if he keeps at it, but he's still learning his chops at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I'm going to disagree with you, but I want to first state that I respect your intelligence an attitude. I say this so this doesn't immediately degenerate into a juvenile pissing contest.)

I completely disagree with you, this is why:

I believe Maxwell MADE A CHOICE to approach the topic esotericly. I believe he resolved, "I am going to relate the experience of poker as it must be relayed, from the inside, to do any less would fail to relate the experience." And isn't this correct? How could this particular book be written for all audiences? In the afterword Maxwell states, "I want the reader to have the animate feeling, 'I now know what that's like.'"

Your thoughts on this rebuttle?

And how can you say he doesn't know how to tell a story, when so many here are enjoying this book so much? I really think he nailed his idea, of depicting (one) person's poker world.

And by the way, I didn't know "The Cinci Kid" was a book. I'll get it now [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]