What if I reviewed this book purely out of questions?
Title: What?
Writer: Mark Kurlansky
Publisher: Walker, 2011
Pages: 82
What message would that send out? Will it imply that this book was written entirely out of questions? Even if it is so, should a book made literally of questions entitle it to be reviewed by questions too? Or am I just burdening myself with this style of reviewing? Is it still considered a burden if I willingly chose to do it in the first place? If it's by choice, shouldn't it be called a challenge rather than a burden? After all, I am allowed to challenge myself, right? In fact, don't we all grow faster by challenging ourselves??
And why the heavens am I using English as the language of this review? Why haven't I been using English before? Is it also a challenge? Or is it because I personally think that asking questions in English sounds smarter and sexier? Or is it because i'm just pro-DLP?
Am I?
Anyway, isn't the more important thing to ask is will this review impact the ones reading it? Would a review like this trigger them to want to read this book? Or would it snooze them away? Come to think of it, how much do I really want them to read this book? But then, how many of us here really do read book reviews? So why the fuss in writing one?
But then again, why not?
If they do read reviews, this one in particular, shouldn't I have to show them how much fun it was reading this book? Wouldn't I want them to also enjoy the mind-boggling, thought-provoking elements of the book? Where else would one find a book so entertaining and educating at the same time?
If this book could teach me the power and value of questions, couldn't it also teach others? Wouldn't I want them to also appreciate the need to ask questions the way that I do now? Wouldn't I want them to see how cool it is to learn about the historic and modern importance of the whats, whys, whens, whos, hows and wheres? Isn't the prospect of getting to know the best questioners in human history and all their contributions, something to excite anyone with a healthy mind?
But then, why would we need to know all these stuff? Is it so we can become great questioners ourselves? Why would we even want to become questioners at all? Could it be because questioners are thinkers? And wouldn't we all want to be better thinkers? Isn't thinking a skill we should all be craving to master? Isn't it of divine revelation? An act of worship?
With that being said, does this mean that failing to question is a failure to think? Thus, could we also say, a failure to think is a failure to worship (properly)? Doesn't this mean that questioning is a part of worship? How far can a conclusion like this be of any worth and value? Am I even allowed to conclude it in this way?
Who knows for sure? That is why we should continue learning and reading on, wouldn't you agree?
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon