GULLIBLE'S TRAVELS

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The reason that we are a little late in writing a letter to the CRIMSON concerning your book review of Gullible's Travels is that we have been staying up late in Langdell in an attempt not to appear stupid, and trying to understand what Mr. Harvey said. Our conclusion and I think Gullible would occur (sic) is that the reviewer should go to law school ... but not Harvard.

It may be gross injustice to the reviewer to say that we did not understand the review, or it may be third-year injustice to suggest that he must have been browsing around Widenor and the Philosophy section on his way home from a class in History to which he bore a grudge against the professor. Pfft 1 as he likes to call our book may not meet the literary standards of the Pickwick papers, but no attempt was made to do so, and we dare say that there is doubt that we could, if we attempted to do so. And like all reviewers, who must read something into everything, we tried to avoid Freud and didn't give John Harvard two thoughts.

To make matters worse, one friend (and I know he was a friend because he bought a copy) approached me and asked whether the review was favorable or not. To tell the truth we need clarification, for the local bookmakers tell us that the odds are just about even either way. The only certainty is that never in their history (and they claim to have been here before Suffolk Downs) have they found such impossible vocabulary. Again it may be that our legal training objects to quardri-syllable words, four in a row.

A law school professor remarked this morning that he would have like to review the book review, but he didn't know how to spell his one word comment, a sound eminated by putting ones tongue between ones check and trying to whistle. Laurence Levine and Phil Costello 31.