<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<GoodreadsResponse>
	<Request>
		<authentication>false</authentication>
		    <method><![CDATA[]]></method>
	</Request>
	<review id="16532144">
    <user id="229445">
    <name><![CDATA[Bess]]></name>
    <location><![CDATA[Brooklyn, NY]]></location>        
    <url><![CDATA[http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/229445-bess]]></url>
  </user>
      <rating>0</rating>
  <votes>0</votes>
  <sell_flag>false</sell_flag>
  <spoiler_flag>false</spoiler_flag>
  <shelves>
        <shelf name="currently-on-hold" />
        <shelf name="currently-reading" />
      </shelves>
  <recommended_for><![CDATA[]]></recommended_for>
  <recommended_by><![CDATA[]]></recommended_by>
  <read_at></read_at>
  <date_added>Wed Feb 27 12:36:09 -0800 2008</date_added>
  <date_updated>Mon Mar 03 15:52:15 -0800 2008</date_updated>
  <read_count></read_count>
    <body><![CDATA[Man oh man, I read this a little over a decade ago and couldn't make heads or tails of it then -- but I'm pretty sure that was the actual circa-1929 ORIGINAL TEXT and not the circa-1984 &quot;corrected text&quot;?  Since obviously it's acceptable to CORRECT FAULKNER?  I think the edition I read was old enough to be the former, but I looked for it in the basement of my mom's house yesterday and couldn't find it, all because my mom has the annoying tendency to return library books she finds lying around that are a decade overdue!  Damn her.<br/><br/>This version is the watered-down spoonfed one and it's still impossible to follow.  The fact that I've gotten dumber probably isn't helping either. ]]></body>
    <url><![CDATA[http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/16532144]]></url>
</review>

</GoodreadsResponse>