Our today's focus is on Jonathan Safran Foer's work, "Tree of Codes," the concept of text transformation and remediation, and the differences in text types such as book reviews and critical writing. To make this fun, think of this as a mind-bending detective game.

Let's begin with Foer's "Tree of Codes." It's a bit like the Frankenstein of literature - Foer has cut out parts of Bruno Schulz's "The Street of Crocodiles" to create an entirely new story. This process is known as "remediation," a fancy term for adapting or transforming a work from one form to another.

Imagine it's like using the parts of an old bicycle to build a motorbike. You're not just rebuilding the bike, but making something entirely new. So, while the 'motorbike' still has elements of the bicycle (maybe the handles or the seat), it functions differently and looks unique.

Our second mystery is the difference between a book review and critical writing. Book reviews typically discuss a book's content, strengths, and weaknesses from a somewhat personal perspective. Think of it as discussing a movie with friends - you say what you liked, didn't like, and how it made you feel.

On the other hand, critical writing for language and literature is more formal. It delves deep into analyzing literary techniques, themes, and symbolism - akin to a film critic dissecting a movie scene by scene.

Is one better than the other? Well, that's like asking if ice cream is better than cake - it depends on the situation and what you want out of it!

One of the intriguing queries here is why some opinions are acceptable in academic settings and others aren't. In the classroom or exams, personal opinions that are well supported with evidence from the text are generally welcomed.

Imagine you're arguing that your favorite footballer is the best. Simply saying, "He's awesome because I think so" won't cut it. You need facts and figures, like "He scored the most goals last season." Same with literature - support your thoughts with evidence from the text.