Don't be fooled!!

Either this person is a total fool or a joker.

You can't possibly be serious !

Hi,<br><br>I posted the original comment. The site says there are 6 replies, but I can read only the one from Agnes. How can I see the others?<br><br>Brady

I can't believe it took you 200 pages to figure it out.

Dear Agnes, Tom and Ash,<br><br>You have to admit, it is quite a coincidence that the title of this book by Charles Dickens shares the name of my favourite magician. I bet I am not the only person to make this mistake. Although it is kind of embarrassing. And maybe it was more like 180 pages before I got the idea that I might have missed something. I put the book down and now am wondering if it's worth finishing. Do you guys really recommend this book? I'm willing to give it another try.<br><br>Brady

What an idiot! Obviously if it took them 200 pages to realize that it wasn't a biography of David Copperfield the magician, then they must not be very literate. They shouldn't have even picked up the book believeing such a thing.

This comment is hilarious. I pity you your foolishness.<br><br>....May I recommend "Madonna" by Frederick M. Jelly?

I've been laughing about this for the last ten minutes. The thought of reading all that way into it before realising beggars belief and being disappointed once you realised is even more dumbfounding. Didn't you at least realise the period it was set in? How old did you think David Copperfield 'the magician' was? Nearly 200? Now that would be a good trick! For goodness sake go and pick the book back up again and enjoy some Dicken's and forget about pretentious illusionists. Your sister Betsy would never have made such a mistake! :-)<br><br>

I fear that Brady is pulling our legs. I am certain he must be having a good laugh at everyone who took his comment seriously. It was a joke..... It was a joke wasn't it ? PLEASE tell me you were joking.

I agree totally with the complaint regarding the misleading title of this book. I also felt cheated by the book Tom Jones which I expected to be about the Welsh singer, and the book Emma which I thought was an autobiography by Spicegirl Emma Bunton. Fortunately the first two words of the book are "Emma Woodhouse.." so I did not spend 200 pages puzzling over why there are no mentions of Baby Spice

You must be kidding!! How can you possibly think such a masterpiece is a waste of time? Maybe if you would start spending your time on things more worth while than magicians you would be a more inriched person. I think you should really go back and read the whole book.

Thank you!!<br><br>You see, this was an easy enough mistake to make.<br><br>Glad to see I'm not the only one to have been innocently taken in by a book's (misleading) title.<br><br>regards,<br><br>Brady<br><br>ps. I am a HUGE Baby Spice fan too!!

Brady,<br><br>You need to read David Copperfield, this time knowing what it's about, cuz' it's REALLY cool. Most educated people know about Charles Dickens and David Copperfield. I'm a 15 yr. old chick and I know! Also, it isn't a misleading title, THIS David Copperfield came FIRST, so the other guy you're talking about must have stolen his name.<br><br>Angela<br><br>P.S. If this isn't a joke you need to grow a brain and GET A LIFE.

And I read the whole Bible and thought there should have been a bigger part for that Gideon guy - he barely shows up after the Old Testament bit. What is it with these so-called Classic authors - they shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of innocent readers like that.

Hey, at least you realized they were two different people. Someone over on Amazon.com was complaining because it didn't explain how he got from Victorian England to the twentieth century. Far as reccomending it goes, yeah, read it. Sounds like you could use a dose of the past in your life. Go for it!