One hates, by which I mean relishes, escoriating another student's review, but as the only one written up on Nedim is, to put it politely, disgustingly stupid, entering an opposing view seems morally neccessary. That he is "the nicest gut you'll meet" I wouldn't dream of disputing. His demeanor borders on the excessively genial- this leads to his one serious flaw, an all too appearant lack of self-confidence which marrs his rather incisive presentation of what he's personally gleaned from the material. The claim that his reading of the texts tends toward the superficial is aburd and could only come from one who is a simplistic and superficial reader in his own right. Certainly, he will never be found speaking ex cathedra, as if he as professor had some unique access to the one right explanation of any given text, but that is more a virtue than a vice. Nonetheless, he is an undeniably smart fellow who reads the texts in seriousness and regularly offers up quality commentary on what he's gleaned from them. His classes tend to be an informal, but generally insightful blast. The previous reviewer seems to have made the mistake of taking style for substance, and assumed Nedim's utterly chill demeanor implied a lack of intellectual seriousness; the extent to which this is not the case cannot be overstated. Somehow I suspect he didn't get the easy A he seemed so much to expect.