Lao Tzu, the first author of Taoism, described abstruse, metaphorical scenes in abstruse language. Chuang Tzu uses prosaic descriptions, but still described philosophical ideal rather than gritty facts. Lieh Tzu came later. He used prosaic words to describe prosaic, everyday scenes, and to find enlightenment in them.
Many ring true for me. The "yellow mare" reminded me of a technician who was finely attuned to the circuits we used. He was always wrong in his diagnosis onf the problems he showed me. That never mattered. He was always right in pointing out that there was a problem, often based on small clues that I might have missed.
Lieh discusses honesty and friendship, poverty and happiness, great riches and death. Still, the language is always modern and clear, and a good supplement to Chuang and Lao.
My problem, though, is that this isn't a translation. It's Wong's interpretation. She says, early on, "Instead of a straight translation of the sematics of the text, I have decided to present the 'voice' of Lieh Tzu." As much as I like Wong's text, it troubles me. Translation is never exact, but there are degrees of inexactness. I am concerned about how much Lieh's text has suffered.
This is good anyway, and I'll probably come back to it eve if I find a more scholarly Lieh Tzu. This is readable and thought-provoking, no matter what it's authenticity.