|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1666784699
| 9781666784695
| 1666784699
| 3.80
| 5
| unknown
| Feb 23, 2024
|
it was ok
|
Ryan J. Stark is a professor (of Humanities) at Corban Univ., an evangelical institution in Oregon. He recently generously donated a copy of this book
Ryan J. Stark is a professor (of Humanities) at Corban Univ., an evangelical institution in Oregon. He recently generously donated a copy of this book (one of four that he's written or co-edited) to the BU library where I work. (I'd previously never heard of the author or the book.) Having a definite interest in both religion and the paranormal, and wanting to return a favor for a favor, I determined to read and review the book, figuring that its very short length would make it easy to work into my reading schedule. Of course, my hope (and expectation) was to write a favorable review! It's deeply distressing to me that I can't do that, particularly since it turns out that mine will be the first text review this book has here (and that, as one of just four, my rating will pull the average down considerably). But I normally make a policy of reviewing everything I read, and I have an obligation to be honest. :-( Although the ultra-short length here (just 71 pages of actual text!) makes the book a really quick read, it actually works against it in terms of depth. Here, Stark has taken on a very broad subject, or rather array of subjects (the eight chapters cover "Vampires," "Werewolves," "Zombies," "Ghosts," "Robots," "Leviathans," "Devils," and "Aliens"). To offer any helpful treatment of such a wide range of phenomena, a writer would need to concentrate on one approach. He/she might present a meditation on what psychological truths these images represent as metaphors; might explore what (if any) real-world reality or factual basis might underlie the archetypes; might trace the manifestations of these themes in literature, or film/TV, or other pop-cultural venues, might explore the spiritual significance of these "monster" figures with regard to Christian faith, and/or their biblical connections. Even doing one of those well would be a challenge in this scope. Stark attempts to do every one of them, and then some; and to be blunt, it doesn't work. The treatment comes across as a superficial, ADHD-afflicted, kaleidoscope of undeveloped thoughts and insights. There are other problems here which are perhaps related to the short length, but distinct. The author at times attempts to liven up the presentation with some humor. He probably does this very successfully in his oral lectures; and some academics turned writers can translate it from the spoken to the written medium well. Here it too often just falls flat, and there's not enough serious content to need humorous lightening, instead, the latter just presents as a forced-in distraction that highlights the scantiness of real food for thought to start with. A lot of reference is made to TV shows and movies, as well as books, but there's not a lot of context presented. It's clearly assumed that all readers will be familiar with these sources, but not all of us are. Stark is immensely erudite; a 10-page bibliography, mostly of books but with a few articles, movies/TV shows and Internet sources, lists the many references documented in the footnotes (except for the Bible, which is also cited frequently). These include ancient writers like Plato and Virgil, 21st-century academics, and much between. But he doesn't really interact in detail with any of these; the citations are more ornamental than substantial. (Six pages of index makes up the rest of the 88 pages.) To the extent that there's a general thesis here, it's that the universe is an odd place with realities which aren't reducible to the arbitrarily limited scope of phenomena admitted to be "real" by naive materialism. But the treatment isn't clearly presented or well organized enough, nor developed and focused enough, to actually convince a skeptic. It's also difficult in many places to understand exactly what point is being made, even though Stark uses normal language rather than scholarly jargon. (To be honest, in the last couple of sentences in the "Robots" chapter, I literally have no idea what he means!) He frequently hints or implies that at least some of these "monsters" may be real, but he never asserts that clearly and doesn't really provide supporting evidence; and his handling of Bible passages is often highly dubious. There are some legitimate literary, psychological or theological insights here and there in the book, and enough interesting factoids to keep me reading for the three days it took me to finish (and my daily stints of reading are short); but as a whole the book is far less rewarding than it could have been, and than I wanted it to be. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 09, 2024
|
Sep 12, 2024
|
Sep 09, 2024
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
9798397859615
| B0C7J5GLPJ
| 4.00
| 2
| unknown
| Jun 10, 2023
|
liked it
|
My Goodreads friend Andrew M. Seddon's day job was as a medical doctor (he's now retired); but he's also been a successful and prolific author of both
My Goodreads friend Andrew M. Seddon's day job was as a medical doctor (he's now retired); but he's also been a successful and prolific author of both long and short fiction and of nonfiction articles on a variety of subjects. Naturally, he's picked up much practical knowledge, and wisdom, about the art and craft of writing along the way. In this short (129 pages) book, divided into 27 short chapters, he distills that knowledge and wisdom for the benefit of other writers, especially younger and aspiring ones. As he explains in the second chapter --the first one is just a humorous meditation on the truth that fictional characters and plots sometimes develop in ways very unanticipated by the author-- many of the chapters were originally separate articles (which were written over the years 1996-2006, and published in various writer's magazines, mostly The Christian Communicator). This means that there are references to his personal circumstances that are inconsistent in places (some were written while he was still single, for instance, and others after his marriage), and which are not edited out, and that some topics that are particularly important in writing, such as characterization, are touched on more than once. However, this does not interfere with the flow and readability of the writing; and where certain points are repeated, the repetition is the sort that good instructors use to emphasize and drive home important points. Writers approaching this book as a resource should be aware that it does not offer advice on the purely business aspects of authorship, such as finding a venue or publisher, self-publishing (although Andrew has experience both with the latter and with traditional publishing), or marketing, etc. Where he's offering his advice is strictly in the area of the writing process itself, and that just with reference to prose writing (would-be poets won't find poetry-specific instruction here). Fiction, in both the long and short formats, is the central focus, but there is one chapter on nonfiction. But within that defined scope, the advice offered is solid and constructive. Of course, this assessment is coming from a writer (of sorts) whose credentials are vastly less impressive than Andrew's own. But I've also been reading both fiction and nonfiction avidly for over sixty years, have seriously reviewed much of that reading in various print and online venues for over 30 years, and gotten an A in a college Creative Writing class, albeit decades ago. So I'm not without some ability to recognize good advice in this field. Indeed, I would say that this book would have been a well-fitting and useful resource for that class, and even have made a good textbook –-maybe in conjunction with an anthology of good fiction (which our textbook mostly consisted of) or with a book on the poetic craft. Topics covered here include plot structure, the importance of a strong beginning and an effective and appropriate ending, vital characterization, stylistic tips for the proper handling of language for clear and pleasing readability, the vital importance of editing and revision, how to handle writer's block, the valuable help that can come from rejection letters that include some kind of critique, and much more. Andrew encourages wide reading for all would-be writers, as well as using travel (which nowadays, as he points out, can be virtual, through the Internet) as an occasion for observation. All of this is written with a verve and humorous touch that's never boring, and often enlivened with visits to the author from such figures as Julius Caesar, the main characters from the original Star Trek TV series (a transporter malfunction temporarily landed them in his house) and a mummy, all of them able to impart or evoke some insights on the writing craft. (And all of whom demonstrate that having a big imagination is probably a serious asset to the fiction writer. :-) ) One chapter deals with the question of various kinds of bad language, such as profanity (I would quibble with his taxonomy, preferring my own categories and definitions, but that's a minor point). His strong advice is against using it, mainly for religious reasons (he's a devout Roman Catholic), but also because well-written fiction doesn't require bad language in order to be “realistic,” it can in fact be a crutch for lazy writing, and it can make the reading experience tedious and offensive to many readers, especially if it's used a lot. My practice in my own writing is to avoid profanity and obscenity entirely, so I largely agree with him, while perhaps being more willing to recognize the matter as a judgment call for each individual writer to decide (though he does allow that it is). I'm also more open to the practice of using symbols such as “##%$*&!” as a substitute (though I don't do it myself); Andrew finds these “awkward and childish,” but Paul Zindle comes to mind as an author who's used that device successfully, and similar devices such as “_____” can be used as well. If I were writing such a guide, I'd probably lay more stress on the great value of accurate research (especially in historical settings, and anywhere where you're dealing with scientific, medical, or technological material that you don't understand well yourself), mainly because I've experienced both the humiliation of making drastic bloopers from neglecting research and the joy of escaping other equally drastic ones due to research I did do. :-) But if I were writing this guide, it wouldn't have turned out to be half as readable, informative and helpful as this one is! In my opinion, this book will definitely be useful to anyone who's currently engaged in writing, as a source of income or a serious hobby, whether you're just beginning or have been at it a while but still want to improve your craft. As indicated above, I'd also recommend it as a textbook for anyone preparing to teach creative writing at either the secondary or college level (it would lift students at the former up to the latter, not vice versa) –and it's priced reasonably, rather than extortionately as most present-day textbooks are! My solid three-star rating for it (meaning that I liked it) is my usual one for nonfiction books; those that get five stars, like the Bible, or four, are books that can majorly change your whole life, or be a significant factor in your spiritual, intellectual or philosophical formation. This book doesn't aim to be in that league. But it just might help you to seriously better your writing skills! Full disclosure: the author gifted me with a copy of this book, not with any request for a review, but simply because he's always been generous in sharing his writing with me as an act of friendship. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Feb 28, 2024
|
Mar 05, 2024
|
Feb 07, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
9798852106810
| B0CDYWLH66
| 4.00
| 1
| unknown
| Aug 08, 2023
|
really liked it
|
This collection is another rewarding read from prolific independent author Andrew M. Seddon, whom I've had the honor of counting as a friend for some
This collection is another rewarding read from prolific independent author Andrew M. Seddon, whom I've had the honor of counting as a friend for some 20 years. It's actually a sort of sequel to his Bonds of Affection: Short Stories and Memories of German Shepherds (2019), and like the earlier collection contains both short stories and nonfiction "memories" of German Shepherd dogs who have been part of his and/or his veterinarian wife, Olivia's lives. (He had written too much material to include in the original book, and had notes for other stories he wanted to write as well; hence this companion volume.) The general comments in my review of the first book would apply to this one as well. Again, the fictional selections include both descriptive and speculative works (in at least one case, the dividing line is ambiguous, and it's sometimes uncertain whether the speculative element in those stories that have one is supernatural or science fictional). All profits from the sale of this collection, as with the first one, "go to benefit German Shepherd rescues and K9 support organizations." In all, there are 13 short stories here, of which seven were previously published in literary magazines or earlier collections of Andrew's tales. All of the latter were revised for publication here, however; and although I've beta read several stories here years ago (and Andrew kindly mentioned me in his acknowledgments for that, though my role was slight!) I read the entire collection on this go-around so that my reactions would be as fresh as possible. The German Shepherds who figure in the stories appear in various roles, including search-and-rescue dogs, as in the title story, "Ranger's First Call;" seeing-eye guides for the blind, as in the most thought-provoking story here, "The Sun on the Liffey;" as nonconsensual experimental subjects, for instance in "Experimental Subjects" (featuring Andrew's space-faring vet character, Doc Hughes); or just plain companions to their humans. Some of them play major roles in the plots of their stories, others are just supporting characters. ("The Darkness at the Edge of the World" features story-cycle characters Howard Sheffield and his dog Baltasar, but those stories have yet to be published together in their own book.) Story settings vary, from the historical fiction of "The Easter Shepherd," unfolding in the hellish milieu of World War I trench warfare, to contemporary locales as widely separated as Oregon and Ukraine, all the way to outer space in the far future. But they all have in common Andrew's skillful story-telling, thoughtful craftsmanship, and strongly moral literary vision; and they all exude his affection for dogs in general and German shepherds in particular. That affection, as well as understanding and concern, comes across as well in the four memories sections, which pay tribute primarily to six dogs not mentioned in the first book, some of whom had happy lives and some of whom did not. But even in the case of the first group, the memories may ultimately have a poignant and bittersweet quality, because sadly our canine companions' natural life spans aren't as long as ours. There are also two short poems, one by Andrew and one by his sister Judith, which are both moving elegies to canine friends that have passed away. The short Preface was nominally written by Andrew's German Shepherd Rex (who has since also passed --this was published in 2022), though I have reason to suspect he had some help from his human. :-) It encourages adoption of shelter dogs who need loving homes. Andrew's four-page Introduction is also well worth reading, for a simple and straightforward testimony to the unique qualities of dogs (who are, as he explains, neither things to be used nor four-legged, furry humans, but special and distinct creatures in their own right), and to the rewarding friendship that they can bring into the lives of human individuals and families if we open our hearts to them. This book will particularly appeal to all readers who have a special affection for dogs and who also like tasteful, well-written short fiction; but you can greatly appreciate it even if you aren't in that first group. But even folks who aren't ardent dog enthusiasts may come away from these pages with a new understanding and appreciation for these friendly and intelligent creatures! Note: My copy of the book was a kind gift from the author, but he didn't solicit a review; I read it because I wanted to, and am glad to share my honest opinion! ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 05, 2024
|
Mar 12, 2024
|
Feb 07, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0520012321
| 9780520012325
| B001ADCROI
| 4.15
| 15,394
| 1220
| Jan 01, 1984
|
liked it
|
Written in the early 1200s by the Icelandic scholar, poet and civic leader Snorri Sturluson (1179-1241), and one of the major works of Icelandic and g
Written in the early 1200s by the Icelandic scholar, poet and civic leader Snorri Sturluson (1179-1241), and one of the major works of Icelandic and general medieval literature, The Prose Edda is one of the two key original sources for the study of the mythology of the proto-Germanic peoples of northern Europe. (The Goodreads description defines edda as "the poetic art," but the term is a rarely used word and the meaning of it is actually uncertain.) The other one is also in Icelandic, the slightly older collection by an unknown compiler called The Poetic Edda: Stories of the Norse Gods and Heroes. All later retellings are directly or indirectly dependent on these sources. From this reading, I was able to recognize numerous elements that are repeated in works I previously read, such as The Heroes of Asgard: Tales from Scandinavian Mythology (1870) by Annie and Eliza Keary, Sigvart Sorenson's summation of Norse mythology in Norway (1899), and even William Morris' 19th-century translation of the saga of Sigurd, contained in A Treasury of Fantasy. (This is also where Tolkien gets quite a few of the dwarve's names in The Hobbit!) There are just seven surviving manuscripts of this work, dating from about 1300-1600, all of which exhibit some differences. This particular translation, first published by Cambridge Univ. Press in 1954 (the American edition was reprinted by Univ. of California Press in 1964), was done by Jean I. Young, an academic in the English program at the Univ. of Reading, who used primarily the printed Icelandic text established by the scholars Anne Holtsmark and Jon Helgason, published in 1950. In her brief Forward, she notes that she intended her work both for college students and general readers interested in the mythology. The text itself is also preceded by an eight and 1/2 page Introduction by Sigurdur Nordal, who was then professor of Icelandic literature at the Univ. of Reykjavik. I found this useful for explaining the structure of the original work (and what parts of it are included here, and why), as well as the author's motives for writing it in the cultural setting of his time; but less useful in his dismissive skepticism of the accuracy of Sturluson's retelling of the myths. (More on that below.) Christian Icelanders in Sturluson's time, like the Greek and Roman Christians of late antiquity, inherited a literary tradition (mostly still oral, in the former case) that was based on a shared body of pre-Christian pagan myths and legends. Then as in the earlier Christian centuries, there were those among the clergy who wanted to extirpate all memory of paganism, even if it meant erasing the culture's existing literature and sanitizing future writings of any pagan references. Like Augustine before him, Sturluson opposed this extreme position; he argued for keeping the older stories alive for their literary value and aesthetic role as guides for future literature, while recognizing that they weren't to be regarded as true. That message shapes this work, which is a kind of manifesto for it. It proved to be a very successful one, convincing the author's own and subsequent generations, and shaping the development of Icelandic poetry down to at least the mid-20th century, when this translation was done. The original Prose Edda has four parts: a short Prologue in which the author sets the Aesir, or Norse "gods" as we know them, in a broad context of Biblical and secular history as he understood it, "The Deluding of Gylfi," in which the Aesir, for their own amusement, contrive to hoodwink a semi-mythical ancient Swedish king by relating a farrago of cosmological and mythological tall tales, which he then spreads abroad as factual; the "Poetic Diction," which relates various legendary tales to explain the "kennings," or poetic metaphors, that are drawn from them (for instance, why poetry is referred to as "Kvasir's blood"), and finally the Hattatal, a 102-stanza poem the author wrote about an instance in the earlier Norse dynastic civil wars, accompanied by a prose commentary, for the instruction of would-be poets, on matter of diction and metre. What Young translates here are the first two parts in their entirety, and the story portions of the third part --in other words, all the material that relates or has any bearing on the mythology itself. The Hattatal was omitted as largely untranslatable into another language. As noted above, Nordal is totally skeptical of any evidential value of this material for actual Norse mythology in the Viking Age (an idea he dismisses in two and a half deprecatory sentences, with no sources cited). He insists that both here and in Sturluson's oral and written sources, the material must be "the product of the poetic imagination... during the decline of paganism," and also asserts that "no one now" (in 1954) disagrees with him. Given that his own specialized field was literature, not history, cultural anthropology or folklore studies, and that it's very unlikely that he was well-read in any of the latter, that assertion can be met with some skepticism of our own. His basic thesis is simply speculation without evidence, cited as fact. We can freely concede that Sturluson's own theory of the Aesir as human wanderers to the Northern lands from Troy, deified by the locals, and his imagined origin of the myths in a practical joke, falls into the same category, and doesn't inspire any more confidence than Nordal's pronouncements. Likewise, we can recognize that the actual mythology existed in a variety of local variations, which Sturluson systematizes for convenience. But I personally have complete confidence that his oral and written sources substantially preserve the deposit of the much earlier centuries, and that he basically reproduces it faithfully (it would defeat his literary purpose not to do so). From my knowledge of folklore studies, such as it is, I would say that there is no objective reason to doubt this. Not counting Nordal's Introduction, Young's Preface, and the slightly over eight-page index of proper names, the main text here has just about 100 pages. (There are no endnotes; footnotes are used mainly to translate the meaning of proper names, such as "Glad-of-war" for Herteit.) Given this shortness, the book is a relatively quick read. It's not, however, necessarily a riveting one; in places it can even be tedious. We have a lot of lists of similar Scandinavian names, genealogical material, descriptions of mythic people and places, some of which tend to run together. The tales themselves are more ...interesting (and sometimes out-and-out weird!), but they're often not very pleasant. Frequently, the Aesir --and not just Loki!-- and the human characters exhibit a good deal of greed, pettiness, jealousy, treachery, casual murderous cruelty and sexual looseness (the latter isn't directly referred to, but it's recognizable between the lines), which reflect the culture the lore evolved in. Nevertheless, I'd characterize this as essential reading for anyone seriously interested in Scandinavian or medieval studies in general, or Norse mythology in particular. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 19, 2023
|
Aug 25, 2023
|
May 15, 2021
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
0340863757
| 9780340863756
| 0340863757
| 4.41
| 3,485
| 1976
| Apr 25, 2005
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jan 29, 2021
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0385073291
| 9780385073295
| 0385073291
| 3.85
| 434
| Jan 01, 1969
| Jan 01, 1969
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
May 15, 2020
|
Mass Market Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0805013407
| 9780805013405
| 0805013407
| 4.27
| 1,929
| 1989
| May 15, 1990
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Mar 24, 1992
|
Apr 14, 2020
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
1089719981
| 9781089719984
| 1089719981
| 5.00
| 2
| unknown
| Aug 20, 2019
|
it was amazing
|
Note, May 27, 2021: I've just edited this review to reflect an update in the Goodreads description. The variety of customized Goodreads bookshelves on Note, May 27, 2021: I've just edited this review to reflect an update in the Goodreads description. The variety of customized Goodreads bookshelves on which I've placed this collection is indicative of its genre-spanning quality. What we have here is a blend of fictional tales and nonfiction "memories." Eleven previously written short stories, all of them featuring German Shepherd dogs in key roles, are interspersed with four memoirs of German Shepherds the author's owned or still owns, and who have meant much to him. Andrew's outstanding short fiction output embraces both descriptive general fiction and the speculative genres of supernatural and science fiction; and examples of all three appear here. I've beta read all of the stories, although three of them have never been published previously. A few of the other eight originally appeared in magazines, and all but one were included in some of the author's previously published story collections and/or multi-author anthologies, all of which I've reviewed here on Goodreads, in some cases commenting specifically on the stories in question. However, it's been quite awhile since I beta read any of them, and many of them have been edited and polished since their previous publications. (Where I could note differences from memory, I would say that the versions here are, in each case, the best iterations of the stories to date; they're more developed, or more textured, than the ones I remembered, though I didn't do textual comparisons.) Accordingly, I gave all of the material here a fresh read, cover to cover (and of course the memoirs were completely new to me, though having known Andrew for some 15 years, I recognized the names of most of the dogs and some circumstances of their lives). "Bonds of Affection" (the title story), "The Christmas Shepherd," and the previously unpublished "Ain't Nobody Gonna Hear You Howl" and "Marathon Dog" are all works of general fiction. (The latter story also reflects the author's own enthusiasm for running in marathons, in which he's sometimes had a German Shepherd running buddy.) Our lead story, "The Ghost Dog of Stockton Bridge," "The Power of the Dog," and "Bond" are supernatural fiction; I'd classify the previously unpublished "The Ring of Kalhu," part of a story cycle featuring World War I veteran Sheffield and his German Shepherd Balthasar, as the same, though many of the Sheffield stories are science fiction in the Lovecraftian mold. That definitely describes "Hounded by Night," inspired by Frank Belknap Long's "The Hounds of Tindalos" (and better than the latter, IMO); "Far Voyager," and "Night of the Skaggit" are also SF. In the book, though, the stories are grouped in a different way: after the lead story, we have three tales of "Humans Saving Dogs," three of "Dogs Saving Humans" (of course, there are various ways, and various senses, in which they can do that), and four that illustrate "The Tragedy of Abuse." Andrew and his wife (she's a veterinarian, as is the hero of one story here) love and care for animals in general, but he has a special liking for dogs, and for German Shepherds in particular, which is why the latter show up so frequently in his fiction. This book is a very real homage to the breed; the author's Introduction notes their intelligence, devotion, bravery and many areas of service to humans since the breed was developed in the late 1890s. The stories illustrate the same qualities, with a variety of featured German Shepherds. Some are police dogs and some "civilians," some have loving homes and some sadly don't, though they may find one; some are no longer among the corporeal living (hey, if humans can come back as ghosts, why can't dogs?), and one isn't exactly a dog, he's a... well... I guess you'll just have to read that story. :-) Using the "truth of art," the author brings to life the very special bond that humans and canines can share, and makes a compelling case for the claim of these smart, affectionate and sensitive animals to kind and decent treatment from the humans with whom they share the world, and on whom they depend. All of the fictional selections are written with Andrew's characteristic literary vision, skill at characterization, and quality craftsmanship. The nonfiction portions are windows into the author's life, presented in an always interesting fashion, sometimes humorous, and sometimes poignant. While I typically enjoy fiction more than nonfiction, the entire book easily kept my attention. It would have a special appeal to dog lovers, and especially to those with a particular affinity for German Shepherds, obviously. But you don't have to be a specially ardent dog person to really like the book (I certainly did, and I wouldn't describe myself as one, though I've lived with dogs at times over the years, and was fond of them). These well-told stories, true and fictional, resonate with anybody who has healthy instincts and cares about his/her fellow creatures; it's an uplifting and even inspiring read. By way of full disclosure, Andrew gifted me with a review copy of this book; but my reaction is an honest one, and not influenced by our friendship. As noted in the Goodreads description, "All proceeds from the sale of this book go to benefit German Shepherd rescues and K9 support organizations." ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 10, 2019
|
Dec 18, 2019
|
Sep 20, 2019
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
1406796921
| 9781406796926
| 1406796921
| unknown
| 4.18
| 124
| Jan 01, 1929
| Jul 01, 2006
|
liked it
|
When she heard the title of this book, my wife's whimsical question was, "Was it lost?" :-) In fact, though, Henry Vollam Morton wrote (among others)
When she heard the title of this book, my wife's whimsical question was, "Was it lost?" :-) In fact, though, Henry Vollam Morton wrote (among others) some seven books with "In Search of...." titles, describing his journeys to various places in the British Isles and elsewhere. This is the only one of his books I've read; but he was apparently inclined to think that by traveling through a country for a couple of weeks or so, he could, through astute observation, discover and distill in writing its unique national essence. (More on that below.) I've actually read this twice, once as a kid in the mid-60s; but I'd forgotten the author and title information. Recently, a post in one of my Goodreads groups gave me the clue I needed to track it down; and since I could remember many parts of the text, once I had a copy of the book in hand (through interlibrary loan), it was quickly clear that this was indeed the book. It didn't take me long to realize that in order to do it justice in a review, I'd need a reread. In 1929, Morton spent apparently a bit over two weeks (the chronology isn't very explicit) touring Scotland by motor car. A simple map inside the front and back covers shows his route: entering the country near Jedburgh, and driving thence to Edinburgh, Stirling, St. Andrews, Dundee, Perth, Aberdeen, Inverness, down through the western Highlands to Fort William (with a side trip to the Isle of Skye), Glasgow, Burns country around Ayr, and finally back into England near Carlisle. Of course, there were numerous stops in between! There's much description of Scottish scenery, which is obviously beautiful (the book is illustrated with 16 black-and-white photographs, but they lose a good deal because they're not in color). High points of the trip included his visit to Sir Walter Scott's great house, Abbotsford; Scotland's World War I memorial in Edinburgh, the National War Shrine (which greatly impressed him); Stirling Castle; the battlefield of Culloden; a description of a ship christening at Glasgow, which is Scotland's industrial hub and a major center for shipbuilding; and the many sites around Ayr with Burns associations. He brings in a great many anecdotes and discussions of Scotland's long history, a lot of which is tragic and bloody. (Although he did visit Loch Ness, there's no reference to Nessie. :-) ) Morton writes with a very vivid, descriptive style, and structures the incidents of the trip in such a way as to make an interesting narrative; his mastery of writing technique would actually have stood him in good stead as a writer of fiction, though I don't know if he ever wrote any. He also has a penchant for sweeping generalizations about national character (English and American as well as Scottish) or local character associated with different Scottish cities. Personally, while I think the history and conditions of some countries or regions have influenced a prevalence for certain traits among many of their people, that's as far as I'd go. I don't think there's really such a thing as a mystical "national character;" there are just a lot of individual's characters, some of whom live together in a particular place. (In other words, in medieval philosophical terms, I'm a strong "Nominalist," not a "Realist" --that's one part of the only philosophy book I ever sort of read that I did understand. :-) ). Also, a lot of what he describes are incidental happenstances of fellow tourists or locals he met and talked to along the way; and his perceptions of places and views are greatly influenced by the weather or the time of day when he saw them. And the emotional reactions things inspire in him are individual, and not necessarily the same as mine would be if I saw the same things. If I ever traveled in Scotland --which I'd love to do, but probably never will!-- my experience would probably be entirely different from his. So I can't regard his memoir as really being a meaningful substitute for actually going there myself. As I recall, that was exactly my reaction the first time I read this, and was why I've mostly never read travel books since then. Nonetheless, I did like the book, not entirely just because of nostalgia for a childhood read. It was undeniably educational; I learned things about Scotland from it on the first read that I never forgot, and relearned some things this time that I'd forgotten (and expect will be more durable this time around!). For one thing, I have a much better grasp of Scots geography than I did before this read; I knew the shape of the country on the map, where the Highlands are and roughly where Edinburgh and Ayr are before, but I couldn't have located any of the other cities Morton visited. And the historical content was fascinating, though often painfully and morbidly so. (I'm not easily moved to tears, but his description of the battle of Culloden brought me close to crying --of course, my sympathies are with the Jacobites.) I'd read (also as a kid) Mary, Queen of Scots by Emily Hahn, but the material here helped to flesh out Mary's story, and show something of her personality. (The suggestion that her son James may actually have died in infancy, and that his caregiver, the Countess of Mar, may have substituted a child of hers for him --suggested by his marked physical resemblance, as a adult, to the Earl of Mar, who on that theory would have been his brother-- is intriguing; DNA testing would prove or disprove it, but I don't know if it's ever been done.) This book has a two-page index, but it's pretty inadequate, and so not very useful. However, the two-page bibliography seems to be a pretty solid listing of useful sources on Scotland up to that time, though of course it's very dated now. (The read did whet my appetite for reading more books with a Scottish focus, but I probably won't use the bibliography for suggestions!) ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 07, 2019
|
Aug 19, 2019
|
Aug 07, 2019
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
B0059EFI4U
| 3.78
| 200,934
| Aug 09, 1854
| Apr 18, 2004
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Apr 30, 2019
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||||
0674390776
| 9780674390775
| 0674390776
| 3.88
| 452
| 1988
| Sep 01, 1990
|
liked it
|
This book was donated to the BU library (where I work) several years ago, which put it on my radar. I've long been interested in the subject of “elite
This book was donated to the BU library (where I work) several years ago, which put it on my radar. I've long been interested in the subject of “elite” culture in the arts (literature, film, music, and visual art), as opposed to so-called “popular” art, and its relationship to “elite” socio-economic and political ideology. Like most people who work in the library profession and/or academia, I'm exposed to this phenomenon; but I've never studied it seriously, especially not in terms of its historical origins and development, and never read a definitive description and analysis of it. Last year, when a Goodreads group I'm in chose a so-called “literary fiction” (in the elitist sense) novel as a group read, I didn't feel that I could credibly describe its genre and situate it in terms of that context, so I chose not to review it. I concluded then that I need to actually educate myself on this subject. Hence, this read. The body of the text here is made up of 256 pages, divided into just three chapters, with a relatively short Prologue and Epilogue. A goodly number (the credits fill a page) of black-and-white period photographs, mostly of people or groups of people and places, genuinely enhance the presentation. We're provided with an over 10-page index, and Levine documents his references in a bit over 35 pages of endnotes (the occasional added elaborations of points made in the main text are made in footnotes); but there's no bibliography as such. That's a flaw, because that would have provided a handy reference to the author's sources. However, the book does seem to be very well documented, with mostly reference to primary sources. I detected one factual error; a quote from Sidney Lanier, who died in 1881, is dated 1898 (and I don't think the quote illustrates the point being made). Lawrence W. Levine (d. 2006) was a longtime prestigious history professor at the Univ. of California, Berkeley, and a pillar of the left-wing political establishment, who garnered numerous professional honors and awards (just four years after the 1988 publication of this book –one of at least 15 that he wrote-- he was elected president of the Organization of American Historians). In other words, he had impeccable elite credentials himself, and his publisher for this tome, Harvard Univ. Press, is about as elite as they come in American academia. (The book itself is largely based on his 1986 William E. Massey Sr. Lectures in the History of American Civilization at Harvard Univ.) He was eminently positioned to observe the American elite culture of his own time from the inside. However, his focus in this book is almost entirely on the 19th century, with some reference to such early 20th-century persons and events as show the continuing outworking of late 19th-century trends. So this is not a comprehensive history of American elite culture down to the present. Levine also concentrates heavily on Shakespeare (other literature is mostly ignored), classical music and opera, and museums. Nor does he set American developments in the broader context of Western culture as a whole. What he does, though, is first solidly demonstrate that America in the antebellum years of the 19th century had a common public culture shared by the rich, middle classes and the poor, which included such components as the plays of Shakespeare and Italian operas, both of which were hugely popular with all social classes. Second, he documents how, during the later 19th century, upper class cultural arbiters backed by big money popularized a view of certain art works –Shakespeare's plays, the classical music of German composers of the 17th through the early 19th centuries, and the visual art of classical antiquity and the Old Masters-- as “high” art possessed of a quasi-sacral quality, to be received and appreciated as a supposedly morally uplifting experience apart from any entertainment value, and which the uneducated and lower-class members of the community lacked the understanding to “properly” appreciate for the “right” reasons. This was accompanied by a conscious program of segregating cultural spaces by class, with the Great Unwashed, as much as possible, kept out of venues where “high” art was performed or displayed. Many of the actual quotes Levine cites from the men (this was largely a boy's club) driving this trend suggest to me that a big part of the appeal of embracing this position was psychological validation as a person morally and intellectually superior to the masses. And the underlying attitudes weren't without a hefty component of racism, xenophobia, and class entitlement. (The term “highbrow,” which was coined in the 1880s, and its opposite “lowbrow” are themselves drawn from the pseudo-science of phrenology, which was an integral part of the “scientific racism” of that day.) To his credit, Levine stresses that these developments were complex and multi-faceted, with causes in a wide range of socio-cultural phenomena, and are not to be reductively explained as driven only by racial/class antagonism and desire for prestige and cultural power. (Nor were the underlying concerns all necessarily illegitimate. A big motivation in the quest for greater decorum in theaters and concert halls, for instance, was the outrageous behavior of many people in early 19th-century audiences, which could consist not just of making noise that prevented others from hearing, but of throwing things at performers who displeased them, and even vandalism and violence in extreme cases like the Astor Place Riot, which I'd never heard of before.) In the closest thing he has to a thesis statement, the author writes, “If there is a tragedy in this development, it is not only that millions of Americans were now separated from exposure to such creators as Shakespeare, Beethoven and Verdi... but also that the rigid cultural categories, once they were in place, made it so difficult for so long for so many to understand the value and importance of the popular art forms that were all around them. Too many of those who considered themselves educated and cultured lost for a significant period –and many still have not regained-- their ability to discriminate independently, to sort things out for themselves and understand that simply because a form of expressive culture was widely accessible and highly popular it was not therefore necessarily devoid of any redeeming value or artistic merit.” With this view, I heartily agree! As already noted, the focus here is on the 19th century, with relatively little reference to the 20th. (The author does make the revealing statement that, “Although this... may have been the creation of conservative elites, it became part of the intellectual equipment of many on the left later in this century,” but only in a footnote that he doesn't develop.) In the roughly 13-page Epilogue, he does try to briefly survey the state of things in 1988, noting that while there are indications of a rising tendency in some elite circles to be more eclectic and open to “popular” culture, the late 19th-century mindset still shapes most people's perceptions. Much of the Epilogue, though, oddly focuses on casting a few conservative academics, especially Allan Bloom with particular reference to his 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind (which I read decades ago, but don't remember well and would need to reread to discuss intelligently), as today's spokespersons for the concept of elite culture. Bloom's position and cultural canon may resemble that of the conservative late 19th-century pundits of, say, 1888; but it's fairly obvious that the actual elite conception of 'high” culture that prevailed in 1988 was vastly different –the sense of superiority over the supposed vulgar herd and the tight link between cultural elite authority and political power and wealth remain constants, but the content of supposed “high” culture is radically redefined. (And the differences have grown greater by 2023.) Most of today's conservative cultural critics do argue for a canon (though not necessarily a closed one!) of serious works of art and thought that have stood the test of time and have continuing relevance; but they advocate this from outside the circle of elite privilege, and argue for, rather than against, the accessibility of these works to ordinary people. Overall, this was an illuminating read; I learned a substantial amount of significant factual information I did not previously know, and picked up some serious new insights. (Because of time and space constraints, this review just scratches the surface in that respect.) That it's prompted me to want to explore the subject more with additional reading, rather than providing a definitive final treatment of it, is a good thing rather than a defect! ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 30, 2023
|
Jun 13, 2023
|
May 24, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
0449216802
| 9780449216804
| 0449216802
| 4.21
| 53
| 1988
| Jan 30, 1989
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Mar 30, 2015
|
Mass Market Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0307265773
| 9780307265777
| 0307265773
| 4.00
| 41,942
| Jan 01, 2006
| Sep 19, 2006
|
did not like it
|
New Atheist spokesman Harris published an earlier book attacking religion, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, in 2004. Writ
New Atheist spokesman Harris published an earlier book attacking religion, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, in 2004. Written in response to "hostile" mail, mostly from Christians, reacting to the first one, this second book is designed as a concise (91 pages of text) distillation of his argument, both to irrefutably "demolish" any possible case for theism in general and Christian theism in particular, and primarily "to arm secularists... who believe that religion should be kept out of public policy, against their opponents on the Christian Right." Harris uses the term "Christian" loosely, apparently including various types of nominal "Christians" and Christian-influenced Americans; but he directs his attack here on those who hold to the traditional form of the faith, though defined somewhat inaccurately and treated as monolithic, without nuance. As a Christian, I obviously didn't come to the book without a prior opinion. But I did honestly seek to give it a fair hearing, considering his case on its merits, and seriously interacting and engaging with it. (That's been an intellectually stimulating and enriching process, despite the fact that the book itself is disorganized and poorly argued, IMO; I did quite a bit of study as a result, and learned some significant things.) I've attempted to organize my review topically, rather than following the rambling order in which subjects are treated in the book. First, I'll consider his arguments against theistic/Christian belief; second, his critique of Christian positions on social issues; and third, the significance of New Atheist attitudes for our common life in a pluralistic culture. Truthfully, given the hype surrounding the book, I expected a much more cogent case against Christian faith than Harris makes. There are actually no arguments here that I hadn't heard before, and they're for the most part shopworn chestnuts that have been bandied about (and already answered) by village atheists for generations, delivered with an in-your-face stridency and belligerence. (Calling it a rant is an objective description, not a deliberately pejorative epithet.) Due to time and space constraints, I won't touch on every point he makes, but I'll try to cover the most important ones. 1. Theism, Harris says, has no evidential basis as all; it's believed in on faith (which he regards as by definition blind belief without evidence), and so is obviously irrational. But "rational" scientists believe in the existence of various real things that are, like God, not themselves directly observable; they're believed in on the indirect evidence of their effect on things that are empirically observable. That's the basis for Christian theistic faith, which turns out to have a lot of indirect empirical evidence, all of which Harris ignores here. (The most exhaustive summary of this that I know of is Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict; Frank Morison's more narrowly-focused Who Moved the Stone?: A Skeptic Looks at the Death and Resurrection of Christ is also instructive.) In weighing this kind of evidence, there is obviously a subjective element; most of us assess the cumulative force of the case to justify a decision one way or the other, and base our faith (in theism or atheism) on that, recognizing that it stops short of absolute demonstration. This isn't the same thing as blind belief without evidence. 2. Harris argues that a benevolent God could not possibly allow human suffering (represented here by natural disasters, viruses, and crimes against innocent children); the existence of the latter cannot possibly be explained if one posits the former. However, Christians explain it by the fact that God created humans endowed, like Himself, with a free will; we're not robots or clones, but conscious beings who make real choices and enter into voluntary relationships. But that autonomy carries with it the possibility of making wrong and even horrendous choices as well as good ones, and those choices have meaningful effects. This affects even the natural realm. God created the Garden of Eden as a paradise in which He would have directly controlled nature for humanity's benefit; but because of the Fall He has backed off to allow natural law to operate, for the most part, without His direct intervention. This allows humans an environment in which their spiritual choices are not coerced, and that provides the maximum scope for purgative character formation. IMO, that explanation makes sense. Harris may subjectively disagree; but it is not an explanation that's illogical or fallacious on its face. 3. Unlike some atheists, Harris admits that objective morality exists, and can be recognized by humans apart from special revelation. On that basis, he argues that atheists are more moral than Christians, based on lower crime rates in "blue" states than in "red" ones, and on the supposedly Utopian state of society in Western Europe and other Western nations that have lower rates of religious belief than the U.S. He admits that the red/blue state dichotomy isn't a "perfect indicator of religiosity." This is true, given that blue states are often blue due to the presence of large numbers of blacks (who are more Christian proportionately than the white community) and Catholic Hispanics, as well as of ethnic white Catholics who traditionally vote Democratic. It also seems to be true that the high crime rates of red states are driven by the rates in their blue counties, and that lower crime rates in blue states owe more to low rates in their red counties than in their blue ones. In general, Harris ignores every other factor, like income and education, that affect crime rates as much as religion. Those factors are particularly applicable in other Western nations with cradle-to-grave welfare states (which may not be economically sustainable). However, despite the myth of the "happy atheists" in those nations, the two countries with the largest per capita use of antidepressants are Iceland and Denmark, and four Western European countries have significantly higher suicide rates than the U.S. (see www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27... and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List-of-countri... .) [Note: that Wikipedia link does not work; see message 4 below for one that does.] And it happens that several recent university studies that actually DID measure the effect of religious affiliation on crime (unlike Harris' red/blue state comparison) all demonstrate that communities with a higher rate of religious affiliation have less violent crime (www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/n... .) It should be noted that Christians don't claim that every individual Christian is more moral than every individual non-Christian. All humans are fallen, and marred by psychological shortcomings; all humans also have consciences, and most to some degree receive the subconscious ministration of the Holy Spirit to move them in a better direction. Genuine Christians benefit from a moral reorientation and a more conscious attempt to cooperate with the Spirit, so that they're in a process of becoming morally better than they individually would have been without conversion. But the results don't break down into a "Christians=perfection, nonbelievers=monstrous vileness" dichotomy, and the Bible doesn't suggest that it does. So Harris' suggestion that the moral shortcomings of Christians across the 2,000 year history of the faith disprove the truth claims of Christianity has no more validity than a claim that the moral shortcomings of some atheists, such as serial-killer/cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer, who defend moral nihilism on the basis of what they consider a legitimate interpretation of atheism, in themselves disprove atheism. 4. According to Harris, the Bible teaches an objectively horrible code of ethics, his main example here being that it supports slavery. This charge and a good many others are rebutted in Paul Copan's book, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God (which I've reviewed elsewhere). 5. Christian morality, in Harris' view, is inferior to the morality of Jainism, summed up in the command, "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." In other words, Jainism draws no distinction between the lives of humans and of lower animals. Atheists who eat meat, use glue and leather, euthanize their terminally ill and suffering pets, and omit to strain their drinking water through layers of thick muslin (to avoid swallowing and digesting an innocent microorganism) may see Jain ethics as more problematical than Harris does. (And might also have a problem with the ideal of suicide by self-starvation, which Mahavira is said to have attained, as the pinnacle of moral performance.) Jain pacifism may have influenced Gandhi's development of non-violent civil disobedience, which M. L. King in turn borrowed from Gandhi (and from Thoreau, who was a Deist and whom Harris does not mention). But he got his pacifism from his interpretation of the Bible; what he got from Gandhi and Thoreau was a technique for affecting social change, given a stance of pacifism. Most Christians, however, agree with Harris that the Bible doesn't teach absolute pacifism; we just don't view that as a defect in a fallen world. When you confront someone raping and torturing a child, tearfully remonstrating with him accords with Jain ethics, but a hard punch to the jaw works better. Biblical ethics allows for the latter. 6. To Harris, the idea that God will someday bring the current world order to an end and finally judge the wicked is so self-evidently vile that it discredits Christianity, and Jesus' acceptance of that idea can "justify the Inquisition." No, it can't, because Jesus' explicit teaching forbids His followers to try to assume God's prerogative of judgment; that will be His function in His own time (Matt. 13:24-30). Nor is the judgment directed, as Harris suggests, at everyone who isn't a Christian; classical Christian thought has always understood the Bible to teach that Christ's sacrifice atones for all those who follow the light of general revelation to the best of their understanding. (Even Christians who have a more exclusive view of salvation don't see their mandate as to slaughter unbelievers to send them to "hell," but rather to peacefully invite them to embrace a place in God's community.) Final judgment is reserved for those who make a deliberate choice to embrace egoistic selfishness and persist in it --and as long as they live, there's hope that they won't persist in it, so Christians can't presume to finally judge anyone. God's role as Judge is consistent with His role in the moral governance of the universe He created; and His plan to bring that universe to a final state of social justice and happiness is a constructive teleology that differs from the Utopia advocated by people like Harris mainly in that God actually has the capacity to really achieve it. 7. As Harris sees it, "Science" categorically disproves the existence of God. (Since the National Academy of Sciences officially denies this, his response is to slur their collective integrity.) It does this by supposedly proving, through the dogma of Darwinian evolution, that life came into being without a Creator. This contention is rebutted in, among other books, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis by Hugh Ross, and Science Speaks by Peter W. Stoner (none of whom are "young earth" creationists). This doesn't exhaust Harris' arguments, but it covers the most important ones; the others are more obviously flawed on their face. As for the pernicious positions of Christianity on social issues, Harris identifies four that he considers "obscene" and "genocidal." 1. Christians oppose abortion. While Harris calls it "an ugly reality," without saying why he thinks it's ugly, he maintains that there is a "need" for it as long as there are unplanned pregnancies. Presumably, this is because raising an unplanned child might threaten a woman's career and financial well-being. Things like adoption, paternal financial responsibility, educational and employment options, affordable day care, community support for single mothers, etc. aren't seen here as solutions. (Slavery apologists, of course, saw a "need" for slavery if the white community was to be able to live the good life.) Christians base opposition to this on the fact that unborn human babies are, as Harris says about slaves, "human beings like [ourselves], enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness." Being at an earlier developmental state doesn't change that, and the comparison with skin cells brushed off your body (which "could" be grown into a clone using high technology, but won't naturally develop into a living being at all) is spurious. So is the argument that humans often naturally miscarry, and God doesn't prevent it. God allows people to die of a good many natural causes, but that doesn't establish that it's morally neutral to actively kill those who don't naturally die. Nor does it become innocuous to kill someone if they don't feel pain (although developing babies do at a fairly early stage); the injury to a murder victim isn't just in the pain of the act, but in depriving him/her of life. The point also needs to be made that the example of El Salvador's 30-year criminal sentences for women who abort does NOT, just because El Salvador's population is largely Catholic, demonstrate that punishing women in this situation is "the Christian position." It's entirely consistent with Christianity (and common sense) to regard abortion as an offense committed against the woman, not by her, even if it's supposedly voluntary; this recognizes the reality of women's social situation, in which economic, psychological or physical coercion almost always drives the felt need to abort. This reflects the common law tradition, and is the position of the (largely Christian) National Right to Life Committee. See humanevents.com/2007/08/03/if-abortio... . 2. Christians, says Harris, oppose "stem cell research." Actually, that isn't the case; Christians only oppose obtaining stem cells by killing human embryos for them. There are a number of other ways to obtain them; research with these has already produced significant medical benefits, while embryonic stem cells research has produced none. See www.all.org/nav/index/heading/OQ/cat/... . (www.stemcellresearch.org is another site with a lot of useful information on this whole subject.) Interestingly, the Jain position, which Harris earlier held up as the epitome of what religious ethics ought to be, happens to agree with the Christian one on both these points. The other two issues relate to Harris' view (not shared by all atheists) that any sexual behavior done by consenting adults is morally neutral, and that Christian disagreement with this is because of "prudery" that "contributes daily to the surplus of human misery." Christian sexual ethics are based on a positive view of sex as designed to be an expression of committed love in marriage, and I would contend that they can be recognized as valid by humans generally, based on natural moral intuitions of the kind that Harris admits to be valid. 3. Christians encourage teens to abstain from premarital sex. Harris waffles on whether or not this is actually pernicious (at one point, he appears to concede that it isn't), but he misrepresents "abstinence only" education as doing nothing except preaching abstinence and withholding all other information. In fact, abstinence education is as or more "comprehensive" as any other sex education program, including providing information about birth control and AIDS preventives (and including their limitations) but it emphasizes abstinence as the only completely responsible choice (www.abstinenceassociation.org/faqs/ ). He also uses selected statistics to assert that abstinence education doesn't work, but a comprehensive review of the over 20 studies done to date demonstrates that they do (www.heritage.org/research/reports/201... ). 4. He accuses Christians of deliberately trying to prevent the development of HPV vaccine, and of discouraging condom distribution, so that HPV and AIDs can be preserved as a boogey to prevent sexual activity. For the record, Reginald Finger, the evangelical member of the CDC's Advisory Commision on Immunization Practices that he falsely accuses of this (based on a secondary source that was incorrect) voted to recommend developing the vaccine, and fully supports it (www.regfinger.com/5.html ; see also Letter to an Atheist by Michael Patrick Leahy). And the Roman Catholic opposition to condom distribution is based on opposition to birth control (which is not a general Christian position), not on resistance to AIDS prevention. Harris does not simply think religious belief is mistaken; he thinks it's dangerous and needs to be eradicated. His earlier book declares that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." This is in a context of discussing Islamists, and he trades heavily on Islamophobic extremism (www.salon.com/2014/09/06/richard_dawk... ). But he makes it clear here that he considers traditional Christians just as potentially dangerous as he believes Moslems are. This kind of general tarring of ALL religious people as dangerous, intolerant maniacs is, frankly, disturbing. And it's doubly disturbing because he demonstrates himself here to be as intolerant and as hateful towards those who disagree with him as any of the medieval Inquisitors he condemns. ANY worldview, religious or atheistic, that demonizes its opponents and can't coexist in civil comity with them poses a threat to the peace of the majority of people, of various faiths or no faith, who have no problem sharing the world in peace together. (Comparing the faiths of the latter to religious terrorism isn't simply comparing apples and oranges; it's comparing apples and ergot.) It tends to poison the well of our civic discourse, and to foster a polarization and fear that nobody needs. Note: Links to a couple of other online reviews of this book, and citations for some print reviews, by other Christian readers, can be found here: www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2182547-... . ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 23, 2015
|
Jan 27, 2015
|
Oct 31, 2014
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
080701429X
| 9780807014295
| 080701429X
| 4.37
| 833,305
| 1946
| Jun 01, 2006
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Mar 27, 2013
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0906071690
| 9780906071694
| 0906071690
| 3.00
| 1
| unknown
| Jan 01, 1981
|
liked it
|
Unlike many people, I've never kept reading material by the commode (my wife says I take so long as it is that it wouldn't be wise to get me into read
Unlike many people, I've never kept reading material by the commode (my wife says I take so long as it is that it wouldn't be wise to get me into reading anything there!). But one of my sons-in-law does; and I've recently been having to spend a lot of time at his house, and haven't had much time to read anywhere else. Being an antique dealer, most of the books he keeps are antique price guides, etc., which don't really interest me; but this one actually did capture and hold my interest. Written by a journalist who describes himself as "a fulltime antique and collecting nutcase" of about ten years standing, this is an introduction to collectibles (many of which are, or can be, antiques, defined as over a hundred years old), and to collecting, and possibly selling or trading what you collect, as a hobby. (It's also consciously aimed at the reader of normally modest financial means, not the wealthy.) Lewis recommends specializing in a particular line of collectible, but since he's addressing the beginner who hasn't yet decided what to collect, the first nine chapters of the book (subdivided by a number of bolded headings) provide basic overviews of a wide range of collectible items, including toys, kitchen utensils, books, paper ephemera and writing materials, the trappings of rock music, and much else. Not exhaustive, his treatments give thumbnail histories of the items being collected and specific pointers on how to determine date and quality of items, what to look for, etc. Most are accompanied by a few bibliographic suggestions for in-depth reading, and contact information for hobbyist organizations and/or specialist dealers. The 1981 date means that this material doesn't include the large number of relevant Internet sites that undoubtedly exist today, but the material that is there probably isn't too dated to be useful; and the sample prices mentioned (though this isn't a price guide per se)in this field can still be useful as rough guides, according to my son-in-law, since prices vary more by individual situation than over time. Sample prices are quoted in both U.S. and British money, and organizational information appears for both countries; the text suggests that the intended audience is both American and British. There are also a lot of illustrations here, though none in color. All of these sections have some really fascinating tidbits of social history information, which makes the book a treasure trove for anyone interested in the material culture of the past. Occasionally, Lewis uses a term without clearly defining it, or has a description of some object or process that's not clear; but his prose is lucid for the most part. One section that elicited more reflection than most was the one (pp. 86-91; three of those pages are taken up by full or nearly full-page illustrations) on "Early Erotica." It should be said that "erotica" is not necessarily equivalent to "porn" (indeed, Lewis draws some distinctions between the material he's discussing and modern porn, to the disadvantage of the latter). A facile, one-on-one automatic equation of nudity with pornography/obscenity isn't justified; as Frank Schaeffer reminds us in Sham Pearls for Real Swine, the classical artists of the past rightly saw the human form as the apex of created beauty, which brought glory to the Creator. Admittedly, the motivations of the artists behind the material discussed here were usually less exalted, but I think much of it can still be viewed in the same spirit. True, one illustration here, a page from a book by the notorious 16th-century libertine writer/artist Aretino, can fairly be called obscene (though his woodcut couples make the human body look grotesque instead of alluring, and are probably relatively unrevealing and tame compared to modern examples --though I thankfully don't have any firsthand basis for comparison!), but that's one page out of 184. But the other two illustrations, though they each show a female with a bared breast, don't actually come across to me as salacious or arousing lust. Granted, that's the reaction of a 59-year-old; both would have exerted more fascination for me as a teen. But even then, I think my reaction would have been similar in kind if not degree. In assessing imagery like this, a lot depends on attitude: a male who thinks all women ought to be his sex slaves won't view any woman with respect, no matter how many layers of clothing she puts on. But if you associate sex essentially with love and commitment, and regard all women as deserving of respect, just happening to see a woman undressed or partly undressed won't cause you to think of her in a demeaning way; it's possible to just appreciate her beauty as a good part of a beautiful world, and go on. Anyway, that's my theory on the subject! (Personally, though, I don't plan to start collecting erotica, early or otherwise. :-) ) The last three chapters provide basic thumbnail information on how to display, restore and care for various types, and materials, of antiques and collectibles; advice on shopping for antiques (and many of the scams Lewis warns against remind us that the antique trade can be a cutthroat business --though he doesn't suggest the common practice of knowingly buying something valuable from a ignorant owner for a pittance, and indeed presupposes that his readers will do all or most of their buying from dealers), and the author's speculations about future trends in collecting. (He expected burgeoning interest in miniatures; I don't know the field enough to tell whether or not that happened.) To sum it up, this is an excellent basic introduction for a novice or a generalist with an interest in this area --not an in-depth treatment of anything for the specialist, but a good starting point-- and a great light read for any social history buff! ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 20, 2011
|
Oct 11, 2011
|
Oct 14, 2011
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
4.17
| 26,387
| 1972
| Oct 01, 2002
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jun 09, 2011
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||||||
1199112232
| 9780140800388
| 0140800387
| 4.24
| 971
| Oct 01, 1967
| Jan 01, 1968
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Apr 11, 2011
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
1579549551
| 9781579549558
| 1579549551
| 4.20
| 622
| 2002
| Apr 24, 2004
|
liked it
|
Note, Aug. 29, 2015 --I just edited this review slightly, to correct a misspelled word. Thom Hartmann is a liberal (he prefers to avoid the l-word, wit Note, Aug. 29, 2015 --I just edited this review slightly, to correct a misspelled word. Thom Hartmann is a liberal (he prefers to avoid the l-word, with "progressive") talk-radio host and writer of popular-level books on current issues. (To his credit, he's also quite active, along with his wife, in philanthropy for children in need, and relief work abroad.) His core subject here is one of the most crucially important and timely ones imaginable: the ongoing drastic deformation of society, the economy, government, and law in America and around the world, at the hands of profit-driven mega-corporations intent on concentrating all the world's wealth and power into their few hands. He lays this deformation bare under a piercing searchlight, and what he reveals is appalling; before I read this, I already considered myself relatively knowledgeable about the problem, but he exposed information that even shocked me. And he makes it clear that the principal legal weapon of these corporations is a warped interpretation of corporate "personhood." While Hartmann isn't an historian (and it often shows), he's researched some themes and key events in American history thoroughly enough to be on sure ground. As he documents, abuses of power by multinational corporations working hand in glove with bought politicians to create monopolies and exploit the masses are nothing new; they were rife in the 18th century, with the East India Company one of the biggest players. The Boston Tea Party, and the boiling unrest it symbolized, wasn't solely about a tax on tea; the tea dumped into Boston harbor was tax-free tea, brought in by the East India Company in a sweetheart deal with Parliament, which would allow them to undersell and bankrupt all of their small American competitors who were selling taxed tea. America's founders were familiar with these abuses and didn't appreciate them; most were opposed to monopoly and supportive of small business and healthily competitive free enterprise (in the actual, lexical sense of the term). The legal and political climate they created in early America was one in which active Federal and especially state regulation of corporations and their business practices and political activities, for the common good, was taken for granted. In English/American common law, however, corporations traditionally were reckoned as "artificial persons," a legal fiction that allowed them to do some of the same things a natural person can, such as own property and be a party to a lawsuit. At this point, it was not argued by anybody that corporations did or should possess all the rights of "natural persons" (that is, flesh-and-blood human beings). After the passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, aimed at protecting the rights of freed slaves, however, this amendment was highjacked by corporate lawyers who now argued exactly that, in a barrage of lawsuits aimed at striking down any regulation of corporate actions. Their crucial victory is usually supposed to be the 1886 Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case, in which most historians tell us that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are "persons" for 14th Amendment purposes. In fact, as Hartmann amply documents, the Court's actual opinion explicitly refused to rule on that claim; the subsequent misrepresentation of the ruling rests entirely on a headnote by the court clerk (despite two explicit Supreme Court rulings that headnotes have no legal force), probably written with a deliberately disingenuous intention. Since 1886, corporations have repeatedly used the courts to assert their "rights" as "persons" not to be "unequally" taxed vis a vis individuals; to be protected from health and safety inspections; and even to falsely advertise, on the grounds that this is constitutionally-protected "free speech." A major milestone in this campaign was the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that any restriction on corporate expenditures for political advertising are an unconstitutional violation of their "free speech" rights as "persons." Besides a veritable chamber of horrors of actual U.S. court rulings in favor of corporate abuses, the book provides a wealth of statistics on the accelerating concentration of national and global wealth into a relatively few hands, and the attendant actual decline of wages (if the figures are adjusted for inflation) of most Americans. Hartmann also documents a disturbing trend towards state laws criminalizing any "whistle-blowing" of corporate secrets, and perverted use of the concept of "libel" to criminalize criticism of corporate actions and policies, such as the laws in 13 states that make it a crime to "disparage the food supply" by suggesting that it's contaminated by corporation-caused pollutions or unsanitary practices. And he gives attention to the corporate-caused systematic destruction of small business and of human-scaled community. He also documents the increasing monopoly domination of the news (and other) media by mega-corporations, and their willingness to use this dominance to silence criticism and promote their own agendas. To remedy this death threat posed to our democracy and economy, the author proposes a two-pronged approach. On one track, he favors the enactment of local (city, town, county or township) regulations of corporate behavior, creating more opportunity for litigation that may give the court system a chance to correct its past misinterpretation of the Constitution (as, say, Brown vs. the Board of Education corrected Plessy vs. Ferguson). On another track, he favors a push for a constitutional amendment making it explicit that the rights of persons extend only to natural, not artificial, persons (though I don't share his optimism that the Supreme Court would change its rulings in that event, given a legal culture that denies the normative significance of the written text of the Constitution anyway.) In all of the above, I found Hartmann's analysis sound, timely and educational. (For instance, it convinced me that the Citizens United decision was not only incorrectly decided, but bad policy; I was previously inclined to oppose restrictions on political ads run by bona fide non-profit issue-oriented groups that are incorporated, but there's no legal way to separate the bona fide ones from the fronts for for-profit corporations. The McCain-Feingold Act didn't prevent individuals, or candidates, from exercising their free speech rights.) The core message of the book is one everybody should be made aware of, and would, considered by itself, have merited a 4 or 5-star rating. So, why did it only get three? The answer could be summed up as flawed presentation, and gratuitous ideological posturing. As a talk-radio host, Hartmann can probably get by with being rather disorganized and repetitive in his comments; the medium doesn't lend itself to sustained, well-organized presentation of developed arguments. In a book, though, you need the latter, and here it's too often lacking. His ignorance of history, outside of the narrow areas where he's really researched, makes his attempts at broad historical analysis so cringe-inducingly oversimplified, distorted and actually erroneous that they're essentially waste of paper. He also has more than occasional misuses of terms here. But more importantly, even though he recognizes at one point that the traditional Democrats vs. Republicans and Tories vs. Labor party distinctions are less relevant than the fundamental distinction between the politicians working for corporations and those working for ordinary citizens (and explicitly demonstrates that "Third Way" politicos like Clinton, Blair, and Obama are tools, not opponents, of the corporations), he's still a highly partisan child of the hard Left, for whom the Democratic Party is his old school tie and Republicans are essentially incarnations of evil. This colors his writing repeatedly, and demonstrates that although there are coalescent possibilities galore in his core program (and it stands no chance of being enacted without a coalescent realignment of political allegiances!), ever getting those possibilities realized is going to be an uphill battle. When he's forced to recognize that some Republicans/conservatives agree with aspects of his case, his response is sometimes to disparage them anyway, as when the fact that Chief Justice Rehnquist felt that the Santa Clara "precedent" was wrongly decided and that corporations do NOT have human rights is met with a completely gratuitous and poorly-reasoned "racism" smear. And he goes out of his way to drag in every irrelevant liberal shibboleth he can think of; his enthusiasm for Roe vs. Wade, for instance, grates like long fingernails scraping over a blackboard, and demonstrates that his enthusiasm for faithful constitutional interpretation is confined to cases where he'd like the result. (In fairness, though, his only chapter-long excursion into irrelevant ideological territory, his attack on the 2000 Supreme Court ruling in the Bush-Gore Florida electoral vote battle, does provide factual information that the more superficial media accounts did not, and convinces me that the Supreme Court intervened in the case improperly.) His examples of horrible behavior are invariably drawn from the Right, as with the revelation (which he conclusively proves) that right-wing organizations and campaigns are hiring people to post pre-supplied talking points on the Internet, wherever sites allow people to comment --a phenomenon I find as alarming as any he describes here. (But if the Right is doing this --and they are-- does anyone seriously imagine that the Left is not?) In summary, then, this is a flawed presentation of a serious (make that vitally-important!) wake-up call about a serious threat to our basic foundation as a nation. Even with its flaws, I think it would be a worthwhile eye-opener for many people to read, because it presents facts and arguments in one place that aren't often met with, and might not be as compactly assembled in very many other books. If you "take the meat, and throw away the bone," you can still find a lot of meat here! ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Feb 24, 2012
|
Mar 07, 2012
|
Apr 01, 2011
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
0451027450
| 9780451027450
| 0451027450
| 3.73
| 59
| 1958
| Jan 01, 1959
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Mar 17, 2011
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
B0DMXG9MM2
| 4.13
| 39
| 1955
| 1955
|
it was amazing
|
Just now, I was amazed to discover that, when I first set up my Goodreads shelves back in 2008, I somehow forgot to include this book! The oversight i
Just now, I was amazed to discover that, when I first set up my Goodreads shelves back in 2008, I somehow forgot to include this book! The oversight is stunning, when you consider that this is easily one of the most fascinating and intellectually stimulating books I've ever read. Ralph Linton was, in his day, a world-class scholar in the field of cultural anthropology, a wide-ranging traveler knowledgeable about the entire panorama of mankind's cultural history. Here, he set out to condense as much of that knowledge as he could into one volume written for the intelligent and interested layman, without jargon or footnotes (though he does append an over 16-page bibliography, broken down by chapters), and written in a style that's the very opposite of dry and dull. He unfortunately died in 1953, before entirely finishing the work; but the project was completed by Adelin Linton from his extensive notes, and transcriptions of the lecture series which inspired the book. The genesis of the material in lecture form contributes to the wit and facility with concrete examples displayed here, and I'd guess that he was very popular with students at the universities where he taught (which included Columbia and Yale). While this isn't a conventional history book as such, much of its material is an invaluable resource for the study of world history; in fact, I referred to it often when I taught World Civilization I at the college level. The 51 chapters are divided into ten parts. The first of these deals with human origins, and the description of the world of the Pleistocene in which modern humans first appear on the scene. While Linton was an evolutionist, he doesn't dwell on that subject; his concern is primarily in describing how people developed once they were here, more so than in speculating on how they got here. (He also regards Neanderthals as fully human, not as some separate species of "ape-men," and on this point I believe he makes a better case than William Fix in The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution or Hugh Ross in The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis). The next part deals with human races, or physical anthropology (unlike most evolutionists of his generation, Linton was NOT racist), and the processes of social and cultural development. Then we move on to "Basic Inventions" that ultimately facilitated civilization: fire and tools, domestication of plants and animals (agriculture), metallurgy, writing, etc., and the formation of the first cities and states. Part Four covers hunter-gatherer cultures, both as they existed in the Old Stone Age and as they have existed in some places in historical times. Each part of the remainder of the book treats a particular geographic area and the development of its distinctive cultural complexes, usually from prehistory down to the point where there began to be significant outside contact to the point of undermining or diluting the basic cultural distinctiveness, or fusing it into something else. The areas looked at are: Southeast Asia; Southwest Asia (the Middle East) and Neolithic Europe; the ancient Mediterranean and early Islamic worlds; Africa; the Orient (India, China and Japan); and the New World before Columbus. For someone who has a fundamental curiosity about how the world around him/her got to be the way it is, and what the human past was like (which describes me pretty well!) this book is a treasure; it really brings out how much of our basic culture is ancient or even prehistoric in origin. There's a wealth of absorbing detail here (Linton can make even primitive iron-working processes interesting!). A lot of illustrations enhance the book, and it's also well indexed. All in all, a book that remains highly educational and brain-stimulating, more than fifty years after it was published! ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Jan 1982
|
Feb 11, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.80
|
it was ok
|
Sep 12, 2024
|
Sep 09, 2024
|
||||||
4.00
|
liked it
|
Mar 05, 2024
|
Feb 07, 2024
|
||||||
4.00
|
really liked it
|
Mar 12, 2024
|
Feb 07, 2024
|
||||||
4.15
|
liked it
|
Aug 25, 2023
|
May 15, 2021
|
||||||
4.41
|
not set
|
Jan 29, 2021
|
|||||||
3.85
|
not set
|
May 15, 2020
|
|||||||
4.27
|
Mar 24, 1992
|
Apr 14, 2020
|
|||||||
5.00
|
it was amazing
|
Dec 18, 2019
|
Sep 20, 2019
|
||||||
4.18
|
liked it
|
Aug 19, 2019
|
Aug 07, 2019
|
||||||
3.78
|
not set
|
Apr 30, 2019
|
|||||||
3.88
|
liked it
|
Jun 13, 2023
|
May 24, 2016
|
||||||
4.21
|
not set
|
Mar 30, 2015
|
|||||||
4.00
|
did not like it
|
Jan 27, 2015
|
Oct 31, 2014
|
||||||
4.37
|
not set
|
Mar 27, 2013
|
|||||||
3.00
|
liked it
|
Oct 11, 2011
|
Oct 14, 2011
|
||||||
4.17
|
not set
|
Jun 09, 2011
|
|||||||
4.24
|
not set
|
Apr 11, 2011
|
|||||||
4.20
|
liked it
|
Mar 07, 2012
|
Apr 01, 2011
|
||||||
3.73
|
not set
|
Mar 17, 2011
|
|||||||
4.13
|
it was amazing
|
Jan 1982
|
Feb 11, 2011
|