Art Criticism Books

Several comments leave an impression to at least one not academically qualified to have wandered into a symposium for MBA/PhD credentialed professionals.

Give classicists their due in literary art forms, this common reader also enjoys contemporaries, such as David Guterson's introspective The Other,
circa 2008.

I don't care How Fiction Works, as long as a story works for me, written then or now.

The retro cover says it all. Farrar, Straus knew that it had the next big thing and that the next big thing consisted of a return to the best of the past. The book is receiving a great deal of attention, confirming their prescience.

How Fiction Works is a study of something that is very old-fashioned these days: craft. It is an examination of key elements of fiction and how they are most fully utilized by skilled writers. The vast majority of the writers examined here are canonical ones--another old-fashioned touch. The book is also cognizant of the nuances of narrative history and (a more modern touch) draws on popular culture for key insights. In short, this is a delightful, perceptive "book" book. First and foremost, it is an exceptional read. It is opinionated (though not abusive or flippant) and is a nice example of something that many modern students may never have seen before--judicial criticism. Frye famously argued that judicial criticism is passé, now that we realize that literary "quality" is like the stock market. Particular authors' "stock" rises and falls, depending on generational interests, so we should not concern ourselves with evaluative judgments. That is all very nice, except for the fact that reviewers, referees, acquisition editors and agents are forced to make evaluative judgments and in a world in which 800,000 books are published annually, readers seek help and advice from putative experts.

The book takes part of its inspiration from E. M. Forster's Aspects of the Novel, an interesting little book that has enjoyed some influence. How Fiction Works goes well beyond Forster (sometimes on issues which Forster is associated with specifically, e.g., the distinction between `flat' and `round' characters). This is a book for both critics and practitioners. It wears its erudition lightly, in the English mode, but its thoughts are often weighty and its insights acute (e.g. the notion that the French are suspicious of realism because of the function of the preterite in their language).

The book is a must read for teachers and students of narrative, both for the importance of its arguments and for its function as an exemplar of what once functioned as "criticism" and might so function once again.

I am one of those people who think if they buy and read enough writing self-help books, perhaps one day I will evolve to a level of confidence that I can begin putting my thoughts in coherent form on paper. For that reason I bought HOW FICTION WORKS. Perhaps this tome would be able to reveal the secret hidden from me. Had I been a PhD in literature, I might have had success. And I suppose there are those out there who will benefit from Wood's approach. I am not one of them. For me, HOW FICTION WORKS is a pedantic treatment of writing completely beyond my grasp. Wood writes, "Mindful of the common reader, I have tried to reduce what Joyce calls `the true scholastic stink' to bearable levels." He failed. Wood begins with a misguided assumption that the wide audience will share his background and familiarity with hard-to-reach literature from not only James Joyce, but Tolstoy, Humbert, Svevo, Wooster, Sebald, Dostoevsy, frequently referenced, Flaubert, and a hundred others. On occasion, he incorporates passages from important works by these giants to make a point, but more often than not he assumes you know Wooster's character Mr. Umtyfrump and how he reacted to so and so.

Without adequately describing his frame of reference, Wood assumes a knowledge base from his readers I doubt exists in all but a few percent. He jumps into esoteric literary terminology such as omniscient narration, direct speeh, free indirect speech, free indirect style, free indirect narration ... the list goes on.

I have two Bachelor's Degrees, two Master's Degrees, and some 45 years of being a "constant reader." But even I do not rise to the level of Wood's "common reader." I find high literature impenetrable. Judging by what sells well, I assume I am more common than not. So if you are an aspiring writer and Look to Stephen King or John Grisham as icons, then I don't think HOW FICTION WORKS is for you. On the other hand, if you want to better understand how Flaubert changed the fiction novel and wish to compare and contrast that to Christopher Isherwood, Cervantes, and/or Dickens, then you might enjoy it.

If you write, let's hope you do massive amounts of reading good literature. If you are a reader of substance, James Woods' book will edify your intellectual and emotional connection to what you have already learned, albiet subconsciously. All the devices are there, the silliness, the overworked metaphors, the sly styles, the magic. He is obviously a fan of Flaubert at whose feet Woods lays much credit for today's (good) writing. In fact, it's nearly an homage. So many great books are referenced, referred to, excerpted -- it makes you want to go back and re-read them all in order to see the work with a clearer vision. What we enjoyed as plain old storytelling, Woods shows us is hardly random and not without great intellectual and artistic effort. Woods compares great writers (old and new) to each other showing us flaws and greatness in each of them.

Highly recommended for readers and writers.

I was delighted that James Wood didn't take a condescending attitude about his subject. He doesn't say this is how it should be, but this is how it is and here is why. At first I didn't understand what the hell he was talking about, but somewhere during the second essay I adjusted to his style, became acclimated if you will, and I ended up getting a lot out of it. His examination of language in fiction was my favorite part.

I recommend this for anyone who appreciates an analytical approach to writing technique. This is not a how-to, however. Rather, it is more of a commentary.

Veiled and unveiled references; mysterious characters popping in and out; misunderstandings, loyalty, and deep, abiding affection. Fun! Fun! Fun!

Paragraph for paragraph, I find Elizabeth Peters to be one of the most entertaining authors out there. Her latest Vicky Bliss is no exception. Sure, the mystery is a little convoluted, but the interaction between the characters sparkles as always. This book wraps up a few things for Vicky and also for Peters' Amelia Peabody series, and Schmidt finally gets his turn to be the hero! If you love Vicky Bliss you'll enjoy this one too, and if you are new the series, go get yourself a copy of Borrower of the Night or Street of the Five Moons right away--you'll be hooked!

Elizabeth Peters' fans have waited fourteen years for the concluding volume in the Vicky Bliss series. The Laughter of Dead Kings is the book readers hoped would link Peters' two popular series, the Amelia Peabody books, and the Vicky Bliss mysteries. Was Vicky Bliss' lover, the notorious thief, "Sir John Smythe", related to the Peabody-Emerson family? The book answers the question, but readers are tortured for over three hundred pages before the family mystery is solved.

While Vicky Bliss works in Munich as an art historian, her lover, John Tregarth, has given up his former life as a thief of antiquities. He's now an antiques dealer in London. However, when a revered Egyptian treasure disappears, John is the natural suspect for the daring theft. Even a friend, Feisal, the "Inspector of Antiquities for all Upper Egypt", suspects John. And, Vicky's boss, Herr Doktor Anton Z. Schmidt, has his doubts. Everyone thinks John is once again the mastermind behind a bold theft. Suddenly Vicky, John, and the motley crew are in a mad dash to find the treasure and the actual thief.

The problem is, the mad dash goes on, and on, and on. This story is so drawn out that it gets boring. It's a romantic caper, with little romance. Peters herself says, "Ashraf is being followed by John who is being followed by Suzi who is being follwed by Feisal and us? This is ludicrous." Yes, it is. The mountain of material readers have to plow through to get to the conclusion is ludicrous.

Some readers will be satisfied with The Laughter of Dead Kings. I've read and admired Peters' books under this name, and Barbara Michaels. This one let me down. The answer is there, telling everyone if John is connected to the Peabody-Emerson family. It's just too bad the answer wasn't at least 100 pages earlier in this unsatisfactory series conclusion.

Firstly, I agree with most everything in linguithing's review, so I will not repeat it. I do not think that someone reading Laughter of Dead Kings without having most of the other books in the series, especially Night Train to Memphis, will "get" Laughter of Dead Kings. There is simply too much needed information about events and relationships that is alluded to only. Without a frame of reference of the earlier books, many will find Laughter hard to understand. I didn't find the mystery very mystifying, perhaps because I've read all the Peabody-Emerson mysteries and know how fond Elizabeth Peters is of bringing back a long-running villain. I loved her depiction of the editor/author who's used the Emerson papers as a basis of novels (aka the Peabody-Emerson series), and I was saddened at the sense that perhaps both series are coming to an end.

To warn you in advance of potential bias on my part, the Vicky Bliss series has been beloved to me for the better part of ten years, and I had long since given up on a new novel. So this was a treat. Taken as a stand-alone book, The Laughter of Dead Kings is probably not quite on the same level as some of its predecessors, but then I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who hasn't read the previous novels, or Night Train to Memphis at a bare minimum. (And in all fairness, that was a tough act to follow.) Peters doesn't spend an extensive amount of time reintroducing characters, locations, etc., and a newcomer would be quite lost. On the other hand, I would strongly recommend this book to anyone and everyone who is familiar with Vicky and company-- but it's unlikely that they would need my urging. I can, however, assure them that it's entirely worth it.

This is an honest-to-goodness Vicky, complete with lighthearted first-person narration, improbable occurrences, charming anti-heroes, and a certain amount of blundering. Peters writes with her usual panache and manages to avoid the pitfall of some of her other works (particularly the later Amelia Peabodys) in keeping the story tidy and to the point. If anything, it leaves you wishing for just a little bit more... but of course that's a hallmark of the best.

All the characters are as charming and convincing as ever, despite the fact that they have been mercilessly dragged into the modern era of cell phones and instant messaging, and a few of Peters' very deliberately placed revelations had me grinning. Great stuff. Sadly, both the tone and the events strongly implied that she is wrapping up the series, but then, "one is all any of us can count on." And this "one more" was just about right.

this book was an excellent resource. as a college student, it made writing my papers so much easier!

The book came on time and as described. It has been helpful in learning to critique art.

I purchased this book at the beginning of the semester and have found it an invaluable resource. This is my first term as a graduate student, and I don't think I could have survived had it not been for this book. It gives useful commentary, helpful hints and a terrific reference section for footnotes and bibliographies. It addresses real problems that often occur in writing an art history paper and provides insightful solutions that encourage independent thinking. It also includes a section on essay exams which gets a quick read through when I take a test.
I had several "a ha!" moments when reading it for the first time, and now I keep it within arms reach whenever I write.
The price was a little steep, so I hesitated in buying, but when I finally made the purchase I was glad that I had.

This is a great book to refer to when writing an art history paper. I was an art history major in college, and this was the book that was recommended by the majority of my professors. I definitely recommend buying yourself a copy, because the copies at my art library were always checked out!

This book is about writing on art.It has sections to equip you with what to keep in mind while writing an essay, research paper or review of an exhibit.

The book has sample examples for comparitive essays and reviews with a good analysis on the organization of the material, its purpose and aptness for the reader.

The checklist on writing on art can be extended to writing on books too. The many references to artists of all times with your interest will give you a walk through the whole of history of art.

The sections on what is art, interpretation, the importance of seeing for creating art and quotes by many writers and artists are interesting to read.

Okay, this is seriously one of the most brilliant books I have ever read, and I have Henry (who is also brilliant) to thank for introducing this to me. (Thank you, Henry.) Although this book has been around since '93, I suspect it's nowhere near as recognized as it deserves to be, but with time that will change, I hope.

The full title is "Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art," and what Scott McCloud does is explain what we take almost completely for granted, not just about comics, which he convincingly raises to a fine art, but also about the way we 'see,' and think we see, the world around us, especially as it is represented in words and images.

It's an important book because he talks in deceptively simple terms about how we perceive reality. McCloud shows the reader, through the seemingly "childish" mechanism of comics, how we think about what we perceive. Therefore, it's an epistemological text, and those are always of tremendous interest to me. It's also a book about how creativity works, and that's a central theme to my research. I've spent most of my adult life dealing with 90% of what he encapsulates in 215 densely packed (and highly entertaining) pages. Did I mention that the entire work is written in the form of a comic book? No? Well, it is.

It purports to be about comics, but that is only the tip of the philosophical iceberg. It's a study of how to think about words and images, and how we have come to use them, not just in Western society, but also in the East. He calls this the "invisible art," the effect of the combination of words and pictures, and if you read this, you'll get a much better understanding of the term "closure," which is the phenomenon of what the brain does when interpreting the gaps between words and pictures (in comics, this gap is represented visually by the space between each frame of words and images). We make up a story in our minds to close this gap, and it's a crucial piece of the story-telling process, this 'silence' that leads the reader to decide what really happens.

Scott McCloud combines semiotics (the discussion of the meaning of signs and signifiers), art history, rhetorical analysis (why it's so brilliant), cognitive and neurological research (another reason it's so brilliant), with an analysis of art and literature's influence on human social dynamics. The synthesis he reaches makes the invisible, visible, and will help the reader understand how comics evolved and where they come from. Hopefully, it will give the reader a new appreciation for the comics art form.

I have studied the theory behind virtually every aspect of what he's talking about, except comics, and so I know the sources he's relying on to get to the information he's condensed for the reader, and I also know you won't like those sources, but you will like this book because it's accessible in a way semiotics, rhetorical analysis, and the finer points of art history, are not. But if you read this book, that's part of what you'll be reading, and you'll be glad you did.

You don't wanna miss this lesson guys. Mccloud just forgo himself. A must-have book for all comic readers.

This is an important book that everyone should read. I would give it twenty stars if I could.

I've long been interested in both art and comic books (I have collected them for over 50 years). While the library shelves are full of wonderful books that explain what traditional artists are trying to do and why they succeed, I've often found the books to be pretty boring. In recent years, such books have gotten bogged down into abstruse language that is much less appealing than the art which is the subject.

But in those years, I've never seen anything that was very helpful in discussing the rules of comic art, except some books about pop art when that was popular that examined how the pop art was different from comic art. Naturally, I was blown away when I found that Understanding Comics is a far more comprehensive, thoughtful, and accessible book about interaction with art than I have ever read. Although the subject is ostensibly comic strips and comic books, it's clear to me that that Mr. McCloud has a deep and powerful understanding of all art. Some of his conceptual displays of where different forms of art fall in different dimensions of choice (degree of realism, abstraction, and message) are unbelievably powerful.

I hope that some art historian will stumble on this book and recast the history of art to explain and relate different styles to one another using this book's methods. There would be a lot more art lovers if that were the case.

Ultimately, the book's main benefit is to help the reader appreciate that comic art can be a higher and more effective form of art than either pure images or written words by requiring a mastery of more elements . . . elements that are more powerful in grabbing attention and conveying meaning.

Yet the book stays in humble form, a comic book. The powerful ideas sneak up on you as Mr. McCloud deconstructs the elements of comic art expression into chapters on defining what kind of art comics are ("sequential art" for short); explaining where various comics fall on the spectrum of reality, story, and abstraction; the way we fill in the spaces around the lines and between panels with our minds, allowing us to participate in creating the story and the experience; how time is expressed in various ways; the role of lines in creating our understanding and responses; how words and images can interact; a conceptual look at creating comic art; the effect of color; and a synthesis of the book in historical and conceptual terms.

If you want to enjoy both traditional art and comic art more, read this book. It's the Rosetta stone for non-artists in appreciating the images, stories, and messages that artists want to share with us through these media. You'll never be the same . . . and the change will be good for you!

Bravo, Mr. McCloud!

This is the type of book that looks at a genre and sees it's roots clearly in the basic structure of art and human perception. This is not a book about costumes and secret identities, but about how comics use the basic human archetypes and symbolic language to speak to us in metaphor. THIS BOOK WILL SHOW YOU HOW TO APPRECIATE ART, NOT JUST COMICS. Every art student should have this in their library.

As previous reviewers have mentioned, Scott McCloud is passionate about comics; part of the purpose of writing the book, it seems is to justify the argument that comics are indeed art. I found this a moot point, although his evidence was interesting. Another reason behind the book, it seems, is to explain the message behind comics: the epistomological leaps we take when we read them, the artisitic decisions made when they are created, and the evolution the art form has taken. This was not only the strongest and most interesting part of the book, but also much less preachy.

I enjoy comics, from 19th century broadsheets to the Sunday funnies and the occasional graphic novel. Until now, however, I never really thought about the conscientious decisions the artist makes between realism and meaning when drawing them. Similarly, I had never critically thought about the fundamental differences between Asian (especially Manga) comics and Western comics. McCloud has shed much light on these topics, and explains these differences and decisions clearly, without pretense.

Avid readers of comics, aspiring comic artists and purists may find McCloud a bit pedantic - for the novice such as myself, I was fascinated, as a whole new world has been opened to me through his explaination. Why the four stars then? I took a star for his argument about comics as "art". I suppose there are those who believe comics are not art (or are "low" art at the most); while I disagree with this (and side with McCloud), I thought the argument was out of place, and ultimately moot. Still, a recommended read.

I purchased this book for a college course I'm taking. The book came promptly and in excellent condition. Would definitely recommend...

This book provides wonderful baseline knowledge about process of film making from the fruition of an idea to the completion of a movie and beyond. What makes this book especially wonderful is its excellent array of examples.

I highly recommend anyone, student or otherwise, to stay away from this book unless you want to spend a lot of money on something that presents only about 15% useful and straightforward information. Also, most of the terms used in this book, while being unnecessary, are simultaneously made up by the authors, particularly because they are rarely or never used in the actual movie business. So again, unless this is a required book for your film class, go buy a seperate book for cinematography, editing, history, sound, or whatever unit you are studying. You'll probably find them to be more critical and explicit. That's my 2 cents. Pz.

The English philosopher Francis Bacon wrote 400 years ago, "Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention." Serious novels and nonfiction works must fall into that "read wholly, and with diligence and attention" part. Dictionaries surely fall into the "read only in parts" category. But no one has told Ammon Shea this. Shea is, among other things, a furniture mover in New York City, but he has a lifetime of being enthralled with dictionaries, and his home is bursting with his collection of them. He isn't a lexicographer (but his girlfriend used to be); he doesn't write dictionaries, he reads them. Ten years ago, he read his first dictionary, the _Webster's New International_, with the result that "My head was so full of words that I often had trouble forming simple sentences out loud, and my speech became a curious jumble of obscure words and improper syntax. It felt wonderful, so I went out and bought the sequel, _Webster's Third New International_." The Everest of dictionary reading would have to be reading the whole Oxford English Dictionary, and Shea has done just that, reporting on the experience in _Reading the OED: One Man, One Year, 21,730 Pages_ (Perigee). If you are one of the normal people who uses dictionaries like normal people do, this does not sound like it is going to be very interesting, even if it does sound more interesting than actually reading the _OED_ for yourself.

Surprise! With Shea as a guide, this is a fun journey, and as he has said, now he has read the entire _OED_, you don't have to. "The book in your hands," he says, "contains all the words from the _OED_ that I think people would like to know about, if only they didn't have to read the whole damn dictionary in order to find them." Shea's book consists of an introduction and a conclusion, and between them are twenty-six chapters, each devoted to findings within a letter's listing in the _OED_. Each chapter has a short essay, perhaps not associated with that particular letter, in which Shea tells us about the mechanics of his monumental task, the headaches it gives him, the coffee he powers himself with, the other dictionary enthusiasts he has met, his love of interacting with the physical book rather than just researching the electronic _OED_ (a version he admires for other reasons), and his feelings of joy over finding extraordinary words. His selection of words is indeed delightful, and though he is no Ambrose Bierce, he has tinged his comments on them with wit and a little judicious misanthropy. It is useless to try summarize the book's main contents, which are the words and definitions which Shea wants us to think about, and his comments upon them. Here is just one example of a curious word: Acnestis: on an animal, the point on the back that lies between the shoulders and the lower back, which cannot be reached to be scratched. "I am very glad," he writes, "I found this word early in my reading of the _OED_ - the fact that there existed a word for this thing which previously I had been sure lacked a name was such a delight to me that suddenly the whole idea of reading the dictionary seemed utterly reasonable."

Coming to the end of this book, a reader can enjoy Shea's pleasure at coming to the end of his quest. He has not enjoyed every minute or every page, but he writes lyrically about his enjoyment of the task overall. He explains that the _OED_ is the perfect book for "three a.m. moments", and remarks, "And so three a.m. becomes six, night becomes morning, one cup of coffee becomes four, and the pile of pages shifts from the right to the left as I read my way into the day. In moments like this I am convinced I'll never need another book again." It was, he says, "the most engrossing and enjoyable book I've ever read." The big problem is what to read next? Why, the _OED_ again, only this time he won't push himself to get it done in a year, and without a deadline, he may start at A but he'll let himself get distracted and investigate anything else his reading turns up. Even if you have no intention to imitate Shea, it is a pleasure to read this joyful account of his full absorption in this idiosyncratic task, which might be goofy but is also quietly admirable.

Unlike the other books on or about OED, this one is about a personal, subjective experience. It isn't very 'deep' although it is interesting and entertaining.

Nicholson Baker has written a wonderful review for "The New York Times" of Ammon Shea's travel report on his journey through the OED in Reading the OED: One Man, One Year, 21,730 Pages. Shea preferred the joys of the printed page to the computerized OED, and he traveled through The Oxford English Dictionary (20 Volume Set) to experience the tactile joys of turning pages. Here's a way to experience the joys of ink and paper by reading Shea's book and by using the computer to enrich the experience.

Baker and Shea both liked the word "acnestis", the part of an animal's back it can't reach to scratch. As a farm boy, we provided scratching posts for cattle and a vet taught me the word. The OED online version gives two First Quotations for the word: 1807 in Edin. Med. & Phys. Dict. II. Suppl. and 1927 Observer 3 Apr., "That spot known to crossword solvers as the acnestis."

Charlotte Brewer's Treasure-House of the Language: The Living OED describes how the OED is using online resources to enrich their entries, including the First Quotations. A quick check of Google Books doesn't turn up an earlier quotation for "acnestis", but as Brewer writes, the OED welcomes contributions. (My personal best -- "jerry built" -- may have pushed back the word history over ten years earlier than the OED's First Quotation.) The 40 odd Google Book entries for "acnestis" range from dictionaries to medical texts to lists of 25,000 words less than ten letters long for use of telegraphers (a surprisingly popular word in the era of telegraphy I thought).

Closer to home, searching on the word "acnestis" on Amazon turns up Braun-Falco's Dermatology, page 991, where one learns that the acnestis can be identified in humans by the "reverse butterfly sign". In What's What: The Encyclopedia Of Pointless Information, page 355, one learns that right handed people tend to scratch with their left hand and vice versa. There's even a volume of poetry on offer by Chris Tutton -- ACNESTIS IN ELYSIUM.

I haven't even touched on the riches on Google itself, with over 680 hits this morning, including Webster's 1828 definition: "ACNESTIS, n. [Gr. a priv. to rub or gnaw.] That part of the spine in quadrupeds which extends from the metaphrenon, between the shoulder blades, to the loins; which the animal cannot reach to scratch." The OED used the word to announce its online version in 2000: "If you can think of something that you don't know the word for, use the proximity search and you may be able to find it - discover that the spot on your shoulder blade that is sometimes difficult to scratch is called an 'acnestis'." Even Google News chimes in from Malaysia on an election cycle: "... , the last five months have felt like an acnestis upon our collective soul; like that little patch of skin on our backs that we just can't reach to scratch ourselves. It's irritating. It's annoying. It's left us reaching and spinning around in circles."

There are many more words to explore following Shea's footsteps through his fascinating book. If interest flags from time to time, one can always take up A. J. Jacobs's The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World, and explore a similar journey through the "Encyclopedia Britannica".

Robert C. Ross 2008

Ammon Shea's "Reading the OED" is a paean to the English language, with all of its "glories and foibles, the grand concepts and whimsical conceits that make our language what it is." Shea readily admits that "adding a great number of obscure words to your vocabulary will not help you advance in the world." Although he has been reading dictionaries for a decade in between jobs as a furniture mover in New York City, Shea had never attempted to read the Mt. Everest of dictionaries, the twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary, with its twenty-one thousand seven hundred and thirty pages and approximately fifty-nine million words. When he made up his mind to tackle this daunting task, he did it with great anticipation and not a little dread. However, he need not have worried that he would come to regret his folly. Not only is the OED an enormously scholarly work, says Shea, but it is also "entertaining and wonderfully engaging." In "Reading the OED," Shea gives us a taste of what it is like to undertake such a monumental project and introduces us to words that are both "spectacularly useful and beautifully useless."

Shea divides his book into twenty-six chapters, one for each letter of the alphabet. Every chapter begins with either a riff on the history of dictionaries or a description of the author's feelings and experiences during his year with the OED. For each letter, Shea offers a list of words culled from the OED that are sometimes silly, often unpronounceable, but usually engaging and out of the ordinary. He does not merely define words such as "advesperate," "onomatomania," and "latibulatek," but he also provides comical commentary that will make readers grin and, at times, laugh out loud. Shea is an amusing first person narrator who enjoys poking fun at himself as much as he loves finding remarkable words. He fuels himself with gallons of coffee and closets himself in a library's basement in order to accomplish what some might consider a dubious feat. Shea spends eight to ten hours daily at his "job," and before long, he begins to suffer from eyestrain, pounding headaches, back pain and occasionally, crushing boredom. However, the rewards make it all worthwhile. He is pleasantly surprised at the OED's ability to evoke happiness, sadness, surprise, wistfulness, and chagrin. "All of the human emotions and experiences are there in this dictionary," he insists. "They just happen to be alphabetized." Logophiles (word-lovers) will revel in this breezy, informative, and compulsively readable book.

After you read this, try WORD NERD, too, where you will find 17,000+ interesting words (the author read the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary twice).

As with his past movie guides Leonard Maltin gives me the info I need to
decide if that film is worth my time & $$$.
With all the films that are made that is a great help.

I ordered this book because I wanted to get Leonard Maltin's most recent listings. When it arrived, I found it completely unusable. Obviously, it has many more entries, but instead of being larger than my old one (from about 3 years ago), the book is of smaller size. As a result, the type is so small that, with my 76-year-old eyes, I could not read it. I was planning to pass the old one along to my grown children but, instead, I gave them this one and kept the old one for myself. With more and more listings being added each year, somebody has to give serious thought to developing a reasonable format to accommodate the ever-increasing volume. This review clearly does not address itself to the content, which I was not able to access. I've enjoyed Maltin's guide for many years, and I can't imagine that the quality of the content has suffered. By giving it only one star I am only trying to communicate that this new guide did not serve MY purpose. It may be totally satisfactory for someone else with better eyesight.

My husband loves old movies, new movies, cable movies, I buy this for him every year so he can refer to actors, etc., that no one else remembers.

Dorothy Harper

if you really want to find out what Leonard Maltin thought of the Dark Knight, check out his homepage. He didn't like it just so you know (neither did I, so I wasn't as bummed as some people would be).

Yet again still the best reference guide to movies.

Every movie lover should have this compact, brick-sized guidebook. With more than 17,000 movie reviews -- including 300 new entries for this edition -- Leonard Maltin's 2009 Movie Guide is a valuable resource. My favorite movie critic has been and always will be Roger Ebert; I always buy his annual Movie Yearbook. This Leonard Maltin guide is also a must-buy.

I like it for the writing. Maltin is the king of the succinct review, with each movie capsule containing from one to five sentences. For example, here is his review of the 1995 movie Toy Story: "A boy's favorite toy, a cowboy doll named Woody, feels threatened (and rightly so) by the arrival of a new birthday present, a high-tech spaceman model advertised on TV. Clever, incredible-looking animated film, produced entirely on computer. A grownup story masquerading as a kid's film, this story of friendship, fickleness, and the need for acceptance features a colorful cast of characters led by Woody and his rival, Buzz Lightyear. The `acting' of the two leads -- their facial expressions and body language -- is as good as anything ever seen in a conventional animated cartoon." Only four sentences, but it sums up the plot and gives you enough information to choose whether to see the movie or not.

My only qualm is the quality of the presentation. The paper is a little see-through and grayish, like newsprint. The typeface is a bit small. Instead of paying less for this quality level, I'd rather spend a few dollars more and get a nicer, whiter paper which would make reading the tiny words easier.

Other than the reviews, the book contains:

* A three-page introduction
* A key to the book, which explains the alphabetization format used to put the movie reviews in order, Maltin's rating system, symbols used and the MPAA ratings system.
* A list of 50 good to great movies that viewers may have missed. Included are a couple of my personal favorites, "The Man in the Moon" from 1991, and "Miss Potter" from 2006.
* A directory of mail-order and online sources for buying and renting DVDs and videos.
* A widescreen glossary, listing the aspect ratio of special widescreen processes such as CinemaScope and Technirama.
* An index of leading actors and directors with a list of their movies.

This book is very helpful at opening up ones mind to alternatives by asking questions. Not just a few questions, but question everything. Questioning leads to knowledge, and knowledge leads to wisdom.

Asking the right questions encourages a curious and open mind, analyzing issues from multiple viewpoints, thinking through questions and answers, doing needed investigation and intuitive and non-intuitive thinking. These key elements are the basis to sound critical thinking.

Asking the Right Questions has been around for many years and is still doing well. This says a lot for how many people have benefited from it. It is currently on the 8th edition. I read the 7th edition which came out in 2004. I liked the comment from the authors at the end of the preface which says they are constantly improving the book using advice and recommendations from students and others to make it better. Practicing what one preaches is an excellent sign of quality.


The Re-Discovery of Common Sense: A Guide to: The Lost Art of Critical Thinking

did not come very quickly--wasn't even sent out until about 5 days after I placed the order. in very good condition though.

This has got to be hands down one of the best books I have ever read. I picked this up for a class I was taking and it really opened my eyes. People see the words "critical thinking" and assume it means something negative. This book teaches you how to use your brain to look at things from all angles and points of view so that you can make more informed choices and decisions!

This book is a must have for every rhetoric class! Easy to read and understand, best tool for a student.

I strongly agree with the author on pg 13, that "by the end of the book, you should know when and how to ask these questions productively (elaborated through individual chapters):-

1. What are the issues and the concclusions?
2. What are the ressons?
3. Which words or phrases are ambiguous?
4. What are the value conflicts and assumptions?
5. What are the descriptive assumptions?
6. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
7. How good is the evidence?
8. Are there rival causes?
9. Are the statistics deceptive?
10. What significant information is omitted?
11. What reasonable conclusions are possible?

Of course, a compilation of good questions doesnt qualify it to be a good book. Indeed, the samples and stories well illustrate the principles and concepts behind. The discussions on various fallacies are marvelous, including:-

Ad hominem: An attack, or an insult, on the person, rather than directly addressing the person's reasons.
Slipperly Slope: Making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events.
Hasty Generalization: A person draws a conclusion about a large group of based on experience with only a few members of the group.
Causal Oversimplification: Explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors.
Confusion of Cause and Effect: Confusing the cause with the effect of an event or failing to recognise that the two events may be influencing each other.
Neglect of a common cause: Failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a common third factor.
Post hoc: Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time.
............

In short, an excellent food for thought. Highly recommended!

p.s. I like the following story on pg 137 the most.

"After carefully conditioning a flea to jump out of a box following the presentation of a loud noise, the researcher removed the first pair of legs to see what effect this had. Observing that the flea was still able to perform his task, the scientist removed the second pair of legs. Once again noting no difference in performance, the researcher removed the final pair of legs and found that the jumping behaviour no longer occurred. Thus, the investigator wrote in his notebook, "When all the legs of a flea have been removed, it will no longer be able to hear."

I absolutely love to read, and this is one of the textbooks I will never return for cash back. I'm going to keep it forever because it has so many good stories and poems in it! My goal is to make my own library for myself in my home and this is a great Literature book to add. If you like classic stories and a wide variety of reading material, I highly recommend keeping this if you ever have to buy it for class.

great book I am using it for EG13 also known as Intro to Lit. great class if you purchase the book please read "A Pair of Tickets" by Amy Han ( i think thats her name) great short story i cried anyways enjoy the book!

If you are not sure what type of reading style you enjoy, get this book, and go through the different authors, and I guarantee you will find something you like. This book is a great collection of amazing authors.

I will be brief about this. Neil Postman's book AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH is simply outstanding. As a detailed intellectual analysis, it shows just one reason for the non-book reading, Fox news-watching, anti-intellectual climate that currently pervades the United States in 2008.

The causes are many, but have a common thread--television--a medium which has insinuated itself into the mindlessness of popular culture--so much so that any ignorant, but photo-friendly fool (one old, or younger) with his right-wing, neo-con, neo-liberal cohorts and advisors can TWICE ascend to the highest levels of political power in the U.S.

Can anyone read this book and not partially understand the devolution of critical reasoning that has produced such a total debacle of political and governmental competence--all based on carefully crafted lies and smooth media presentations??? From lies about Saddam Hussein's WMD's or his link to Al-Quieda, to the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, even to the outrageous stupidity of Kansas creationists. (If ANY of these people are the products of "intelligent design", God help us all!)

The culpability is readily seen in glib campaign promises about political "change"--which is ALWAYS trotted out at EVERY election cycle by EVERY slick politican in their sixty-second ads or 60 Minute interviews (which only proves just how stupidly gullible and mindless American voters have become.)

But Postman was right about Huxley--and wrong about Orwell. While the corporate masters feed the multitudes the utter mindlessness of reality television shows, info-tainment, and religious programming as predicted by Huxley, the thinkers and readers and the intellectuals in this society have been and are presently being subjected to an Orwellian nightmare of total information networking and surveillance. The thought-police are alive, busy, and growing like cancer on the body politic--monitoring computers, chat-rooms, e-mails, credit card purchases, library check-outs, medical records, even casino visits; using RFID's, GPS tracking, and even satellite and digital tv's for surveillance--all as authorized by the USA Patriot Acts. Books may not yet be banned (or burned ala Farenheit 451), but those who read them will be watched and monitored.

Both U.S. history and the FBI's COINTELPRO shows that many of these people will be set-up, run-down, arrested, and imprisoned--while the masses happily monitor their trials and phone-in their votes via some reality television show--perhaps called American Idolator, or better yet, American Heretics. ("Cops" and "Big Brother." are already taken.)

One million U.S. citizens are currently on the Department of Homeland Security's watch list. ONE MILLION!!! Can you feel the heat??? If not, don't worry...be happy. It's all coming soon to more people like you. Be sure to look for it. It's Hot!!!

This is exactly what I wanted and in perfect condidtion as well, which is an added bonus. Thanks!

Essentially a redux of Marshall McLuhan's The Media is the Message, it's an argument that the dominant communications media powerfully affect reasoning (Postman's preferred term is epistemology, which is probably more accurate and to the point), and that we were a lot better off as individuals and as a body politic when that effect came primarily from print rather than TV and other visual media. He makes a pretty strong case. Although he's not happy about things, he's not a ranting old crank like some Yale literary critics. He maintains a sense of humor, he's a good writer, and he's down to earth, straightforward and concise (while McLuhan can be otherwise). Well worth the read.

Just today I logged on to one of the biggest news channels' website (CNN) and on the front page under "Popular News" was the following headline: "Is that Miley Cyrus flashing her bra on the Web?" I had just finished my second reading of this book and it seemed like a stark reminder of what Neil Postman was talking about over 20 years ago, how television has drastically changed our culture and redefined everything in our society from news to politics, education and even religion. I don't know of any book written during my lifetime that is more socially relevant and whose message is more important to be read and understood by the general public.

In Chapter 6, "The Age of Show Business", Postman writes, "To say television is entertaining is merely banal. Such a fact is hardly threatening to a culture, not even worth writing a book about. It may even be a reason for rejoicing. Life, as we like to say, is not a highway strewn with flowers. The sight of a few blossoms here and there may make our journey more endurable." He goes on to point out that the problem is not that there are entertaining shows on television, but that in order to accommodate itself to the demands of television, *everything* must be presented as entertainment. In order to generate ratings, advertisers and ultimately revenue, no subject is too serious to be presented in any way other than the one that attracts the most viewers. When the local news reports about a murder, it has no relevant meaning to our lives and it's not told so much to inform us of the tragedy of a murder but because it is the most exciting and what people want to see. News producers have a motto for this, "If it bleeds it leads."

Probably the most alarming example Postman cites is how television has changed politics and political discourse. This is where the transformation from a word-based media to an image-based media is felt the most strongly. Politicians have realized that the content of what they say is now largely irrelevant compared to how they appear, how they present themselves. Postman uses the example that when Ted Kennedy made a run for the presidency, Richard Nixon offered him the following advice: "Lose twenty pounds." Nixon had been in politics most of his adult life and knew the name of the game well, that one's ideas, beliefs, actions and words are now almost completely irrelevant in a world where nearly everyone has started getting their information from television only. Before Mike Huckabee entered this political race, he lost over a hundred pounds. If you look at photographs of presidents throughout our history, you notice that most of them certainly never got anywhere in life because of their looks and some of them are downright ugly men. Political races are now completely decided in the arena of television and their coverage of it has become absurd and embarassing. This is the change that Postman has tried to point out, that a literate culture that depends on the printed word for information and communication creates a vastly different culture from one that depends on images, ten second soundbites and information that has no context or relevance to anyone's life, like what Miley Cyrus or Paris Hilton is up to.

It has been over twenty years since Neil Postman wrote this but his ideas are even more relevant today. This book should be read and understood by everyone but it mostly falls on deaf ears. I think it was Mark Twain who said that the man who doesn't read has no advantage over the man who can't read. Television is now an integral part of life not only in America but in Europe, China and pretty much any other developed nation. This would not be a problem but, as Postman points out, one of the nasty side effects of television is that it has degraded literacy rates, so that every year we hear that people are reading less and less. People and specifically children spend an alarming amount of their free time watching television and to get them to read you practically have to force it upon them. Once in a while a book like Harry Potter will become a hit but for many children and even adults that was the only book they purchased or even attempted to read in an entire year. We hear that children in this country are performing worse every year in school but the finger is never pointed at the obvious culprit because we hear about this on TV.

"In watching American television, one is reminded of George Bernard Shaw's remark on his first seeing the glittering neon signs of Broadway and 42nd Street at night. It must be beautiful, he said, if you cannot read." John Ackermann

Neil Postman in his book,'Amusing Ourselves To Death', looks at the impact of television culture on the way we live our lives, understand our present and future and how we gather our information. We need to understand the effects of living in a television society. As he says "We are in danger of creating a trivial culture that will spawn a race of people who adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think." Once we are a television society, we have lost control. We can attempt to control television's influence when we understand the dangers. Neil Postman suggests that Americans ask 'what we are laughing about and why we have stopped thinking.' We have all heard the phrase, The Dumbing of America.

Roger Waters, of 'Pink Floyd' read Postman's book, and he was so taken with the message that one of the best CD's of this era was written. The song 'Amused To Death" tells us the story.

The little ones sit by their TV screens
No thoughts to think
No tears to cry
All sucked dry
Down to the very last breath
Bartender what is wrong with me
Why I am so out of breath
The captain said excuse me ma'am
This species has amused itself to death
Amused itself to death
Amused itself to death"

Ackerman tells us that "Television has altered the meaning of "being informed' by giving us disinformation. Disinformation means misleading information;misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information. Information that creates the illusion of knowing something but which in fact leads us away from knowing. The television industry did not deliberately set out to misinform us, but when news is packaged as entertainment, that is the result."

Over the past fifty years since the advent of television, we have allowed conversation and communication to become trivial, and to lead into entertainment. TV is a medium of entertainment. TV is a series of programmed images and pictures. Unlike a book we do not have to concentrate to obtain the meaning of a picture. This is the mechanism by which TV can make any subject meaningless and trivial. It is possible to "amuse one's self to death", considering that the first thing to go will be our vision of reality and to comment intelligently. And this is why Roger Waters CD "Amused to Death" had the power to unleash our subconscious. We are living the album. We are all slowly amusing ourselves to death. We are entertaining ourselves into a stupor. The best things on television is junk, and no one is threatened by it. We do not measure a culture by its output of junk, but by what we claim as significant.

I would think that several minutes of murder and violence would be enough for many sleepless nights. We watch the news because we know that the 'news' is not to be taken seriously, that it is all in fun, so to speak. Everything about a news show tells us this; the good looking newscasters, their pleasant banter, the music that opens and closes the show, the film footage, the humorous commercials. These suggest that what we have just seen is no cause for crying. A news show, is a format for entertainment, not for education or reflection. No one goes to a movie to find out about government policy or the latest scientific advances. No one buys a record to find out the baseball scores or the weather or the latest murder. But everyone goes to television for all these things, which is why television plays so powerfully throughout our land. Television is our culture's principal mode of knowing about itself. Neil Postman says, "For the message of television as metaphor is not only that all the world is a stage, but that the stage is located in Las Vegas, Nevada."

We know that no matter how grave news may appear, we soon shall see commercials that will devalue the importance of the news. This is a key element of news and that allows us to believe that television news is not designed as a serious form of public communication. Our teenagers in particular are taught to believe that television is entertainment, so that the nightly newscast should not be taken as a serious responsibility.

This past political season is a prime example of the myriad of issues that have not been examined, but the entertainment value of the candidates has been examined ad nauseam. One reason why the political contest starts as soon as the President is sworn into office. What have we become, why are we laughing, the Dumbing of America is here.


Highly, Highly Recommended. prisrob 06-14-08