History Books

It's a text book in its fifth edition. When I start my own publishing co. I'll be sure to be involved in text books so I can cut students such a great deal by only charging $60 instead of $90 and I'll only print new editions every 3 years instead of 2 at the risk of things like math, art, and history changing so dramatically.

A World of Art by Henry Sayre is meant to give individuals their first exposure to art and art history. This is the textbook I use for my Art 101 course and it fills that purpose exceptionally well. The book is broken down into 5 segments with a total of 22 chapters.

Part One: The Visual World - is about understanding the art one comes across. Chapters in this section discuss themes found in art, the value we give to art, and developing a literacy in order to explain the art around us. Personally, I feel that the subject matter in this section is pretty deep for someone new to the field and suggest beginning with Part Two.

Part Two: The Formal Elements And Their Design - deals with the basic elements of art, particularly to how they relate to the artist. Chapters in this section discuss elements such as line, space, color and general design principles. A good introductory chapter to begin with.

Part Three: The Fine Arts Media - reviews the different ways art is created. Chapters are broken down by media such as drawing, printmaking, painting, photography, and sculpture.

Part Four: The Visual Arts In Everyday Life - is a very small section revolving around architecture and design. It reviews a few of the art historical movements such as art nouveau and art deco.

Part Five: The Visual Record - is a chronological look at art throughout the ages beginning with primitive (cave art) and ending with the twentieth century.

The book varies from the 4th edition in its incorporation of 100 new images (quite a lot considering it is a 500 page book). The author places special focus on artwork from women, minority and non-Western cultures, along with showing the cornerstone pieces of art from the Western world. There are a few mistakes in the text (hence a 6th edition I am sure), and some better terminology should have been used (i.e. using the term "fabrics" when in fact he should have used the more correct term "textiles"). Overall it is a very good book, it is a smooth read and has many color images on nearly every page.

This book is an ultimate study guide for the Praxis II art content exam! It gives you everything from art history to photography to printmaking... It is an excellent survey of technique, elements and principles, as well as chronlogical history. The only thing it lacks is a few more "contemporary names" from the 40's through today.

This was a wonderful course, the book is easy to understand and presented well. Nice size print and good photos of lots of works. I realy enjoyed each page of the book.

The book covers an extensive array of facts about art in general as well as about specific works of art. By introducing artists and exploring their intentions, the student can better understand and perhaps come to appreciate a wider variety of all forms of art.
The CD holds some of the works that appear in the book, but not all, plus others that are not in the book which I thought was a little disconnected. But the CD also includes verbal pronunciation of artists' names, which cooresponds exactly to the Pronunciation Guide and is helpful. Overall, the book offers very thorough instruction for art appreciation.

Although I have only read the first one hundred pages or so, I found myself chuckling out loud at points. The only other author who has illicitted that affect on my is Davis Sedaris. A basic knowledge of christian theology is helpful to understand the "inside jokes" but not necessary to enjoy this book. The recount of Jesus (Josh) as preteen acting out biblical stories, the likes of Lot and the Sodomites is absolutely hysterical. In addition to the biblical satire, such humane issues like adolescent love (and lust) are addressed in an authentic, charming manner. I look forward to finishing it and would recommend a read.

Entertaining, provocative, fun to read. The story of Christ told in a very different and amusing fashion, still escaping sacrilege.
Have given several as gifts to friends who have also thoroughly enjoyed the book!

Will you enjoy Christopher Moore's LAMB, the story of Jesus Christ's lost years as told by his bosom buddy, Biff (a.k.a. Levi)? That is the question, and a lot depends upon your sense of humor. First of all, if you take your religion seriously, maybe you shouldn't even start the book. Second of all, what makes you laugh? Toilet humor? Sexual humor? Monty Python-style humor? Saturday Night Live-type humor? Lay it on with a cudgel humor? If the answer to many of these questions is "yes," then I say go for it and give Moore's iconoclastic romp a ride.

For me, the book had many strengths and weaknesses. As a strength, I see Moore using humor as a vehicle to promote tolerance in Christianity, a device I liked. Also, the book covers some of the basic tenets of Buddhism and Hinduism by having Joshua (Jesus) and Biff (Levi) travel to China and India. Moore did his research not only on this, but on the historical setting and history of Christ's lifetime under the Roman occupation, and good information can be gleaned underneath all the jests. Finally, many, many lines in this book are genuinely funny.

For weaknesses, I'd start with the book's unevenness. Certain narrative arcs are dwelled on for too long, while others (most notably the ending) are inexplicably rushed. Also, the same humor which serves Moore so well can betray him at times. That is, he goes over the top and perhaps grows too insistent now and then. For instance, use of profanity for shock-value humor (say, coming out of the Lord's and certainly out of Biff's mouth) lose their shock value once the card is played too often. And the plot begins to collapse when Moore introduces monster chases and the abominable snowman. Monsters and yetis? It's just too much and probably would best have been deleted so he could focus on his main plot.

This review is conflicted. I surely do not want to dissuade you from reading it, I just want you to gauge the style of writing and humor you like before taking the plunge. If you like a breezy read and savor Adam Sandler/Will Ferrell movies, you'll probably be 5-starring this book. If you're like me and have your limits with all that frat-boy fun (yes, you like to indulge, but moderation is your byword), then proceed with caution.

I absolutely adore this book! This is one I can read over and over again, and still be able to laugh! Even though it's a fictional book, it makes Jesus (Joshua)human and you enjoy following Biff and Joshua on their search for what it means to be the Messiah. The angel Raziel is hilarious, too, with his aspiration to become Spider-man! This book got me hooked on Christopher Moore!

It has been a while since I read this book but it is really really good. It is not meant to be taken literally for those of you out there that can't tell that. Christopher Moore is a hilarious writer but this book seems to let the humor seep in slowly and less obviously than many of his other books. This is a super quick easy and fun read. It really gives a humorous insight to the time period of Christ's life that is left out in the Bible.

Highly Recommended for any one.

Aristotle's ethics is a theory of excellence so it definitely spoke to me as a individual. He starts with the claim that the end of all human action is happiness and he claims that happiness requires virtue. He goes on to look at several different types of virtues and he believes they can be perfected through practice. One is to practice at finding the golden mean between excess and deficiency. To use an example from Aristotle to illustrate, one is to act courageously, but it is rash to act with too much courage and it is cowardice to not act with enough courage. Therefore, he supports finding the mean in all human action and this is to lead to happiness. Books 8 and 9 give the best treatise on friendship that I have ever found so I recommend those two books above all of the rest. Overall the whole book is worth ones time though. Aristotle's ethics is a simple and a commonsensical approach to ethics so nobody should be put off from reading this book due to its difficulty.

To have learned from Plato and to have taught Alexander the Great should make us take this man seriously. But the level of debate with himself in the Nichomachean ethics is awesome in and of itself. There are of course times when you have to hit "play back" just to digest the argument. there are also times when you realise other people have taken up where he left off. However, the sheer originality of his genius, the sweep of his knowledge and grasp of different fields of learning, leave the reader feeling a gain of at least ten points of IQ. The woman who reads on this audio production has outstanding elocution and reads with feeling and emphasis at the right places. I prefer to hear Aristotle, and Plato for that matter, than to read them. This is a beautiful and very professional production.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. Irwin's translation of Aristotle is the very best available! I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy. In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore. It is a retrieval of Aristotle. It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.

For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state. Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology. What does "good" mean? He suggests good means "a desired end." Something desirable. Means towards these ends. Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good." In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good." Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money. Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself. Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money. "Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness." This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle. Eudemonia=happiness. Today we think of happiness as a feeling. It is not a feeling for Aristotle. Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well." It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence." Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of." Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle. Can also mean fulfillment. Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation. What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth." EN isn't formula but a rough outline. Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it. When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!

You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle. Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife. He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates. The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good." In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits. Good qualities of a person who would act well. Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person. If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules. Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak. Like a musical virtuoso. Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like." In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason. For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.

To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual. Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait. Socrates said same the thing. Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause. Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing. Happenstance is a matter of chance.

Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good. Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working. Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends! Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation. In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia. Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs. A long interesting list. It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness. Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods. Pleasure is a condition of the soul. In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual. Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature. It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle. These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."

Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom." The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good. As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do. Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom. The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods." For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion. Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics. Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept. My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.

What are the virtues? Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves. Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are. The virtues are capacities of a person to act well. All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis. There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated. Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.

Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually. "We reach our complete perfection through habit." Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them. Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey. Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp. Learning by doing is important for Aristotle. Hexis= "state," "having possession." Theoria= "study." The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good." Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean. Each virtue involves four basic points.

1. Action or circumstance. Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity. Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities. Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies. Such as courage as the "mean."

No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well. For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day. Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in. It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience. Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will. Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis. Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated. Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.

The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:

1. Virtue. Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength. Continence. We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness. This is akrasia incontinence. Happens in real life.
4. Vice. The person acts without regret of his bad actions.

What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"? Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term. Ethical weakness is not a full vice either. This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue." No one can knowingly do the wrong thing. Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires. Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this. Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees. The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4. A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy. In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore. It is a retrieval of Aristotle. It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.

For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state. Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology. What does "good" mean? He suggests good means "a desired end." Something desirable. Means towards these ends. Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good." In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good." Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money. Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself. Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money. "Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness." This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle. Eudemonia=happiness. Today we think of happiness as a feeling. It is not a feeling for Aristotle. Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well." It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence." Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of." Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle. Can also mean fulfillment. Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation. What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth." EN isn't formula but a rough outline. Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it. When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!

You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle. Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife. He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates. The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good." In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits. Good qualities of a person who would act well. Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person. If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules. Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak. Like a musical virtuoso. Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like." In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason. For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.

To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual. Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait. Socrates said same the thing. Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause. Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing. Happenstance is a matter of chance.

Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good. Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working. Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends! Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation. In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia. Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs. A long interesting list. It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness. Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods. Pleasure is a condition of the soul. In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual. Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature. It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle. These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."

Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom." The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good. As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do. Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom. The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods." For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion. Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics. Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept. My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.

What are the virtues? Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves. Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are. The virtues are capacities of a person to act well. All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis. There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated. Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.

Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually. "We reach our complete perfection through habit." Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them. Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey. Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp. Learning by doing is important for Aristotle. Hexis= "state," "having possession." Theoria= "study." The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good." Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean. Each virtue involves four basic points.

1. Action or circumstance. Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity. Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities. Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies. Such as courage as the "mean."

No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well. For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day. Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in. It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience. Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will. Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis. Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated. Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.

The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:

1. Virtue. Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength. Continence. We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness. This is akrasia incontinence. Happens in real life.
4. Vice. The person acts without regret of his bad actions.

What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"? Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term. Ethical weakness is not a full vice either. This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue." No one can knowingly do the wrong thing. Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires. Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this. Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees. The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4. A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

It would be helpful if Amazon didn't pool together reviews from different translations. Note to Amazon: the customer reviews can be very helpful and have motivated me to purchase many books. But reviews for widely translated books should be specific to the translation. Otherwise they become worthless.

One of my favorite college texts. I was assigned this book for a course on National Security. My only issue with this book is that it seems to have been written in pieces. The first two chapters were very academic and I had to look up a LOT of words in the dictionary! The rest of the book (6 chapters, I think) was much easier. I liked the chapters on how Evangelicals and Hollywood effected militarization. Also, politicians are always saying they support the troops but don't enlist or let their children enlist.

Unfortunately, Bacevich's son died in combat recently.

The author is a Vietnam vet and admits to be a conservative and on the right and he fairly critisizes past Presidential offices and describes why America is on the warpath from past trends and decisions.

Andrew J. Bacevich's New American Militarism is an informative, insightful, methodical analysis of key influences that have created American militarism, of how it came to be as it is. It is careful delineation of the parts influencing how G. W. Bush and the current administration arrived at their current policy, and why they regard the use of force and the deployment of American military forces throughout the world as paramount components of our foreign policy, despite warnings to the contrary from the nation's Founders. From his description of Woodrow Wilson's original interventionist intent (a moral vision shared with both Carter and Reagan, manifesting itself in vastly different ways in their respective presidencies, and one that GW Bush would adopt after 9/11), to the impact on the public's psyche of the mass media and Hollywood, the long term investment in particular world views of the evangelical right, neo-cons and the officers' corps under decades of Cold War influence--he meticulously traces how the parts fit together, and who played what role. This writer found his narration of the on-going influence of Albert Wohlstetter, the RAND Corporation and Robert McNamara, and their subsequent impact on Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Bush (II) to be particularly interesting. Simultaneously informative and frustrating was his description of evangelicals; it brought home the point that a thorough reading of Mark Twain's War Prayer would probably leave little impression on many of them.
His tying together of such seemingly disparate leaders as Carter and Hoover, Reagan and Roosevelt, Wilson and Bush, show recurring trends in how the government approaches the leviathan that is our armed forces. Bacevich describes a juggernaut used for global power projection, where all the principal policy players (presidents and presidential candidates, Congress, etc.) know that bigger is essential--as Carter discovered to his electoral dismay after delivering his Crisis of Conscience speech. (pgs. 100-102) Without falling into diatribe or invective against any of those he describes, it is quite clear who stands out as Bacevich's exemplars and who comes up short. We see the myriad influences that have lead to President Bush's Orwellian injunction that this country must go on the offense and stay on the offense, and simultaneously understand that is not a new concept with GW, as we see from C. Wright Mills' 1956 commentary on the subject, that "the only accepted `plan' for peace is the loaded pistol."
The author's description of the convictions of second generation neo-cons (heirs to the ideological likes of Podhoretz and Kagan), is instructive in that it is a mirror reflection of the current administration's SOP (American global dominion is benign and other nations necessarily see it as such, failure on the part of the US to sustain its imperium would inevitable result in global disorder, nothing works like force, commitment to sustaining and enhancing American military supremacy is essential and, a political realism is viewed with hostility, whether manifesting itself as a deficit of ideals or an excess of caution).
Bacevich sees that culpability for the current situation is cumulative, and while one or another of the players may share more responsibility for our current predicament, laying blame accomplishes nothing and does not address the issues and challenges our militarism confronts us with. The author makes it clear that (as Madison puts it) "...No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." With these points in mind, Bacevich offers in his final chapter, Common Defense, a plan of action--ten fundamental principles to abate present militaristic tendencies (heed the intentions of the Founders, revitalize the concept of separation of powers, view force as a last resort, enhance US strategic self-sufficiency, organize US forces explicitly for national defense, devise an appropriate gauge for determining the level of US defense spending, enhance alternative instruments of statecraft, revive the moribund concept of the citizen-soldier, re-examine the role of the National Guard and reserve components, and reconcile the American military profession to American society). (pgs. 208-221) I would include a final essential point in Bacevich's ten principles to avert expanding militarism--unceasing engagement, for it is only through consistent contact that we can hope to engage both our allies and foes. The indelible conclusion one draws from New American Militarism is that there are a multitude of issues that must be simultaneously addressed in order to curtain our reliance on overt militarism as a tool of foreign policy, but Bacevich also makes it clear that such a process of redress is possible. An excellent read for anyone in the armed forces, who has a family member in the military, or who has an interest in the symbiotic relationship between American society and its military.

The best books are those that challenge conventional thinking and have the intellectual weight to back up that challenge. This book is one of those. The author, a Vietnam vet and West Pointer, has the credentials and knows the military from the inside, which gives his argument particular strength and provides the reader with information not otherwise easily available. Is it really necessary that the United States have a military machine as large as it does? In these troubled times, that's a view that wins easy assent. But this book will make you think twice.

Judging by his track record, Bacevich might appear as a true-blue conservative, a West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, and soldier for 23 years. He currently teaches at Boston University and has contributed to conservative magazines such as the Weekly Standard and the National Review. He was a former Bush Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin. Nevertheless, his analysis of evolving military doctrines shows no bias for any party.

The book came in great condition and in a timely manner. It was a pleasure doing business with this seller on Amazon.com

I love this book for a variety of reasons, and I'll share these before offering my criticisms:

1) Wonderful tale of a painful time and place in American history

2) Great characters - and powerful bonding between them. I loved their ability to sacrifice for each other - at great costs.

3) A metaphorically redemptive message: this book shows the strength of human perseverance in the face of awful odds

4) Incredible local color - accents, speech, behavior! John Steinbeck really knew his stuff, and brought it to LIFE! Kudos!

5) Beautiful writing - so many times Steinbeck wrote scenes that sing off the page, transcending the story, the characters, and himself

6) I just love Steinbeck's character of Preacher Casy. He adds such a strong dimension of honesty, emotional courage, and truth-seeking to the book... He's one of my favorite characters in all of literature.

My criticisms:

1) Having previously read this book fifteen years ago, I learned then that the "filler" chapters - the ones NOT about the Joad family - were unnecessary to the story, so I skipped them this time around. This made the book infinitely more readable and enjoyable. I would guess these skippable chapters account for about a third of the book's volume...

2) I found the ending cheesy - didn't like it fifteen years ago, and still don't. I won't go into details (don't want to be a spoiler), but I found it too intellectual and emotionally disconnected to the pulse of the story...
3) Steinbeck uses various of his characters (particularly Preacher Casy) to make all sorts of philosophical comments on life, but never does he state the obvious, much less come near it with a ten-foot pole: DON'T HAVE SO MANY KIDS! The whole book is about people trying desperately to feed their children - for whom they cannot provide. To me this leaves the parents - sharecroppers, who, at the best of times, had life REALLY hard - and not just society, responsible. Even ONE little comment to this effect would have been welcomed. Yet has anything changed since the 1930s? Does anyone suggest that starving adults in Darfur not have children? (Or the EMOTIONALLY starving adults right here in the rich USA???)

I just finished reading "The Grapes of Wrath." Steinbeck's simple but poetic prose shows a mastery of subtlety and expertise. The dialog was very believable and realistic. The period in which J. Steinbeck wrote as did Hemingway was the realism movement, which never really strayed too long into what the characters were thinking or feeling. The characters words on the surface is what portrayed who they were and Steinbeck expertly reveals all of them, even down to his tertiary characters, Ruthie and Winfield. Ma Joad and Tom are beautifully realized as was Casey the former preacher.

If I have any quibble with the story, it's some of the chapters, which were a little too polemical and didactic. I felt Steinbeck trying too hard to drive his personal beliefs down my throat about "The Man versus the corporation and big business." Overall however, I still came away with great admiration for what he tried to accomplish with this story, considering we had just come out of the Depression only about five or six years later followed by the destructive Dust Bowls, created by man.

I now understand why this novel is considered in such high esteem by so many experts and admirers of fiction. "The Grapes of Wrath" is truly one of the great American novels!

Amid the desperation of the 1930s Dust Bowl, drought and changing agricultural practices force a family of Oklahoma sharecroppers to leave their home and join the great migration to California. Piling their broken-down Hudson with the few possessions they can carry, the Joad family sets off for what they believe will be a paradise of bountiful fruit and plentiful work. When they arrive, enduring one hardship after another along the way, the California they find is not at all the one they imagined.

Though a work of fiction, "The Grapes of Wrath" is a painfully real story of what can happen when profit is placed over concern for one's fellow human beings. Like the Mexican migrant workers of today, the Joads flee desperate circumstances in search of a better future, only to find exploitation at the hands of wealthy farm owners and resentment on the part of the people already settled there. Enticed by handbills telling of the need for workers, the Joads discover that the farm owners are merely flooding the market so the starved migrants will fight for the lowest wages. There are constant attempts to keep the migrants in a state of helpless docility: their cardboard Hoovervilles are periodically burned (under the guise of "public sanitation") to keep them from settling down, and any attempt to assert their rights can result in being blacklisted as a "Communist." Meanwhile, they watch with simmering anger as perfectly good fruit is thrown away in order to keep prices up. The locals have little but fearful hostility for the people they derogatorily label "Okies," whom they view as less than human.

Despite their unending hardships, the Joad family pushes on with dogged perseverance, never losing their dignity. Even when the reader is tempted to lose hope, the Joads find the strength within themselves to push on.

One of the strengths of the novel is its characters, who are simultaneously flawed and admirable. The protagonist, Tom, is on parole after unintentionally killing a man in a fight. He can only make the journey by breaking his parole and must not be discovered, which creates an undercurrent of tension. When Pa's status as the head of the family is weakened by his inability to support the clan, Ma emerges as the family's indestructible backbone and one of the strongest characters. Along for the journey is Reverend Casy, the reluctant preacher and a kind of Christ figure, whose philosophical ruminations provide much of the book's social commentary.

It is ultimately the pregnant young Rose of Sharon who most embodies the story of loss, resilience, and renewal. Throughout the novel, she is an immature and emotionally fragile girl who seems defeated by the dashing of her dreams: her teenage husband, Connie, runs away, and her baby will be born into unbearable poverty. However, at the end she shows a tender heroism, and her actions in the book's final scene are powerful and unforgettable.

This is a deeply moving book. You will grieve for the Joad family's tragedies, all the more because these tragedies are largely the result of human folly and greed. But you will also dream along with them, and find hope in their resilience and will to survive.

I only actually have to read this book as a Summer Reading assignment for my AP English class. I'm not a really a big fan of books that have this genre but when I reached halfway through the book, I started loving it. I find the feelings portrayed in this novel clear enough for me to understand it with the help of vague dialogue of the characters. A message is there and though you need to read more to understand what they're saying, the reality is always present.

Sinner poses a scenario in the not-too-distant future when the freedoms we take for granted will be severely restricted to the point of nonexistence in the name of tolerance. One man, Johnny Drake, takes a stand, and 3000 strong follow his example.

In Sinner you will live this adventure through the eyes of Kat, a high school student with a newly discovered fire for Truth, and Billy and Darcy, two unusually gifted people who seek to silence religion as hate speech.

Centuries ago, 300 Spartans stood in the gap. Now, 3000 Americans do the same. The rising stakes in Showdown and Saint have finally come down to one final confrontation. And if you've read some of the other books in the Books of History Chronicles, you may be interested to know: Black is back.

Amazon's highest rating is five stars, but I'd give Sinner seven or eight at least.

Also, it's worth mentioning that although Sinner is the culmination of a saga that began in the Circle Trilogy, grew by leaps and bounds in Showdown and Saint, and then expanded even further in the Lost Books, you can absolutely read it by itself. Be warned, though: once your appetite is whetted, you may not be able to keep yourself from devouring the rest of the Books of History Chronicles. Try not to choke.

Thirteen years have passed since the events of Project Showdown in Paradise, Colorado. Now the disease of tolerance plagues the world. Religion is accepted as long as no one stands up for their beliefs or calls others out who disagree. The name of the game is acceptance and everybody must play. As Christians everywhere slowly grow silent in the name of peace, a sinister man lurks in the shadows with a crooked smile on his face.

Billy Rediger and Darcy Lange have led quiet, albeit unfulfilled lives since they first wrote in the Books of Histories and brought Marsuvees Black to life. Now unseen forces have brought them together again to aid the government in its effort to stop a sudden rise in hate crimes all over the country. It seems their contact with the books all those years ago has given each a unique ability that will allow them to influence the powers that be in a time of national crisis. Now they will work together to stop an old friend from doing what is now against the law: boldly proclaiming the truth of Christ.

In Boulder City, Nevada, Kat Kivi is consistently finding herself in trouble. Sick of all the religious nuts she is surrounded by at school, she proudly dubs herself a witch as she denounces any and all religious affiliation. Kat soon crosses paths with a mysterious man named Johnny Drake who seems to be more than meets the eye. Soon Johnny reveals the truth to Kat and teaches her about Christ and the one true Light. Now Johnny and Kat must team up to let the Light shine brightly in a world that so desperately needs it. Their quest will lead them once again to Paradise where a man named Black and two old friends are waiting to stop them from boldly proclaiming The Word.

Sinner may just be the most important novel Dekker has penned to date. From page one we are effectively drawn back into the world of Project Showdown and the Books of History. Dekker presents us with a very probable and frightening future where proclaiming the Word of Christ is not only discouraged but also prohibited. Johnny's refusal to back down is inspiring while Billy's struggle with the darkness is sobering and gut wrenching. When Billy comes face to face with the evil he created as a child we are effectively reminded of our own depravity and our need for the Light.

Throughout Sinner Dekker effectively uses issues of racism and religious tension to propel this supercharged tale to an explosive conclusion. Never has Dekker shown more courage in his writing and never has he shown us the Light with such brilliance. Lines have been drawn and the stakes have been raised. Now it's time for the ultimate showdown to begin.

Mr. Dekker, kudos to you.
What a book.

This is part of the Paradise novels trilogy, the final novel, but it can be easily read as a stand alone novel.
I have read all of Ted Dekker's novels, including the circle trilogy, the lost books, and these paradise novels.
I believe that this book is above and beyond all his others, and I love all the others.

Sinner is gritty, suspenseful, and the classic bout of good vs. evil.
It made me want to re-read it the minute I finished the last page because I didn't want it to be over.

Get this novel and make sure you have nothing planned for the rest of the day one you start it because you simply cannot put this book down.

This book makes an good and convincing case for the importance of environmental issues as they affect the well being of all societies developed and developing.

The book is centered around the collapse of past societies, although this is only one of four sections in the book. The first section concerns the environmental problems of Montana to give the reader a personal perspective of societies interaction with its environmental problems. The second section gives the book its title and Diamond goes into the collapse of several historical societies - the Maya, Easter Island, the Greenland Norse, and numerous other societies. One of Diamond's strengths is that he tries to end on a positive note and in the second section he examines historical societies that overcame environmental problems. The third section looks at modern societies facing environmental problems - Hati, Rwanda, Australia and others. Here the author looks at how the same problems that affected past societies are still relevant because they are affecting societies around us today. He also looks to strengthen the connection that he started in the first two sections between environmental problems and political problems. Diamond goes through great lengths to stress that he does not believe that one's fate is solely determined by the environment, but he makes a good case that a society cannot properly combat their political fate without understanding their environmental problems. The forth section is meant to make all of the lessons discussed in the previous chapters relevant to the readers of the book - mainly well-off, first world citizens. He looks at the obstacles to confronting environmental problems and how to best influence companies and societies.

Throughout the book I think Diamond makes a good effort to maintain a balance view and to legitimately understand and address the complaints that many people raise to environmentalist agendas. While I do not consider this to be an overarching book on the world's problems and how to solve them, it would be a good addition to the reading list of anyone who wants to understand the relationship of environmental and political problems and some steps that can be taken to solve them.

Not quite as good as his best-known book, "Guns, Germs and Steel", mostly because the first 50 pages are about Montana. Who cares about Montana? I barely even know where it is. But after that it gets wicked awesome. Unfortunately you can't really skip the Montana parts - too many concepts are introduced that you'll need later - but hey, it's Diamond; you can suck it up for 50 pages. Vikings come later. Vikings!

I have been following the many trends on ecology, politics, and economics for many years. I'll admit I'm a complete pessimist in regards to human nature. Yet Diamond's book gives me a bit of hope that the message of stewardship vs resource consumption may be considered in a systematic way. My hope derives (ironically) from the well-researched conclusion that without a change of course, our planet's ruling class will soon face political/economic unrest resulting from widespread starvation, disease, and death.

Diamond presents overwhelming evidence from the past and current state of affairs to support this idea, without sounding preachy. The bummer is that in the past, rulers insulated themselves from the unrest rather than addressing societal problems, until it was far too late. The dying masses eventually revolted and killed the rulers along with their neighbors. Perhaps through this book (and others like it), those in power today will absorb this lesson and try to avoid the grisly finale.

The scholarship of the book is excellent, as is the writing; later chapters are somewhat more speculative about the eventual impact of humans. Some of the later chapters have a bit of a redundant feel too, as if the author makes his point a few too many times. Yet this is easily the most thoughtful book I've read on a very important topic: what happens when a society becomes it's own worst enemy due to shortsighted policy and a relatively comfortable existence based primarily on depletion of natural resources and ignorance of waste.

I recommend this book more than any other I've read in several years; it is well written, scholarly, and compelling. Enough said. You owe it to yourself to read it, and then pass along the recommendation.

I was sorry to find underlining in the book. Underlining should be revealed as part of the condition of the book,

Jared Diamond has a gift for explaining complex phenomena to the average person in a way that is captivating and digestible. In this book, he tackles a topic (the collapse of societies) that is depressing to some and terrifying to others (I suppose it is infuriating to those who just want to be free to build a mine with no environmental protection). He manages to keep the reader's attention for over five hundred pages and leave us with hope for the future -- if we can learn the lessons of the past. He is well read and there is a lot of research behind the book. These are the chief positives. I read the book and was quite taken by it.

The negatives take a bit more time to appreciate. Although Diamond creates a fairly consistent picture that supports his five point framework, it seems that there are other versions of some of the stories (e.g., the fate of the Greenland Norse) that may not fit it so well. Indeed, if you abstract the five point framework you get something like this: there are five factors that lead to societal collapse( self inflicted environmental damage, climate change, the presence of hostile neighbors, the absence of trading partners and finally the efficacy of societies response to the previously mentioned four factors), not all apply in all cases and of course there are other factors (not featured) that sometimes apply. At that point one is tempted to ask, why is five a magic number? I believe the answer is because those are the factors that Diamond wants to talk about -- or because those are the five that the average person wants to hear about. They fit my agenda so I initially accepted them at face value. It was not until I was challenged to think of other factors that lead to societal collapse that the five point framework started to collapse for me. If the five point framework has value, it is as a literary device, not a scientific theory. If taken seriously, it is the kind of framework that finds its way into orthodoxy and creates barriers for further investigation. To me this is a fairly big minus.

Some may say I analyze too much: I should just read and enjoy. But isn't that, after all, the point of scientific inquiry? Isn't that supposed to be the basis for such a book?

This is the BEST book on strategy that has ever been written! This book is timeless. I have seen strategies from this book utilized in business and politics. It does not take long to read, but has a wealth of information.

This book is great. If you have a enemy you want to take down or a solider about to go to battle, this is the book for you. It tells you everything you need to know about how to win.

This is a classic text that I have never read before. It is so interesting to see the perspective that it offers and the applications and relevance that it has today. A book that is remarkable in it's simplicity and expression of common sense. It makes me wonder how and where we've lost our way.

While this book is barely 70 pages long, the classic strategies in it are concise and valuble, quite timeless. The book was written 2500 years ago as a basic primer on strategy - and has withstood the test of time. It won't take long to digest the book - but that gives you more time to implement its strategies. There are sections on strategies, planning maneuvers, deception, etc., Together with Robert Green's book on Strategy it is a fine combination.


Michael Mandaville, Author of the upcoming "Citizen Soldier Handbook: 101 Ways For Every American To Fight Terrorism"

The Art of War and other Laws of Power from MobileReference
User friendly Table of Contents. EZ access and navigation. This is a very good digital item!

This book was highly recommended to me by someone with great taste in books. After purchasing it, I apparently read a few pages, and set it aside; I found the bookmark only several pages into it when I opened it again last night.
Some rapt hours later, I finished it, stunned I had EVER put it down before. I then read all the other appended information about the author and her family, including her murder at only 39 by the Nazis, after she had finished only two parts of the planned five in the "suite."
Today I have looked through the Amazon reviews, and have to wonder about those people who give it only a few stars, and complain it has too many characters. Didn't they ever read Tolstoy? Dostoyevsky? Sometimes I needed a chart to keep the characters straight! That certainly didn't keep me from recognizing the greatness of the novels.
Now to check out her other works. Her ability to change "voice" with each character is so subtle, yet so convincing I felt I was inside their thoughts. I can't wait to read more of her.
Please, if you can't get into this in the first few pages, find a little block of time and go further. It WILL be worth it.

It is a shame we will never be able to read the entire body of work Irene Namirovske had planned. I enjoyed reading the first two parts and also felt the two appendices were valuable. The first indicated Namirovsky's plan for her 5 part Suite. The second were the frantic and poignant letters that were sent in a vain attempt to save her life.

Wonderfully written with insight into the emotional strain inflicted on people who have no say in times of war. As the characters unfolded, a long process at that, the reader feels a since of hopelessness not so much because of the war but because freedom had been taken from these people. The German soldiers were as much victims of a bad government as the people in occupied France. I'd give this book five stars if it didn't take so long to weed out how the characters were connected. A sense of sadness lingers. Wil A. Emerson

I'm trying.....I'm really trying to like this book!! I was excited when I bought it and couldn't wait to start reading it.......well, a few pages into it, I kept thinking.....HUH??!! It's extremely confusing, it jumps all over the place from a set of characters to others, and does not grip you, at all. Some review, I believe listed in the book, said that this book was better than the Diary of Anne Frank, don't fall for that!! I'm on page 108, and I've been struggling to get that far within a week, where, usually, I can read that much (and more) within a day. If you haven't bought this book............save your money, unless you feel you may be like some of the others who wrote a review on how great this book was. Wish me luck, I'm going to keep on reading, after all $14.95 plus tax is $14.95.........I may not finish, but I will try in her memory and I believe every person has a story to tell. I don't know if this book has a section on her life, her story, I do hope so.

I was transported back to war torn France and walked the dusty roads to the concentration camps with other prisoners or so it seemed. How lucky was I to be able to imagine and not recount from personal experience. The author has a story to tell and elegantly she succeeds allowing generations after her to know what it was like for people caught up in such madness. I took this book along with two others on holiday and settled down on the hot sands to read, I was unprepared for such a brilliant read.

This book was a requirement for my AP class, and it definitely served its purpose. I do know that you should find the latest edition because it has all of the helpful stuff like author bios and the like. This collection of myhtologies is like cliff notes for nearly every mythological story imaginable.This means that if you truly want detailed informatioon, this may not be the correct purchase for you. For all school/educational purposes, this collection is well equipped to aid you in your endeavors.
Some may say that it does not give accurate accounts of certain events, but need i remind you that in mythology, there is no corrrect or set standard of a story. In mythology there are constantly changing elements, none of which transform the meaning of the story. This set of stories by Edith Hamilton actually tells the original/most famous version of the tale, then gives alternate endings/summaries of other versions.

Good Luck!

This book made me want to fall asleep! Just like some other reviewers, I don't suggest reading it unless it is required reading, which unfortunately it was for me. :( I had a lot of trouble understanding who was who due to the fact that characters were referred to by both their greek and roman names. I couldn't concentrate on the text for more than a minute at a time. I normally enjoy the majority of books, even when they are required. In fact, no matter how long a book is, even 400+ pages, I normally finish it in a day because I get sucked into it. Well, this book is definitly not one of the best books I have ever read. I don't recommend this book unless you have a high understanding of mythology and really enjoy it.

This book is the fundamental popular exposition on Western mythology, with particular emphasis on the Greek myths (as well as the Roman). It is the standard work for a popular audience and is excellent.

I would also recommend Joseph Campbell's books on mythology as well. Particular his Primitive Mythology, Oriental Mythology, Occidental Mythology, etc.

Mythology is classicist Edith Hamilton's book on Greek, Roman and Norse mythology, illustrated by Steele Savage (no kidding). The bulk of the work is devoted to the Greek, and the Norse is mentioned only in passing. Myths are arranged thematically, not chronologically (except for the initial creation), which is disruptive to the flow of the work.

Hamilton does several things well. First, she gives history on the authors from whom these stories have descended, and differentiates between their styles. Second, she gives good insight into the character of the people of the time as well as into the character of the mythological figures. She obviously knows the material and cares about it.

Mythology reads like a history book. Many stories get wrapped up too quickly, and quite a few are told too simplistically. Many details are left out. The writing is juvenile at times, and paragraph flow is occasionally an issue. This is almost a Cliff's Notes on mythology. Ultimately, Hamilton makes most of these myths boring. Others, with too many details cut out, the reader will find hard to get into.

Mythology has some good things to offer, but on the whole, this is an inferior way to enjoy the myths. This book may be useful to some as a quick-reference guide, but that's about it.

TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT

Hamilton is definitely the gold standard for retelling these glorious, ancient myths. Her style is engaging and the structure of the book makes it very easy to keep track of such ridiculously branched family trees. This is much more than just a reference book...it's more like a giant Greek fairytale book.