History Books

This book was translated from old French. It was in English but I could barely make sense of it and i'm into these kinds of books. I don't know whether it was his style that I didn't like or it was just plain hard to read. Could be because it was written so long ago.

This book has words from the 1500's that no one uses anymore. The book discusses the soul and the body. Physics, Astronomy , Medicine and Science. This is 100 pages of heavy stuff. If you are very patient, interested in Philosophy and very smart you may like this book..

I had to write a school term paper. I chose Mediation. After researching it a bit, I changed the paper's subject. I only looked through this book I have not read it.

Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy is arguably the starting point for much of modern western philosophy. This short work comprises approximately 60 pages. Potential buyers should note that it does not include the "Objections and Replies" portion that is available in some other editions.

Although there are many important and helpful philosophical works, Meditations is probably one of the few must read for students of philosophy. Cress' translation does a commendable job of allowing readers to interact with this significant historic text. In Meditations Descartes touches on many key philosophical questions, the role of scepticism, the existence of God and mind-body dualism. This short 17th Century text is by no means an exhaustive examination of these issues - its value is largely the historical context it provides. Its arguements have, however, held up remarkably well over time.

Overall a true classic - I highly recommend it. This short book is a handy reference and good value. Some readers, however, may wish to consider purchasing Meditations as part of a broader collection.

Descartes' meditations really is the place to start for thinking through the philosophical obsessions of the modern era -- the value of skepticism, the nature and extent of knowledge, the relation between mind and body, the role of theology in a rational account of the universe, subjectivity vs. objectivity, the primacy of the subject, freedom, etc.

This is a book that can be read for these themes even by those who are encountering it for the first time without guidance. At the same time this is a book that rewards reading and rereading, not only in the sense that you should read it more than once but that you should come back to it again and again after you have read the other classical works of philosophy that both preceeded it and that it paved the way for. After a serious study of Kant, for example, you may find that you can come back to Descartes and see that much of the work of Kant's critical project was already prepared for in this little treatise. That is not to say that Kant is not original, but that part of Kant's genius is in thinking through and making explicit the scope of the philosophical landscape that was first mapped out in the Meditations.

Rene Descartes, a great mathematician, surely a creative genius in the field, used his prodigious intellect to answer some of the great questions like how do we know, what can we know, what is the difference between thinking and sensing, and many other questions following from these basic ones. However, in doing so, he painted himself and generations of philosophers into a philosophical corner from which he and others have been trying to extricate themselves for hundreds of years. This philosophical cul-de-sac, this "corner," is known as Dualism.

Using the "method of doubt," Descartes concluded that there were two worlds, the world of mind and the world of the senses. The world of senses could be deceived, nay, easily deceived, whereas the world of mind could not be deceived because it was based on indubitable truths and understandings. These truths and understandings are indubitable because they are "clear and distinct" such as the fact that "I think." The thought "I think" is clear and distinct because it cannot be doubted as such. Whether I am deceived or not about what I perceive or think, there is always an "I" thinking. So even when in error there is an I...thinking.

For Descartes, other ideas are clear and distinct in our minds because God puts them there. For example, the idea of a perfect, immutable, eternally existent God is clear and distinct because God Himself places the idea of him into our minds. Our own finite minds could not even conceive of this God, let alone conceive of Him in a clear and distinct way just because our minds are finite; thus we must have a clear and distinct understanding of Him because He places that thought in our minds.

In sum, there are two worlds: an outside world which cannot be known clearly and distinctly, which is relegated to the realm of imperfection and confusion by the method of doubt, and an inside world (non-material) which can be known clearly and distinctly in two ways:
(1)the thinking I is known by eliminating everything except the I through the method of doubt; and (2) God is known because He put the idea of Himself into my mind. Thus, "Dualism"arises.

To write a full exposition of the problem of Dualism would, I think, require a lengthy treatise or monograph so I shall briefly list some of the problems with this theory at this point.
A. The mind is often telling us to move towards or away from various experiences and places; likewise various bodily sensations will effect our thinking. Dualism thus does not account for the influence or interaction of mind on the body or vice-versa.
B. Dualism does not really satisfactorily rule out that a body cannot think or that bodily motions are not thought. May it not be that body is implicated in some way in our thinking even though when I think or say "I think" I am not aware of that bodily involvement? Does the "I think" necessarily exclude the idea of extension? It's never demonstrated.
C. Has the idea of God really come from God? Has He put it in our minds? Does not our conception of Him also depend upon our books, our friends, our institutions, etc.?
Though an angel is more perfect than we, we might have an idea of an angel without the angel having caused it in us.
D. If the idea of God comes into our minds from God, why is it that many peoples in the world do not have the idea of the Christian Almighty God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in their minds when they "think" of God?
E. Why does an atheist agree about the existence of a triangle (which is understood for Descartes in an a priori sense just like the way we experience God), but not about the existence of God?
F. Why cannot that which we perceive clearly and distinctly also be doubted? What can we ever embrace if clarity and distinctness are our criteria for knowing?
G. Since the mind according to Descartes can only comprehend God in a manner that is "utterly inadequate," how can one "investigate with sufficient clarity and distinctness" what or who God is as Descartes proposes to do?"
H. Why is it better to know of God's existence by a purely inferential criterion (He put the idea in my mind) rather than by the scholastic method of going back to a Cause of all existent things, the basic Prime Mover? Does not the scholastic method have the advantage of not being self-referent nor depending on a mere inference to justify God's existence?
I. How does it follow from the fact that one is unaware that anything else belongs to one's essence that nothing else really belongs to one's essence?
J. The mind is affirmed in Descartes by a process of negation of bodily knowledge. However, there is no real exposition of the mind's operations.
K. Why is there no discussion of morals in the dualistic scheme proposed by Descartes? Is this not a serious omission?
L. Why does the idea of an immutable, eternal God need a cause? The idea of a triangle is immutable and eternal, but does not need a cause.
M. Descartes has described an insecure universe. Rationalism is king. In his version of the universe, mathe-matics is king, but empirical understandings are built on shifting sand, and are always untrustworthy. Descartes' God has created an almost unintelligible material world. Yet, this goes against both our observations and against the dependability of scientific conclusions.
We observe a regularity of seasons and of day and night following each other, and many other regularities besides. Science observes and defines law-like operations in the material world that cannot be observed by the unaided eye; yet that knowledge produces remarkable and consistent results. Does not this suggest more certainty in empirical knowledge than Descartes would be prone to accept?

N. Descartes' rationalism verges on solipsism because of the unreliability of shared, "outer" experience.

With so many areas for possible objections, I think it would be fair to say that Descartes' Dualism is more problematic than helpful.

Winner of the 2008 Newberry Medal, Good Masters! Sweet Ladies! was actually written to be performed. Laura Amy Schlitz has written here a series of interconnected monologues and dialogues which, taken together, depict the life of kids of all kinds in a medieval village. There's the Falconer's Son, the Blacksmith's Daughter, the runaway villein, the Young Lord, The Pilgrim and The Sniggler, all of whom help complete the picture.

The reviewers have covered it all, but such a truly great book deserves ongoing praise. How nice to see that this jewel of a book won the Newbery! Standing ovation from this reader.

A wonderful book from a wonderful person. This is especially good for lower- and middle-schoolers. Quite usable for in-school performances.

I didn't really realize it would be a children's book when I placed the item on hold at my library. I just knew that I wanted to read the latest Newberry award winning book. I guess I figured that if it fell into the same category as "A Wrinkle in Time" by Madeleine L'Engle then it must be good.

I was a little surpised at how thin it was. I was also surprised at how it is not just one coherent story (or even a story in the general prose form).
They are monologue and dialogue plays written by a librarian for the children in her school classes. She wrote them so that each child would have a starring role for three minutes.

They are poetic and easy to read with nice large print. The tone and vocabulary is all medieval - let's face it, I learned a few new words. Large colorful pictures are on every page and even the margins are colored and have text that explain certain words or aspects of the medieval culture/life. A large colorful map is on the first or second page and instead of locations being labeled the specific characters in the story are shown and labeled.

The tempo of the words is good and interesting -- I was particularly impressed with the two monologues done by the sisters talking about the apprentice boy their father has taken and how one of them must marry the apprentice for the apprentice to inherit the shop. The older daughter likes the boy and wouldn't mind marrying him but thinks the boy would want her sister (younger, prettier) instead. The younger sister thinks the boy will want her older sister (so he doesn't have to wait to inherit) but thinks that it's terrible that one of them will have to marry the boy in the end. The dialogues are completely different but manage to come together for a chorus type of refrain.

Another one that does this is the dialogue between the Jewish boy and the Catholic girl. They are able to put aside their differences for a little while and just be children playing together. The dialogue ends with the children saying together "Almost like she's a Jew;" "Almost like he's a Catholic."

The one down spot I can see - if I were the one performing the plays - would be having to play the role of the beggar child or the child of the villein where you obviously are not well-cared for and have to scrimp to survive. Or maybe that's just me being a girl and wanting the character I embody to be noble somehow...

All in all, it was a beautiful book and very easy to read. It took me maybe forty minutes of carefully thumbing through and looking at the pictures to complete it.

The fact that the book is made up of monologues by villagers, like "Spoon River Anthology's" poetry, makes it a natural for dramatic presentations in experiencing life in a medieval village in a social studies class -- middle school, or high school. When students "live" a character first hand, in costume, they experience a different life, and they remember much more of the information. MTL

You have to check out this book if you can appreciate the art that is graffiti. Banksy also inspires you with his political satire.

there isn't much to read. the art speaks for itself.
6 sections to this book:
monkeys, cops, rats, cows, art, and street furniture.
there are a few pages that contain several paragraphs of writing. banksy provides captions for maybe.. approximately half or less than half of his art. towards the back there's one page with "advice on painting with stencils". if you were looking for graffiti instruction, look elsewhere... unless you really want to look at that one page haha. some of his famous quotes are in there.
what a funny guy. funny book. it was worth the money :)

Couldn't put it down. Images are mezmerizing. Everyone I show it to wants to buy it to. No profanity or sexually oriented photos make it a hip gift choice for young people.

Banksy is a great artist. This book is 240 pages of both his graffiti and his "gallery" or more "Piece" art. I think he is an innovator and inspiration to all artists. We could all learn something from Banksy. If you like this book you might also like some Shepard Fairey work. Also check out Banksy's website at http://www.Banksy.co.uk its really great.

If you haven't read or seen much from BANKSY - trust me, just buy the sweet book. Otherwise... make a quick stop at your favorite video search engine, type BANKSY and watch a documentary about the man...

This is one of my favorite art books. Without a doubt.

This is by far the best book I have ever read for so many different reason. Tolstoy is absolutely my favorite author and he out did himself with this book. The realism, the historical background, and the depth of the characters made this book so great.

The Peaver/Volokhonsky translation makes this classic accessible and quite readable. The book is about the people and dynamics around the Napoleonic invasion of Russia in 1812; it is filled with interesting people and thoughtful insights. This topic needed the 1215 pages. If you have ever wanted to be able to brag about reading this book, I would highly recommend this translation.

This was my first time to read Tolstoy and this book is staggering in its breadth, skill and insight. Tolstoy wears many hats in this book--historian, theologian, psychologist, philosopher, military strategist, political scientist, ethicist--and he wears them all exceedingly well. The sheer scope of this novel (if indeed one can call it merely a novel) is remarkable. The battle scenes are stark and real, stripping off the tidy veneer that history puts on such events; not graphic or gruesome, just showing the human side of soldiers in the face of danger and death. The affairs of the Bolkonskys and Rostovs provide profound insights into good and evil, life and death, and those universal things that comprise human nature. Tolstoy's satirical comments on Napolean and the genius historians ascribe to him are well-founded and thought-provoking.

When all is said and done, however, it is the spiritual journey of Pierre Bezukhov that is the highlight of the book for me. You see clearly in this characater the expression of Tolstoy's own sirituality and the parallels are magnificent. This is a wonderful story about life, history, family and what it means to be human. While incredibly dense, this book is worth the time and effort. Highly recommended.

The translation itself is very good, but I agree with other reviewers that maps of the places described would be very helpful. For the price of the book, and the prestige of the translators, this shortcoming is noticeable. And, I agree with those who bemoan the tiny print in which the numerous French passages are translated. I think a better way to indicate when the characters speak French is to use italics (but in English).

War and Peace is, without question, the greatest historical novel ever written.

However, if you carry a copy of War and Peace with you anywhere, you will be subjected to ridicule of many varieties. This, of course, says more about the critics than the reader. It tells us first that most people have largely lived their lives deprived of reading one of the most "need to read" books in Western literature.

The book and an understanding of it are essential for a classically liberal and comprehensive education in Western civilization. No other single book so completely expresses the essence of a critical age in history than War and Peace. As such, the central reason to read it is that it is an efficient window into who we are and how we got here.

The customary joking and ridicule also tells us that many people have been forced to read War and Peace in school, but never understood or appreciated it. That is a very sad state of affairs. It implies a kind of abuse that comes from forcing any good thing on someone just because it is deemed good for them and before they have a chance to understand and benefit from it.

I guess what I am saying is that this is not a book for the young or anyone else, unless the reader is prepared and coached along the way. The only way, indeed, a youthful reader can get the lessons of War and Peace is through extensive preparation and contextual education. War and Peace requires a whole course of background to be fully revealing and illuminating.

The purpose of my review of War and Peace is not to praise it or to evaluate its literary achievements. I am simply not an expert in a position to do that.

My purpose is to draw on my experience with the book and to provide prospective readers of all ages and backgrounds with an efficient but penetrating guide that will make the journey through the pages of the book come to life and swell with enjoyment and comprehension.

For now the review will have to be a work in progress. But in the end, I promise to provide a comprehensive plan of syntopical reading complete with travel suggestions that cement the standing of the book and equip the reader with the ability to disarm any critic and, more importantly, enjoy a life of interesting cocktail conversations upon completion of this great work.

In addition to this review, I recommend that anyone getting ready to mount the challenge of reading War and Peace can and should refer to the reading lists I separately provide on the Age of Napoleon and on the reading of War and Peace, as well as travel to and enjoyment of Paris, Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Leif Enger's "So Brave, Young and Handsome" is a very well-written novel about a novelist who's lost his "mojo," and how he finds it again by taking an interest in the world around him. This novel is set in 1915; the historical research is excellent and the sense of place is profound, but the reason this novel succeeds so well is because Mr. Enger has figured out what makes us all human -- our need for interpersonal relationships, and our even greater need for redemption.

Both the writer, Monte, and the outlaw, Glendon, are searching for redemption. Monte wants to write again and wonders if he's a flash in the pan, while Glendon wants to apologize to the wife he ran out on -- he was a bank robber and killed someone by accident, and ran from his wife because he was running from the law.

At the start of this novel, we're in Minnesota; Monte's working at farming, as is Glendon. No one knows that Glendon is an outlaw, so when Glendon reveals this to Monte and his family, Monte feels a sense of personal responsibility. Monte believes in fair play and wants Glendon to be treated like a man, not like a hunted animal; that's the main reason Monte goes along with Glendon on the journey to find Glendon's former wife and apologize to her. But the secondary reason is that Glendon feels his life has been wasted -- he can't write, he knows writing is his life's work, and he feels terrible about it, so going along with Glendon is something akin to the last straw; Monte hopes this will re-start his writing career in a rather spectacular fashion, and his wife is too kind to shut his dreams down as she knows her husband needs a change.

At any rate, the rest of the plot proceeds quietly, like a river; the inexorable conclusions are drawn early on. People matter, even when they've made huge mistakes. And people can change -- redemption is possible.

And, the biggest and most helpful message of all -- our greatest talents are never completely lost, even if they're occasionally misplaced due to other circumstances.

I highly recommend this novel and believe it's one that everyone will enjoy; please don't allow the fact this novel is a Western to fool you. This is an outstanding work, one of personal growth, life choices, and redemption; also the abiding power of creativity.

Five stars, highly recommended.

"That is how you want to be remembered, my friends. Take a picture in your moment of conquest, when your luck is high and bullets still bounce off. That will do for the ages." - Monte Becket

Monte Becket lives with wife and young son in rural Minnesota along the Cannon River during the second decade of the 20th century. To date, Becket's one claim to wealth and fame is his wildly popular pulp Western, MARTIN BLIGH. His publisher wants more, but, lately, Monte's muse has failed him. Becket is drifting and anticipating failure as a writer, husband and father. Then one day, out of the fog on the river, a white-haired old man paddles his boat past. Enter into Monte's life boat-builder Glendon Hale, formerly Glen Dobie of the Hole-in-the-Wall Gang.

Hale was once married to a Mexican girl named Blue. But, sought by the Federales, Glendon deserted her never to return. Now, years later, he desires to go back and apologize to the woman he truly loved. He invites Monte to accompany him on the journey, and the latter, fearing the stagnation in his life, accepts. Along the way appears Charles Siringo, also once of the Hole-in-the-Wall, but now a self-anointed lawman of some legend, mostly constructed from books that he himself has written. Charles, now an old man himself, is in relentless pursuit of Glen Dobie for past crimes.

SO BRAVE, YOUNG AND HANDSOME is a coming-of-maturation story by Leif Enger. Its characterizations and narrative pace are reminiscent of Larry McMurtry's novels of the West, e.g. the superlative Lonesome Dove: A Novel (Simon & Schuster Classics). Here, Becket rediscovers not only himself and the talents within, but also learns something about the nature of honor, friendship, love and public fame.

In the McMurtry style, the plot of Enger's book doesn't evolve to a climactic and dramatic ending. Rather, random and relatively mundane events accumulate over time to give meaning to the protagonist's life, much as they do in the real lives of you and me. Enger's writing talent enables him to tell his tale with sympathy for each of the characters while demonstrating a keen eye for the story's time and place. What results is not a thriller in the popular sense, but still a book that I couldn't put down. Like Lonesome Dove, it could translate to an intelligent and absorbing film of deep emotional impact.

This book starts out with the lure that action and drama will follow. It is interesting and eloquent. Then, at about page 140, it flat-lines, as in dies. The character who narrates the story becomes boring, letting people treat him like dirt for...whatever reason. He's a wimp, I guess. He just can't defend himself, even verbally. The eloquence becomes tiring, just a bunch of strained metaphors. Coincidences occur, seemingly in an effort to juice up the story. It never gets juiced. It drags along for another 150 pages, to an unpredictable but uninteresting ending.

Leif Enger is back. His "Peace Like a River" is such a phenomenal book, and while this one doesn't quite measure up to its predecessor, it presents us once again with some down-to-earth but often colorful and complex characters who get caught up in events that frequently escalate. I sometimes wondered why the main character kept pursuing his neighbor--not sure that was well-developed enough. Yet it is a point that would be good for discussion, and perhaps that is Enger's reason for not pointedly stating it. It also stirs up consideration of the wanderlust that may exist in many hearts. Enger's narrative is again wonderful and beautifully wrought. It was often a pleasure just to read the beautiful way he put words down on paper. This is one author I will look for again.

I was so very disappointed with this novel. After reading Enger's debut novel, Peace Like a River, I had high expectations for his new work. Unfortunately, I found it to be a dull read. It was disjointed, the characters were not compelling and the fine craftsmanship evident in his initial novel were simply missing. I slogged my way through the book, hoping for the best, but it actually got worse as I continued. What an incredible disappointment!

Perhaps greatest things about this translation are 1) the Introduction, in which the translators summarize the text and explain why they translated certain ancient Greek words in certain ways; 2) the footnotes, which provide a wealth of historical background information; and 3) the Bibliography at the end, which refers the reader to numerous other books and articles that might help them better understand the text.

Hackett Publishing is the King Midas of Philosophy texts...everything it touches turns to gold. Anything produced by Hackett Publishing is probably the best and most informative translation you are going to find. This Nehamas/Woodruff translation of Plato's Symposium is no different. That being said, I also recommend the similarly structured Nehamas/Woodruff translation of Plato's Phaedrus, which they reference a few times in this version of Symposium.

Symposium is a short read that should take you no longer than 2-3 days to complete. This translation is also very funny when appropriate, as Symposium is supposed to be, which makes it an even easier read. (For example, when Alcibiades enters at the end and exclaims "Good evening, gentlemen! I'm plastered!") But it is also a serious text that explores the very nature of love between both men and women, as well as the Platonic Form of Beauty, from several different points of view. It is one of the most eloquent and literary ancient philosophical texts available, and I highly recommend this translation to anyone looking for a good read on what makes the world go 'round -- love.

I'm giving this book three stars not as a reflection of the authors' introduction or anything like that. I would probably give any version of this dialogue three stars.

For me probably the most interesting part of the book was the description of Socrates as he was serving in the army. He was able to walk around in the cold weather wearing just a light cloak and barefoot and he could survive on limited food better than everyone else.

He was also very brave in battle and the enemy soldiers avoided him realizing he would fight to the death.

Socrates was an unusual person I would say. He would sometimes just stand in one place for many hours without moving as he pondered the meaning of life I guess.

The last chapter is about this younger guy who is trying to seduce Socrates. He talks about how he bursts into tears whenever Socrates speaks, etc.. Finally he crawls under the covers with Socrates but Socrates refuses to give him what he is craving.

You see Socrates doesn't want to exhange his true moral beauty for mere physical gratification.

(This is where I started taking off stars.)

Socrates had saved this guy's life when he got wounded in battle so that may explain some of the strong emotions.

Jeff Marzano

It is rather difficult to review Plato's Symposium from a modern viewpoint. The attempts by Agathon's guests, including Socrates, to define love are largely based on the love of boys rather than women. While that is a difficult concept for me to ponder, I recognize that such a social custom prevailed to some degree in ancient Athens and will attempt to offer an unbiased view of the text. Basically, partygoers celebrating Agathon's first victory in a drama contest decide to do something besides drink themselves into a stupor because they are still paying for such activity the night before. Socrates joins the group on this second night, and it is decided that each man in turn will offer his praises to love. Each of six men offer their interesting, diverse thoughts on the matter, ranging from the conventional to the Socratic ideal. Phaedrus says that the greatest good a boy can have is a gentle lover and that the greatest good a lover can have is a boy to love. He stresses self-sacrifice and virtue as the kind of love the gods love most. Pausanias describes two kinds of love: vulgar love is best explained as love for a woman in the interest of sexual satisfaction; noble love is that concerned with bettering the soul of the object of love (necessarily a young boy). The doctor Eryximachus explains love in terms of harmony, and he goes so far as to credit the vague notion of love with accomplishing all kinds of things in a diverse set of subjects. Aristophanes begins by relating a myth about man's origins. When man was created, individuals were actually attached back to back; the gods later split each human entity in half, and love consists of each person's search for his "missing half" who can be of either sex; even when two mates find one another, their love is imperfect because they cannot become literally attached as they were originally. Agathon says that Love is the youngest of the gods, that he offers the means by which all disputes between the gods and between men are settled, and emphasizes the beauty of love (represented quite well by himself, he seems to say).

Socrates, as can be expected, shifts the discussion of love to a higher plane. Claiming to know the art of love if nothing else, Socrates tells how he gained his knowledge from a fictional character called Diotima. He says that love represents the desire to give "birth in beauty," that love is neither a god or a mortal but is instead the messenger between god and man. To love is to want to acquire and possess the good forever and thus attain immortality. Socrates goes on to give a very important speech about one of Plato's perfect Forms--namely, the Form of Beauty. The advanced lover will learn to seek Beauty in its abstract form and will take no more notice of physical beauty; the perfect lover is a philosopher who can create virtue in its true form rather than produce mere images of virtue. This short summary in no way does justice to Socrates' speech, but it gives the general idea. After Socrates speaks, a drunken Alcibiades (Socrates' own beloved) crashes the party and commences to give a speech about Socrates, the effect of which is to identify Socrates as a lover who deceives others into loving him. As both lover and beloved, Socrates is seemingly held up by Plato as the true embodiment of love. To truly love is to be a philosopher.

I myself don't hold this text in as high regard as many intellectuals, but there can be no doubt of this dialogue's influence on Western thought over the centuries. The book succeeds in the presentation of advanced philosophical ideas and as literature. The discussion of the Form of Beauty is particularly useful in terms of understanding Platonic thought. It would seem that this dinner party and the speeches we read are very likely fictitious and represent Plato's thoughts much more closely than Socrates' own views, but it is impossible to tell to what extent this is true. The Symposium is inarguably one of Plato's most influential, most important texts and is required reading for anyone seriously interested in philosophy as it has existed and continues to exist in Western society.

I bought this textbook for my Classical Philosophy class (which was taught by William Placher - check his books out, they're awesome), and the Symposium really got me thinking about what love really is. What's cool about the work is that while each of the speeches make some great points, in the end they never really decide on a final answer, so it's still your call.

I liked the Symposium so much, that I decided to buy it as a gift for my friend. It was then that I realized how superior the Woodruff version is - other versions I found in bookstores featured commentary that was sometimes more than twice as long as the actual work! In this version, on the other hand, the introduction is short but informative - therefore you're not paying extra to hear some other guy give his two cents on Plato's work, when Plato's words themselves are really all you're interested in.

this textbook of sorts is super informative with great color and black and white pictures of paintings discussed in the readings.

Having taken art history in college, I wish this was the addition of Arnason I bought. Kalb is a gifted editor. The original text is streamlined and energized with beautiful new plates. I thought the later chapters that Kalb wrote on contemporary art brought this classic to the 21st century. I bought it again.

Blah blah blah - Good quality blah blah. You know the drill, just BUY IT already!

Academic reading and art criticism, well suited for undergraduate and graduate coursework. Dry reading for aficionados, on the bombastic side descriptive. This book speaks to art as a critic would describe the sunset.

it comes to no surprise that these anti-religious loons are trying to convert as many people to atheism and humanism when events like 9/11 were sparked by religious fundamentalism. It is fundamentalism that is the problem, not religion itself. However, these people who have limited understanding of God seek to do damage which is not supposed to be the role of individuals but rather a collective of people who seek to prove that they are right and everyone else who is not like them is wrong. These secular fundamentalists are no different nor any better than their religious counterpart, I find it interesting how much they have in common yet they hate each other.

This war on religion should be more so focused upon the war against fundamentalism, not religion, nor God. These inspired texts have caused much conflict, no one can deny it, but they have also cause people to reach potentials never before reached. Could it be that fundamentalism is the problem being that fundamentalism is what has caused religion to be used for war and personal gain? These critics of religion should be willing to help their religious heretical counterparts in breaking down dogmatic fundamentalism. Instead they dont, they attack all of religiosity as if it was the full problem. These books and others like them are based on ignorance.

I agree with Mr. Harrs on all his points. I have read these points before, and I still stand by them.

Regardless of how correct Mr. Harris is, his book misses the mark. As a letter to Christians, it fails miserably. I would be surprised to learn of any Christian reading this book and saying, "Oh, I've been doing it all wrong then."

The reason for this is Mr. Harris's tone. As an atheist, even I cringed at tactlessness. I would imagine that a Christian--often someone who holds his belief near and dear to his heart--would overlook the good points Mr. Harris made and simply see, "Dumb Christian, dumb Christian, dumb Christian." This book will not persuade anyone. The only people who would see Mr. Harris's wisdom are those who already recognize it. Ironically, Mr. Harris is "preaching to the choir." The book does succeed in cataloguing the many flaws of religion; what took me several months of discussion forums and web surfing can be found concisely packaged in "Letter to a Christian Nation."

Although, I must concede that perhaps Mr. Harris was not trying to convince Christians of anything. In his conclusion, Mr. Harris states that this book is "the product of failure." As a society, we have failed to prevent superstition and mysticism from governing our lives. In that regard, this book boils down to simply being a rant. There is nothing in this book that you can't find in the discussion forums. But then, little in the forums achieve the eloquence of Mr. Harris, so that is in the book's favor.

In summary, this is a great book for non-Christians, who can seek affirmation from someone who has been in their shoes. It is a good book for Christians too, but not many Christians will realize this fact over the distracting cries of "dumb Christians". I can only suggest that a Christian try to read it from another point of view. As Mr. Harris points out, a Christian can easily see why Islam is clearly a false religion. It doesn't take a very large step to view Christianity in the same light.

At the very least, any Christian who succeeds in not throwing the book away in disgust may have something new to ponder over--something that could either eliminate his false faith or make his true faith even stronger.

This "letter" is short, sweet and deliciously direct. Harris comes out swinging and sustains his rational assault on the contradictions and absurdities of religion and religious belief from start to finish.

That said, such an aggressive approach will likely be ineffective with religious believers as it will instantly drive them to a defensive posture. Think of a cornered animal; they will respond as a threat to their very existence. Most of us were indoctrinated as children to feel dirty by merely thinking that maybe it's all nonsense, and that's not an easy thing to shake.

This book is a compact expose (compared to the more rigorous analyses by Hitchens and Dawkins) that will confirm the conclusions of unbelievers (preaching to the choir, if you will), but even those who are on the fence, who deep down feel that they've been hoodwinked, are reluctant to come out and say "I don't believe in God." Depending on your family, business, and cultural environment, admitting that you are an atheist can be a social death sentence.

The charlatans who administer the world's religions have too much to lose by doing anything less than unreservedly repudiating logical arguments such as Harris'. I hate to admit it, but I'm afraid that their worldwide influence and control are so pervasive that the heroes of reason who would pull back the curtain on their fraud will always be popularly perceived as evil, when in fact the opposite is true.

After reading this book I have gathered two conclusions pertaining to Sam Harris. One, he is a very good writer and should teach an English class on rhetoric. Two, while Harris is at Stanford it may do him some good to take a couple theological classes. Below are the reasons I came up with for my assertions. Because time is short I will only give a few of my reasons.

Harris begins the book declaring that Christians are atheists towards all other religions. Well this isn't exactly true. In fact if you would take Islam, Judaism, and Christianity what you would see is remarkable similarities, it is the atheist who is in fact the odd man out. When a Christian rejects Islam we are not rejecting everything about Islam. However when one asserts atheism they are rejecting all components of religion. Religions accept and understand why 93% of those around the world have some instinctive sense that God exists. Some atheists meanwhile fail to shrug of their childhood tendencies while calling each other "Brights".

Harris proceeds in addressing Old Testament Ethics. One thing is beyond clear is the idea that Harris believes the only approach to hermeneutics is a static approach. Yet from the time of Augustine through the Reformation there have been theologians who have questions this approach. My point is his entire argument on Old/New Testament Ethics is ill-relevant for those who do not take a static approach to scripture. For those who take a redemptive hermeneutics approach, such as William Webb who wrote, "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuality", would find Harris' argument a Strawman. Peter Enns and his book, "Inspiration and Incarnation" also allows for a different hermeneutic approach that deals with the Old Testament stories and the science behind them, Harris ignores this hermeneutic approach as well. These approaches are held by many Christians not simply because it allows them to escape Harris' static approach but quite frankly make the most sense if we consider who God is and how he speaks to those around him. If Harris wants to take on the task of addressing Old-Testament ethics he needs to not be lazy about it and address the hermeneutics of scripture.

Harris then attacks the leaders of Christianity suggesting that it is their faith that caused them to do such acts. Pertaining to Christianity it is beyond obvious that all followers of Christ are sinners, what Harris has to do is show how Luther, Calvin, and Augustine were not products of their culture but rather Christ taught the need for inquisitions to be done by people who follow him. Harris does no such thing. Then Harris goes on to suggest that Hitler may have been a Christian or sympathized with Christianity during one of his speeches in his early years. After reading up on Hitler this was more than obvious that this was not Hitler's true ideas but rather political rhetoric. Here is a private quote that show his true nature.

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, only to enslave them....The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the word of St. Paul."

He then makes the "Red State/Blue State" argument. Name any city with a high crime rate and you will quickly see that those cities aren't loaded with Republican mayors and Republican city councilmen. Can anyone say Detroit? However this is well besides the point. No Christian should say atheists, in general, are more dangerous than Christians. If they do they don't understand the grace associated with Christianity. And this lead me to my last point.

Harris spends a large amount of time claiming objective morality and the errors of morality in Christianity. However this is where he is weakest. No where does he give an ontological basis for his morality. Harris claims pleasure/pain creates a basis morality. Okay, who's pleasure and who's pain and on what basis am I obligated to concern myself with someone else's nerve endings? There is no basis and this is where his book stinks like rotten eggs. He brings up slavery so I will use slavery as my example. Given atheism where am I obligated to concern myself with the slave.

The point is beyond clear. And for those who were "shocked and awed" by Harris and are no longer "devout" Christians I truly wonder what your definition of devout is?

I read this in about an hour at my library; it's very short, but gets to the point: the dangers of Christianity, mainly fundamentalism. So Christians, read this! It won't take long, and it'll give you some things to think about.

This is a great read. There are very few books on this subject.
This book has taken some of the enigma out of this style of music.

I am happy with the quality of the book I recieved and also the timely manner in which it arrived.

This a wonderful book. It presents a spiky topic with clarity, sincerity and humor. Never once did I get the feeling that the author was a critic writing just for other critics or a historian writing for the ages. I recommend this book to anyone who feels intimidated or baffled by 20th century classical music. It probably won't change your ambivalence toward a lot of this music, but it will give your curiosity a leg up.

This is an exhilirating intellectual tour de force. Ross is the best "describer" of music I've ever read. Music resists being put into words -- they are two very different media. But Ross has the ability to do this -- his descriptions of works I am familiar with is always both precise and exciting. He makes the reader hear or at least want to hear the music.
But his major contribution is to fuse 20th century music with the many political and social forces that shaped it. His description of the sufferings of Prokofiev and Shostakovitch under the malign rule of Stalin is tremendously moving. Ross does not make the mistake of glorifying composers just because they were musical geniuses. Richard Strauss, Shostakovitch, Alban Berg, Copland, Schoenberg, Britten all emerge as flawed individuals who happened to have the ability to create great music, sometimes under intensely difficult conditions. None of them was a saint. One wishes Strauss had taken a more decisive stand against Nazism or that Britten didn't like little boys or that Shostakovitch had exhibited more moral courage against Stalin -- but they didn't. What they did was create wonderful music despite their limitations as humans.
For Ross, the disintegration of western democracy and society under the twin scourges of Nazism and Communism led to the disintegration of traditional classical music. But the worst of the disintegration took place after World War II when composers abandoned "music" and started producing what is best described as unpleasant noise in pursuit of various elitist political and cultural programs.
Ross tries to do justice to these various composers, none of whom ever commanded any attention from the public. It's noteworthy however that few of them are represented in the list of 30 recommended recordings he usefully appends to the book. Instead, we find symphonies by Sibelius and Mahler, Strauss's glorious "Four Last Songs" and concertos by Prokofiev and Ravel.
I conclude from this that the past 50 years has mostly been a lost era for classical music with a couple of notable exceptions. Hopefully, the next 50 will see a recovery.
Anyone interested in music should read this book but its appeal should be wider than that. This is really a history of the 20th century as reflected through music and as such a magnificent achievement.
For more about me and my book, The Nazi Hunter: A Novel, in which music plays a major part, go to www.alanelsner.com.

This book addresses a long-standing desire to familiarize myself with 20th Century "classical" music. I really enjoyed it and found it a very educational resource for my musical exploration. I know the term "classical" is incorrect - call it concert music, music in the European tradition of composed music, art music, WHATEVER! For better or for worse using the term "classical" allows most people to know what you're talking about. For that reason I will use that term in the rest of the review.

In a TV interview and in the preface to the book the author commented that he listened exclusively to classical music until college. In college he would play some things to his fellow students, who would comment that it sounded like Sonic Youth or Cecil Taylor, etc. Although I have been starting to immerse myself in the music for some time now, I am still very much a novice and this book's release is perfectly timed for me. I am not totally ignorant of older forms of classical music, but I approached 20th Century art music not via Bach and Beethoven, but via Frank Zappa and Ornette Coleman. Frank Zappa, who became my musical idol in my teens (and remains so in my 40's), was particularly influential in exposing me to a new world of possibilities. He made direct reference to Stravinsky, Varese and Holst, among others, in his music. Likewise in modern jazz there has been a lot of cross-polination with this music. A jazz fan would find the harmonies in Erik Satie's piano works not at all unfamiliar.

I suspect that many music fans are also approaching this music in a similar way, and this book will be very helpful. This is not an academic book and it is not aimed at an ivory tower readership. It does not assume an encyclopedic knowledge of all music that's gone before, although it does use musical terminology, so if you're not very familiar with such terms (like I am not, really), you'll want to consult a dictionary or encyclopedia occasionally. A bit of a challenge is hardly a bad thing, I think.

Mr. Ross uses very evocative language to describe the key works of music in his book. This is never an easy task. Music hits you in places that words will never go! Still, he does a very good job. When I was reading this I had never heard most of the music being described, but reading about it I certainly wanted to!

Music does not exist in a vacuum, but is both a product of and an influence on its times. Mr. Ross writes a very compelling narrative which puts the music in the context of the places, times, politics, and the lives of the people involved. This is a fascinating history book as well as a book on music. It's also full of colorful and entertaining character studies of these composers' often "unusual" personalities. Their interactions with each other are not necessarily always all that high-minded!

This music has survived in relative obscurity since the early part of the 20 Century. Mr. Ross proposes a number of explanations for this, which the reader may or may not agree with, but one recurring theme is that the various movements in 20th Century music eventually seem to paint themselves in corners through an almost fanatical insistence on taking things to the most abstract and extreme (if the audience likes it, it's a failure!). Not everyone comes out in favorable light. Pierre Boulez, in particular, comes across a bit absurd in his extreme positions. Whether this is an accurate portrayal I don't know. Clearly the author's personal tastes come through here, but he does a good job of describing their mindset.

The first section of the book deals with the events of the early 20th Century - the decline of the decadent old empires, the rapidly-growing role of industry and technology, and others, which led people to search for something new. One recurring theme is the struggle between the aspirations for "pure" art versus a desire to be relevant to society at large. The chapter dealing with Russian composers Prokofiev and Shostakovich's struggles and compromises during the height of Stalin's reign of terror is a highlight. It covers, from a different angle, the some of the subjects dealt in "the Gulag Archipelago" by Solzhenitsyn.

Sandwhiched between the chapters on Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany is the chapter on music in the USA in that period. He does not insinuate that they are equivalent, by any means. He does detail how even in the US composers had to navigate through dealings with government bureaucracy and corporate sponsors, for both of whom artistry was perhaps not the top priority.

I could nitpick whether Sibelius and Britten deserve entire chapters while others get little more than name-dropping mention (The chapter on Sibelius is very good). Consequently his coverage of the second half of the century is more condensed. I wish that he might have spent more time on it.

At the end of the book is a recommended discography of 10 recordings, then another 20 more. I have ordered a number of these and look forward to going back and looking at Mr. Ross's descriptions after actually listening to them. I will leave it to better-informed people to argue whether or not these really are the "best" versions of the pieces, but they seem as good a place as any to start. Certainly it would seem reasonable to me to start your collection of Stravinsky with a performance conducted by the man himself. Coming from a background in performer-oriented rock and jazz, it can be daunting to figure out which performance of a composer's work is best, so this discography helps such readers get at least a start.

I give this book a five-star rating without reservations. Mr. Ross is to be commended for his work. The same unfortunately cannot be said for his publisher who physically put together the book. I did not consider it fair to the author to deduct points, but I would like to give a big raspberry to the publisher, FSG. I bought the book new, and by the time I was barely halfway through, the binding started breaking apart. This to me is a shameless disregard for quality, which is sadly pervasive these days. Several other reviewers on this and other websites have mentioned the same problem. I plan to hang on to this book and use it as a reference when exploring new music. I wish I didn't have to rubber cement it back together so soon!

"Closing the Innovation Gap" reads wonderfully -- so well, that I was able to finish reading this book in one weekend! The author has a chatty style that makes me think I am hearing the author speak the words on the page. More importantly, there is a serious message here, one we need to heed. The United States must decided it can afford to support and sustain innovation, an engine that drives the economy.

Prof. Richard N. Zare
Department of Chemistry
Stanford University

This is a profound and well-written wake-up call about research and innovation, and what it takes to really come up with the new products and ideas that make history and industry. The author uses her wide experience and inside knowledge of major companies to make an excellent case of what we need to do now to restore US competitiveness. It comes as a surprise to learn how the US has been systematically dismantling the structures that made it the leading innovator in the world. It is a pleasure to read, and helps you understand that developing new things is not so much a matter of luck as a function of the right institutions, attitudes and values.

Judy Estrin has done a terrific job of tackling a difficult subject and making it digestible without `dumbing down' the issues or the proposed solutions. I also found it a very enjoyable read (although of course it is not a feel-good subject.) Ms. Estrin makes compelling points about the need to improve our educational system as well as fund basic research, bringing in relevant data and results of prior initiatives, as well as weaving in commentary from scores of other highly respected and knowledgeable people. This book is a wake-up call for America, with ideas for both bottom-up as well as top-down action. Highly recommended.

This book is lame. Idea that venture capitalists don't know what they are doing is a pretty bold charge, and criticism that we are myopic is also unreasonable. MIDI of Japan did those big bold investments, and sometimes they got it right, and sometimes they got it wrong. Problem with big bold investments is that if you are wrong, and you are the government, it becomes a boondoogle. There is no way to shut it down. Reason we have weak investments in silicon valley is that people aren't coming up with great ideas that merit funding, or aren't very good in explaining how their great idea is worth investing in.

Starting a company is hard. Making that company successful is hard. Companies need to be allowed to fail. But one of the consequences of failure is that people are willing to take a more conservative approach to flipping companies for short quick profits.

It's unreasonable to expect something as big as the Internet to come along every decade. It's really a once in a century type thing, and we need to get over the fact that we won't be doubling our stock every year.

Not since Tom Peters wrote "In Search of Excellence" in 1983 has a book this good been written about how to achieve success in American business. In between, has been a succession of OTHER books containing one or two very basic ideas written in a creative way to fill up a book, written for a dumbed down audience, that could have been summarized in a sentence or two. THIS book breaks that mold and finally brings forward information about companies, most of whom are absolutely minting money, who achieved success through innovation, and what it takes to get there. And, like In search of Excellence, it's written in an intelligent style, yet one that anyone can understand.

The companies that had been successful since Tom Peters wrote his groundbreaking book understand what it takes to foster innovation and go about achieving it in a profitable manner. Among the many companies the authoro looks at, Pixar is investigated, as is Google, a seemingly one-hit wonder, that, in fact, had to bring many innovative concepts to the market before it was unable to unlock the billions in value it has today. Not only did Google have to solve a search problem, and keep people from gaming their system, they had to come up with a system to allow advertisers to take advantage of the search results (Google's Ad Sense System) and they also had to build an unparalleled computer network to gather, organize and bring back those amazingly accurate search results from among the vast internet in a blink of an eye (Google's so called "cloud computing system").

The understanding of the innovative processes led Pixar, Google and many others to continue to innovate to achieve their amazing financial success where other companies, ever driven to achieve quick results that could be flipped to another company for a quick, but tiny, profit, would have given up long before that process was complete. Both of those two companies were unsuccessful for more than 5 years before they finally unlocked the value they had been working towards.

This book pulls apart and analyzes the innovation techniques of companies large and small, both the successes and the failures, and what it took to learn from those failures, and even why failures are an important part of the innovative process. The author is probably the only person in America who could have written such a book because she has started and sold a number of companies, and has driven the process of innovation at other companies, and she knows just about every successful innovator in the technology industry for the last 30 years.

Not only are the successes analyzed, but so are the failures. Quicken had a string of failures in addition to their successes, and the author identifies what caused the difference between the successes and failures.

This book is not only a must read for engineering managers at every company, but also the business and finance people who can frequently lead them in the wrong direction by demanding the wrong results at inappropriate times, or failing to support a process that can take much longer than anyone expects.

Additionally, any politician and policy maker will want to understand this process. There hasn't been another Pixar or Google started in the last ten years. Why is that and what have the incentives done to the process of innovation in the country? All of that gets answered in this one book.

The book is the opposite of most other business books: instead of one or two very basic ideas spread out over the whole book and repeated endlessly, there are 5 ideas on every page, each supported before the author moves on. Where the other books are largely a waste of time for an intelligent person, this book is packed FULL of great ideas.

Only once in a generation do you get to have access to this much information in this short of a read. This is that book. What Tom Peters did a generation ago has now been duplicated by a book that dives into innovation the way Tom Peters picked apart the process of achieving excellence so many years ago. There was only one person who could have written it so well.