ERA Reviews

In a 1994 interview on C-SPAN's Booknotes, reporter and critic John Corry told how politically one-sided the _New York Times_' newsroom was in 1980. In that year, of all the reporters and editors on staff, he only knew of one person who voted for Ronald Reagan, and that was the paper's art critic, Hilton Kramer. Kramer left a couple of years later, continuing his art criticism in the _New York Observer_. But he also set out to do battle with the cultural Left, that "herd of independent minds", in Harold Rosenberg's famous phrase. Eventually, he founded the _New Criterion_, an intellectual journal, which features some of the finest cultural criticism on offer today. This book, Twilight of the Intellectuals, is as much a retrospective of his often lonely mission, as it is a survey of the political climate of American intellectual culture in this century.

_Twilight_ differs from Paul Johnson's _Intellectuals_ in treating only 20th century intellectuals. Plus, Kramer's high culture background allows him to provide the reader with more insight into his subjects' worlds, as opposed to Johnson's uniform tarring of his as scoundrels (mostly accurately, though). Kramer even expresses some nostalgia for some of the people here, such as Kenneth Tynan, giving him his artistic due over the political divide.

But in the main, his work here is a series of political polemics. "Socialism is the religion people get when they lose their religion," is how the Catholic intellectual Richard John Neuhaus described the mindset that Kramer battles here. Throughout, Kramer selects his old articles with the intent of fixing the truth about influential leftist intellectuals firmly in the cultural memory. People like Lillian Hellman, Alger Hiss, Dwight MacDonald, Mary McCarthy, and such are all known qualities now, and do not need to be refuted afresh. But they still hold places of honor in institutions where like-minded intellectuals cluster, so the task of telling the truth about them is an ongoing one. The progressive myth surrounding Hiss is still so thick that Kramer felt compelled to include two essays about his case.

His praise of Sidney Hook, the lone ranger of socialism, is fulsome, and deservedly so. Hook did much of the heavy lifting in building the Marxist mindset among American intellectuals in the Thirties, and then atoned for it with a long, noble and lonely career as an anti-communist cold warrior. He oddly tags Hook for a philistine, though, for having pooh-poohed an anti-communist arts festival with the comment that artistic greatness could appear in dictatorships, too. Hook was right on that point, though, in my opinion. A musical program of Shostakovich and Prokovieff at their best would more than stand comparison with a program of contemporaneous Western composers, caged birds though the Soviet artists were otherwise.

His estimation of Saul Bellow may be a little unfair. Bellow has never been known for being a brawler, which may explain Kramer's disappointment in his seeming acquiescence to PC attacks against him. One _Herzog_, one _Mr. Sammler's Planet_, ought to be enough to ask from any writer's career, without also being called upon to spend creative energy in opinion journal polemics.

A print reviewer of this book commented on how entering the culture wars must have retarded Kramer's potential as a critic, by draining his powers. I don't know about that, but he makes a convincing Horatius At The Gate, giving battle to the herd of independent minds, who marched in leftist lockstep so disgracefully, for so long.

Although I have a great interest in the topic, and I found its title promising, I could not bear myself to finish this book. Besides acknowledging the acritical position of some intellectuals toward the Soviet Union and Stalin, I did not find much of interest in this book. Kramer's book is another exemplar of the usual tirade of rightwing intellectuals against the left and liberals in general. I found particularly deplorable Kramer's intend to rehabilitate the memory of Joseph McCarthy (See "The Blacklist Revised"). In this regard, even Ann Coulter is more refreshing.

With this book, Hilton Kramer, a Cold-War anti-Communist Liberal of the last half of the 20th century, fills in many historical gaps for younger seekers of intellectual purity. While the book does a credible job explaining shifting differences of cold-war opinion amongst leftist academics and ideologues, it begs us to consider how otherwise intelligent people could continue to support tyranny in the face of such incontrovertible evidence of its evil. Kramer cites the verbal and media assault on anyone daring to question the tenets of the Cold War Socialist Left. He outlines the criticisms of Alexander Solzhinitsyn by George Steiner, the diatribes of Lillian Hellman, that staunch supporter of Stalinism, and the scurrilousness of Mary McCarthy, the pro-Hanoi apologist. He shines light on the Communists in Hollywood and the media and the many ways in which they aided the Soviet cause.

Starting with the intellectual rejection of Whittaker Chambers, in favor of the Soviet spy Alger Hiss, we are treated to a travesty of heresies that have yet to be renounced by their proponents. Kramer points out that Bard College today has an academic chair in their Humanities department in Alger Hiss's name. By the same token, women's studies departments at many universities still use "I, Rigoberta Minchu" as a text even while knowing that she made the story up. Current Writers who have kept on with this tradition of making it up as they go along, in the name of the class warrior socialist cause, are Mike Barnicle of the Boston Globe, Stephen Glass of the New Republic, Joseph Ellis of Mount Hollyoke and Janet Cooke of the Washington Post; and these are just the ones who got caught. Even though they are a tribe of diminishing numbers, the shrillness of their followers is reminiscent of the Pod People in "the Invasion of the Body Snatchers". They still make their presence known in the universities, worshippers of their secular religion, their social studies professor's a fit for the over 50 white guy demographic of those remaining listeners of Pacifica Radio. Even with Cold War Left intellectualism "water over the dam", we still stand witness to the twilight of the intellectual era while we watch a continued post-modernist assault on free market values. In the war of ideas, they still fight on the side of our political enemies, and their fight is as relentless as it is prolonged. The saving grace is that their numbers continue to dwindle as their message becomes ever more diluted and confused. We can only sit in awe as we watch them "rage against the machine" and tilt at the windmills of free market capitalism. The Ruckus society, Greenpeace, PETA and Friends of the Earth come to mind.

The book outlines the details of urgent political debates that tore apart friendships and sundered institutions. Kramer gives life to these issues that animated controversies, but ended in the triumph of a new sensibility over modernism, what he calls a strange fate for liberal anti-communism. What's so interesting is how people like Sidney Hook, Lionel Trilling and George Orwell were able to see the truth where other fellow travelers would not. It seems that the rigid ones suffered, and suffer still, from the condition that Thomas Sowell often refers to as compartmentalized brain syndrome. Hilton Kramer has done a fine job for those of us who are younger but still curious about this struggle of Cold war peripatetic's espousing their tale of the inevitability of a Marxist heaven on earth as the logical future for all mankind. This cruel plan, which oversaw the deaths of more than 100 million people in the 20th century, never succeeded and some of the credit has to go to those intellectuals with the courage to see the error of their ways. Hilton Kramer gives them their due.

THIS IS A GREAT COLLECTION OF STORIES AND INFORMATION ABOUT A VERY GOOD TIME ERA. AFTER THE WAR AND TO THE PROSPERITY OF THE 1950'S. THIS BOOK IS VERY WELL WRITTEN AND HAS A TON OF INFORMATION. I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS BOOK FOR THE REAL DIEHARD AND HISTORIC BUFFS OF BASEBALL. A GOOD EDITION FOR ANY LIBRARY. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

This book examines baseball during the term of A. B. (Happy) Chandler as commissioner. It is based on extensive oral history interviews, thorough archival research, and the author's keen sensibilities about baseball. I relished reading the book because it filled a significant gap in my knowledge of the game. Marshall is especially strong on the role of free agency and how this manifested itself in the Mexican league of the post-war era. His general knowledge of players, managers, and management is impressive. Finally, this book is well written, without academic jargon. "Baseball's Pivotal Era" merits reading by fans and scholars alike.

I especially enjoyed this book because it fills the time period from my age of two to eight years of age. I became a fan with the end of the "pivotal era". The author notes correctly that progress made during this era stagnated with the arrival of Ford "It's a League Matter" Frick as commissioner after Happy Chandler didn't live up to letting the owners do as they please. Significant details such as the Mexican League, the crucial year of 1947 with the arrival of Jackie Robinson, the Indians' championship of 1948, the 1950 Philly Whiz Kids, and the details leading up to Thomson's homer in 1951 all make this a significant book both for the knowledgable fan and the newcomer interested in baseball history. I did find a few minor errors such as on page 271, the author refers to Bill Bevans of near no-hitter fame in the 1947 World Series as Hal Bevans. Also, former Tigers manager, Red Rolfe, is said to have been replaced as manager in 1951 by Charley Gehringer. Rolfe was replaced during the 1952 season by former Tigers' pitcher Fred Hutchinson. Finally, Jackie Robinson died at the age of 53, not 56 as the author states on page 437. I can certainly put up with these errors. There is a lot to cover in the game's history during these years, and the author did a great job of covering the time period when I was too young to appreciate what was going on in the game of baseball. It's too bad the time period following this era was presided over by a do-nothing commissioner when the game was crying for leadership. However, the owners got exactly what they wanted in Ford Frick.

Drawing this blueprint to the digital economy required the combined labors of three editors (Don Tapscott, Alex Lowry and David Ticoll) and various expert authors drawn from academia, research and corporate leadership. The 20 essays that make up the book focus on industrial transformation, new rules for competing in the e-age, the computer-based network model and changes in government structure and policy in a networked world. The high-level authors contribute thoughtful articles, though some ideas overlap and some thick spots of techie language and academic theorizing emerge along the way. More problematic, since the e-commerce environment changes so quickly, the book has a slight air of déjà vu. Its discussion of emerging trends freezes in flight and becomes a kind of fluid history of a particular time in e-business' evolution. Still, we recommend this book - for the fascinating movement it captures - to the general reader interested in business- and information-age topics and to top managers.

It is a great opportunity to write a review about this book. In short words I will say The Digital Economy is a must read book. This book is useful for seasoned businessmen, new entrepreneur, investor, and any one who wants to know what is the effect of information revolution in modern world. Should one be scared that there is going to have a drastic change in the business philosophy? To find an answer one must read this book. This book is divided into four parts, The New Rules of Competition, Transformation in Industry Due to Digital revolution, Interworked Enterprises in modern Digital age, and Governance in Digital Age. This book is valuable resource, rather I would say, is a must for any entrepreneur. Also this will be a valuable source of information for modern managers. I feel glad to have gained more information from this book I strongly recommend this book to every one who is being a part of Internet. Business, individuals who browse the net for news and information, and people who contribute information on to Internet. This book beautifully analyzes the impact of modern digital technology on business strategic, and it's socio-economic behavioral pattern.

It does a good job of depicting the pros and (today's) cons of the digital economy and its foundation the "organic organizations". Nothing to clash but to evolve from the old pyramidal or tree looking org chart that all we do know never works entirely in that way. A must for every one involved in a corporative enviroment today or aspiring to form its own one.

If you are doing historical research you will love this book. It is an extensive listing of names, locations and dates. However, I'm not sure what the point is of knowing that so-and-so was at xxx creek on a certain day. I would have liked more insight on individuals, more character development, a better understanding of what their lives and daily challenges were.
The book doesn't flow--it is a collection of facts that are not well synthesized.
Although the characterization of the Indians is certainly not politically correct today, it does reflect the experiences and attitudes of the time. It makes it clear that relations between Indians and the frontiersmen varied greatly by tribe, the individuals, and circumstances.

Whereas Ambrose's "Undaunted Courage" got me interested in the early exploration of the American West, "Across the Wide Missouri" got me interested in the actual lives of the mountain man and fur trapper/traders, and how they also explored unknown regions of the west. Their day to day existence and survival amongst the Indians, dealing with the forces of nature, the early stages of Manifest Destiny, etc. were all to me mind boggling. DeVoto brings to life the fur trade at the peak of its industry. I must agree with a couple reviewers though on how the text does get somewhat wordy and complex, the list of characters involved is quite lengthy and one is always flipping back and forth to the maps and notes. But this is what it takes to tell the whole story. From his bibliography one can pick and choose which books are of interest to the reader and take it from there, that's what I have done. I would recommend this book to those of you that are interested in this time period.

There are a lot of things about this book I don't like. First, and most seriously, it's incredibly complicated and dense, a virtual catalog of the comings and goings of hundreds of characters over a six year (1832-1838) period. You need a scorecard and an atlas to keep track of the players. Secondly, the author's judgments about Indians are politically incorrect and come close to being racist. Example: the "laborious accretion which convolutes the fore-brain and increases the cultural heritage" makes the white man superior to the Indian. And, third, DeVoto's wordiness (see preceding sentence) and flip judgements are ever so cute. But I've had this book on my shelf for many years and have read it through more than once. I can overlook the irritations because DeVoto tells a magnificient story about a magnificient land. "Broken Hand" Fitzgerald, Bridger, Carson and their colleagues are great American heroes, warts and all. Someday, I hope that a writer with the soul of a poet and the diligence of a scholar writes a better book than this about the mountain men. Until that happens, we have Across the Wide Missouri.

this book was assigned to me as a summer reading book for my advanced placement american history course... after reading the first chapter, i was automatically interested. i wouldn't exactly say i couldn't put the book down, but having to read it was more like an interesting leisure activity instead of a boring read. johnson's use of citing people who reappear throughout the book was very useful because it was more obvious that the horrors of the slave market were true statements from real slaves instead of a general statement without a citation. i strongly recommend this book to people of all ages!!!

In a book that argues that the slave trade itself fundamentally defines American slavery as a whole, a focus on the brutality and inhumanity of slavery would be expected. The tragedy of individuals torn from their families, kept in inhumane conditions in the slave markets, and sold to strangers who likely would physically abuse them is certainly one focus of Soul By Soul. However, Walter Johnson has gone much further than that in defining the slave markets as central to our understanding of slavery. Through creative interpretation of numerous personal and business documents drawn from slave dealers and owners, the court transcripts produced when their bargains went awry, and the haunting memoirs of slaves who either came through the markets themselves or had relatives who did, Johnson shows that the act of buying a human being was profoundly important to the Southern mind in ways that transcend economics or dynamics of power. It is thus not possible to dismiss Johnson's interpretation with the argument that the majority of slaves never passed through the traders' hands, so their experience with the market was negligible and therefore of less importance than Johnson would suggest. This is a book less about the experience of black slaves in the market than about the effect those markets had on the white psyche.

Johnson sees southern whites as consumers, ready to be marketed to in the modern sense. Traders knew this and were prepared to advertise their wares in ways that would allow those consumerist impulses to be satisfied. The purchase of a first slave for a man just starting to build his fortune was an act of hope; the buyer's dreams of prosperity rested upon the slave whom he had chosen, in a sense transferring dependence from the slave to the paternalist himself. Wealthier buyers could impose their own fantasies upon their purchases; domestic slaves could bring respectability to a household by relieving the master's wife from physical labor. Slaves could also establish a master's reputation among his peers by being 'stubborn' or 'unruly' slaves whom the master could break, establishing his power. They could also embody sexual fantasies, allow a white man to create a role for himself as a paternalist, or simply reflect well on their owner by being 'good purchases.' Much as a man may express his desired appearance to others by purchasing a certain model of car, and judges others buy what they drive, so did slaveholders define and judge themselves according to the quality of slaves they owned.

Similarly, just as slaveowners defined themselves according to their actions in the market, they also defined slaves' humanity according to their market value, using racial and physical markers to determine the abilities of their purchases. However, the human nature of their property inevitably led to slave owners being dissatisfied with their purchases; slaves seldom fulfilled the materialist fantasies of their buyers. Violence was the surest response, as slave owners expressed their disappointment with 'faulty products.' Slaves could be returned for failing to perform as the traders had promised, but more often they were simply whipped. Presumably, slaves' common experiences drew them closer to one another, as Johnson argues. However, his sources show that slaves frequently judged each other in ways reminiscent of the slaveholders' own criteria, that is upon skin color, intelligence, attitude, etc. Arguing that they automatically united against whites is perhaps sensible, but not supported by Johnson's sources. This however, is one of the few flaws in Johnson's otherwise insightful analysis.

In his review of Soul By Soul, tabsaw compares Johnson's book about the slave market unfavorably with the WPA interviews taken with former slaves themselves, and claims that Johnson, a skilled and careful historian, presents no documentation for his claims. In fact, a quick examination of a few of the many hundreds of footnotes in Soul By Soul illustrates that Johnson's work is well-grounded in the documentary evidence--much of it from court records and newspapers in which the slaveholders themselves described their world. For example, advertisements for runaway slaves routinely describe the markings on their bodies--ears cut off, whip scars, and the like.
The WPA slave narratives are good, but they need to be read (like all historical sources) carefully. For example, the interviewers are all middle class and white, the interviewees are all black and aged, and the interviews take place in the 1930s Jim Crow South, where several African Americans were burned alive, lynched, or tortured to death in public every single week, year in and year out. The interviews take place in a situation where whites own almost all the property and make all the laws and where any white man can kill any black person without fear of prosecution. Does this sound like an environment likely to produce candid information about race relations? I don't mean to say we disregard the slave narratives, but obviously they cannot simply be taken at face value. Walter Johnson is a real historian, while tabsaw is just a neo-Confederate propagandist, searching for something to defend his fantasy of the Old South. As a Southerner myself, I don't find that either shocking or admirable, but Soul by Soul is a great book, and cannot fairly be faulted for such a misuse of evidence.

Brian Swimme sure knows how to put it all together. This book purports to be the story, or history, of the Universe. It is absolutely amazing in its scope. The book attempts to tie up everything that has ever happened in any form of existence into one tight narrative. This is possible, according to Swimme, because everything is interconnected, it is a coherent one. Nothing happens without everything else feeling its effect.

Needless to say, the book is heavy with physics and philosophy. The book starts out with the Big Bang and ends with today. Along the way Swimme shows how all things are built on what has come before. This is his big thesis behind the story, that the Universe is not a cyclical set of events, but a series of epic transformations. When viewed in this light, events begin to fit into place. Massive changes occur that everything after builds upon, and which could not have existed if that shift hadn't occurred in the first place. Human history also has undergone these fundamental shifts, in thought as well as geographical movements. These shifts are one way in which the Universe expands and expresses itself in reality.

There are some deep thoughts in this book. Swimme says that Walt Whitman's poetry, and the feelings behind it, are, "an intricate creation of the Milky Way, and his feelings are an evocation of being, an evocation involving thunderstorms, sunlight, grass, history, and death. Walt Whitman is a space the Milky Way fashioned to feel it own grandeur." Deep stuff.

Though the book is well written and expresses a deep intelligence, there are alarming statements in the book that show the ideological underpinnings of the authors. I first heard about Swimme when I read Kenn Kassman's book "Envisioning Ecotopia", which studied the Green movement in the United States. Swimme is an acolyte of the Deep Ecology movement, a belief system that posits a rejection of the industrial system we know today so that mankind can return to the days of Neolithic life. This book makes several telling statements that conform to this wacky belief system. While discussing the ultimacy of nature, Swimme discusses how all things on Earth must have communion with every other thing. Therefore, in the example Swimme gives, when a group of woodpeckers from a different region move into a new one, they must conform to the new area, or perish. When this is applied to the real world, we see that this isn't happening. In America today, there is no communion. Communion is frowned upon, while "multiculturalism" and "diversity" rule the roost.

Swimme also buys into the Mystical Deep Ecology belief of Ecofeminism, where women should be in charge of everything, just like the old days when humanity worshipped "Mother Earth". This raises the ugly spectre of Charlene Spretnak, an author who is the main theologian of this ideology. Spretnak is even cited in the bibliography as a source for this material. Using this wingnut's material seriously undermines Swimme's arguments.

What's so bad about being ecologically minded? Nothing if it's done responsibly. But these people are anything but responsible. Take this statement found on page 243 of this book, "The well-being of the Earth is primary. Human well-being is derivative." Enough said.

Swimme also believes that the world has lost its relationship with nature. Maybe so, but his argument that humans should return to the Neolithic Age is ridiculous. Swimme says that by industrializing, we have lost touch with the good old ways. By the use of the term "good old days", Swimme must be referring to starvation, disease and early death. While these things still exist today, it is nowhere near the levels it reached under Swimme's glorious "neolithic" days.

This book is well written and contains many mind expanding statements that will make you think. His conclusions are absolutely wacko, though.

I have reconsidered my first (one star) review and it is clear to me now this book fully deserves five stars, simply because Swimme, without apology, wants to make clear his worldview. Read on...

Author Swimme zooms around the globe in commercial air transports, speaking at "earthspirit rising" conferences, telling his audiences that humanity needs to embrace the "new story" so the Earth can bloom again. He has also written to me stating that "knowledge of complex systems is crucial."

Swimme is in a predicament here. In this book, he shakes his fists at consumerism, rages against the machine, and complains about environmental degradation. Yet for whatever reasons, he does not see fit to eschew commercial air transportation and instead walk to the conferences he speaks at. It's my view Swimme can't have it both ways. He asserts that knowledge of complex systems is crucial, yet he appears comfortable that the turbofans attached to the airplanes he rides in spew a great quantity of carbon dioxide into a very complex system (the Earth's atmosphere). What other conclusion is there than this: that knowledge seems neither crucial nor has it changed Swimme's behavior. Worse, if the new story hasn't changed him, how does he expect it to change anyone else? You would think that Swimme, in all his cosmological wisdom, would lead by example. Is not Mohandas Gandhi sufficient prooftext for that?

The rest of humanity need not worry about Swimme (or worry about his fellow ecoutopians), at least as long as he doesn't have power. My frank assessment is that the great majority of utopians really don't have what it takes to change anything, including themselves. One of the easist things a person will ever do is theorize. Swimme is proof enough of that. Beyond that, it's all work. And making things work.

Nevertheless, history teaches a few utopians gain power. Then they change things a lot. One very good example is Pol Pot. Another, who I consider the quintessential utopian of the 20th century, is Joseph Goebbels. A common theme of their thinking was to posit at least one segment of humanity with derivative value. It is not surprising that Brian Swimme essentially holds true the same view, but he elevates it to a new level, as he has written: "The well-being of the Earth is primary. Human well-being is derivative." Swimme's statement is not unique to the religion he practices, as his ecoutopian friend Rosemary Radford Ruether has spoken at another "earthspirit rising" conference thus: "We need to seek the most compassionate way of weeding out people." So now, all of humanity, not merely the Jew (as in the case of Goebbels), is of derivative value.

Nevertheless, my faith in humanity to overcome this sort of evil remains steadfast: history also teaches there are two constants associated with utopians in power. First, their power always comes to an end. Second, most unhappily, the end is always very messy.

As for me, I will continue to marvel at the antiutopians. The example of Gandhi comes to mind. Now here is a guy who knew the value of walking the talk. And then there's that quintessential antiutopian, none other than Jesus of Nazareth. This guy held the value of humanity above all else. Brian Swimme, you might want to make note of that.

"There is eventually only one story," collaborators Swimme and Berry write, "the story of the universe. Every form of being is integral with this comprehensive story. Nothing is itself without everything else. Each member of the Earth community has its own proper role within the entire sequence of transformations that have given shape and identity to everything that exists" (p. 288). Beginning 15 million years ago (p. 7), THE UNIVERSE STORY follows the universe "from its original Flaring Forth through the shaping of the galaxies, the elements, the Earth, its living forms, the human mode of being, then on through the course of human affairs during the past century" (p. 241). The product of its writers' "imaginative power as well as intellectual understanding" (p. 237), this book "is not the story of a mechanistic, essentially meaningless universe, but the story of a universe that has from the beginning has [sic] its mysterious self-organizing power that, if experienced in any serious manner, must evoke an even greater sense of awe than that evoked in earlier times at the experience of the dawn breaking over the horizon, the lightning storms crashing over the hills, or the night sounds of the tropical rainforests, for it is out of this story that all of these phenomena have emerged" (p. 238).

This superb book shows that the universe acts "in an integral manner" (p. 26), everything in the universe existing for everything else (p. 263). For plants and animals, "the universe is a chorus of voices" (p. 42). We are told, for instance, "the winds speak to the butterfly, the taste of the water speaks to the butterfly, the shape of the leaf speaks to the butterfly and offers guidance that resonates with the wisdom coded into the butterfly's being" (p. 42). Similarly, we can "climb a mountain and get hit by something so profound, at so deep a level," that we will never be quite the same (p. 41). For humans, "the adventure of the universe depends upon our ability to listen" (p. 44) to "the mountain language, river language, tree language, the language of the birds and all animals and insects, as well as the languages of the stars in the heavens" (p. 258). We also learn Walt Whitman's sentience was "an intricate creation of the Milky Way, and his feelings are an evocation of being, an evocation involving thunderstorms, sunlight, grass, and death. Walt Whitman is a space the Milky Way fashioned to feel its own grandeur" (p. 40).

The moral of this STORY is that the Earth is "a one-time endowment" (p. 246). Through the destruction of the rainforests at the rate of an acre a day, by disturbing the chemical balance of the planet through petrochemicals, through genetic engineering, and through the "radioactive wasting of the planet," we are "eliminating the very conditions for renewal of life in some of its more elaborate forms" (pp. 246-7). "As the natural world recedes in its diversity and abundance, so the human finds itself impoverished in its economic resources, its imaginative powers, in its human sensibilities, and in significant aspects of its intellectual intuitions" (p. 242). This celebration of the unfolding universe will change the way you look at life.

G. Merritt

This book gives a good overview of two of the most famous leaders in medieval history. It starts comparing them in many aspects like their childhood, how did they reach power and what they did with the power when they got it. It covers the great strategies that each used in battles. In a particular chapter you feel that the two leaders were playing chess with each other.
History readers might be more demanding from this book, but for somebody who is just interested in history and wants to know more about these two leaders, this book is more than satisfactory.

Regan does a fantastic job of bringing the historical characters of the period to life. He is not biased to either side and does a good job of presenting the facts. Although he tries to enter into the minds of his subjects, his efforts enrich rather than detract from the narrative. Regan's talents as a writer are obvious. He thrusts the reader deep into the conflict and leaves him to suffer in suspense as each battle is fought out. I am an Egyptian reader and for once I have found a 'Western' book that ignores the fanaticism and shallowness of our deeply troubled age. I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in the crusades, medieval warfare or history in general.

I thought this book did a great job of presenting both sides and giving a fair apraisal of the leaders, Richard I and Saladin, of each side in the Third Crusade. Whereas the author does not gloss over the faults of each man, niether does he downplay the strengths of each man. In short, this is a great comparative biography that provides both education and entertainment in an easily accessable format. the author has done a great job of bringing the subject matter to life.

Sheriff spends too much time repeating interesting
facts. She seems obsessed with explaining "God and nature"
Fortunately the book is a fast read,so I did'nt waste too much time.

The Artificial River is one of those history books that is not only illuminating, but fun to read. Sheriff writes with an easy grace that takes you along her narrative path, intelligently putting together the pieces that tell the compelling history of the individuals who built, used, and lived near the Erie Canal. But the book raises larger issues to contemplate: the effect of technology on social interaction, and the contradiction that when distances between points are foreshortened, the alienation of individuals locally can increase. In light of the Internet, this is still a pertinent history lesson.

This book describes the complicated and fascinating social history of the canal that shrunk time and distance and transformed western New York, brought great wealth to many and opened up the west. But this progress came at a price and the book explores some of the paradoxes of progress.

The progress and transformation that the Erie Canal brought also brought a new set of challenges for residents and legislators. The canal split many farms causing great problems to many farmers who wanted bridges to get to their farms, the low bridges were a hazard to canal passengers and traffic. Water diverted for the canal and locks created water shortages though the region. Leaks in the canal caused flooding on some farms and created mosquito infested ponds, which were fertile grounds for malaria epidemics.

Cultural issues came to the forefront. Ditch diggers who lived in shantytowns, who drank and cusses, who tore down fences caused consternation among the inhabitants who feared that the county was creating a permanent underclass. When the digging was done and the diggers gone they were replaces with another underclass, the boat drivers, who drank, cussed, robbed and hored making the areas adjoining the canal crime-ridden.

This book takes you to the time when the canal was being built and is a joy to read.

Over and over again Dionne inappropriately attempts clumsily to parallel modern politics, circumstances and consequences with ancient history. The bridge he imagines is just simply not there. This book tends to over-think simple, basic concepts. Dionne offers up a weak case.

E.J. Dionne's central thesis that the new (new?) Republican majority's philosophy in Congress is a throwback halfway to America's colonial times is this book's first -- and most perplexing! -- wrong turn. It gets worse from there. The author's assertion that 1994 was a fluke has no rationale basis of any kind. Dionne proves to be a poor prophet in that he presumes a Democrat takeover in Nov 1996 or shortly thereafter. To date that has not occurred and it has been nearly 7 years. Over and over again Dionne inappropriately and clumsily attempts to parallel modern politics, circumstances and consequences with ancient history. The worst thing about Dionne's theories is that they aren't even very interesting. Clearly Dionne is living in the past when forward-thinking is needed to save the Democrat party from itself. This book like Dionne's columns and TV commentary over-thinks rudimentary concepts. Lastly, Dionne suffers from wishful thinking.

E.J. Dionne is such a fine writer and historian that one can be forgiven for believing, for wanting to believe, that the self-flagellating and pusillanimous lot that is the Democratic Party leadership these days can actually pull the country from the neo-conservative, bible-thumping swamp in which it is mired. "They Only Look Dead" was written before the Supreme Court selected a president for us, before Good King George took us to war on a pretext (with strong Democratic support), and before the popular "no millionaire left behind" program. Mr. Dionne is well aware of the cyclical nature of history and draws many apt parallels between the Gilded Age and our present malaise. So maybe he's right, maybe (triple cliche alert) it is always darkest before the dawn, maybe the pendulum has swung too far to the right. Maybe if the party of FDR and JFK follows Mr. Dionne's advice and remembers who they are and where they came from then happy days will be here again.

When the blasphemous manure-based exhibit, Sensation, opened at a prestigious Brooklyn Museum, indignant panjandrums were aggrieved that anybody would express outrage at this daring creation--or at least convincingly put forth that silly argument with a straight face. That oft-bellowed screed gave proof to the old adage that a lie told emphatically enough becomes truth. Obviously, excrement has no place in any valid work of art. Defaming religious symbols that have inspired for centuries debases aesthetic values. It is merely the controversy on which these modern day insurrectionists feed. Their concern for art takes a distant back seat to their lust for fame and money.

Lynn Munson efficiently documents the rampant hypocrisy within the so-called artistic society today. While the loudmouthed rebels who now control most of the arts establishment perpetually invoke the shibboleth of artistic freedom, the author paints a picture of greedy complainers whose goal is glory far more than artistic merit. The National Endowment for the Arts' obsequious funding programs may have played some role in fostering this change in artisans goals because the drive for acclaim was not always the primary artistic motivator. In the late 1960's when Lyndon Johnson--unquestionably with good intentions--created the National Endowment for the Arts--most of those creative folks truly valued the beauty of their trade. As Ms. Munson says, "the kinds of artists who received early NEA grants didn't choose artmaking as a professional path...and even the best of them expected to work their lives without public acknowledgement." In an ironic aside, she explains how the NEA under Johnson advocated true art, but under the administration of the far more conservative Richard Nixon, avant-garde experimentalism became sacred and standard criteria acquired the status of passe.

Regarding those self-righteous voices who declaim against censorship whenever some crackpot with a perverted mind is not readily granted a government grant, Ms. Munson notes "successive NEA chairmen recited the mantras of censorship and artistic freedom even while maintaining a panel system that discriminated against artists outside the postmodern establishment." Mentioning how real artists are now hardly given tertiary consideration by the ideologically-charged NEA, she says "how thoroughly the National Endowment for the Arts had become by 1995 at excluding precisely the caliber of artist it had rewarded in 1967, and how dimly the agency had come to be viewed by everyone but its dependents."

In a further rejection of exquisite and graceful presentation, the author discusses how the modern museum has in many ways sought to eschew visual grandeur and make itself as prosaic as possible. She sites many examples of grandiose longstanding structures taking steps to shun their stimulating elegance and highlight mundane features.

As insulting as it is to know the NEA is wantonly flushing taxpayer money, its weird actions are not without humor. Ms. Munson introduces Bonnie Sherk who received an NEA grant in 1975 for a project that "involved shutting herself into a cement-floored studio with a few friends and numerous animals (a sow name Pigme, two ring-necked doves, a woolly monkey, etc.); together they would engage in 'building and maintaining nests.'" Readers will be left conjuring up an image of Pigme thinking "get me out here!"

A very hopeful sign concerns the change in Lynn Munson's status since the publication of eye-opening expose in 2002. She currently serves as the deputy director of National Endowment for the Humanities. So while the entire concept of federal subsidies to artsy enterprises remains dubious, if the bad policy must stay in place, it is far better to see taxpayer dollars doled out to support majestic sculptures and splendid grisailles than ordure originals.

...by the threatened reaction from those that have little to gain and all to lose by steering artistic focus toward definitions of beauty, quality and meaning executed by passionate artists, and away from the use of art exhibitions as purely political and social tools of the left, or simply because it's a fashionable career path in many of today's institutions.

If you're tired of art being defined by publicity stunts and attacks on your intelligence or values by naked emperors and empires, you ought to read this, because you are not alone. There are many of us who feel this way.

It took courage to write this book and I applaud her for it.

This is a brave, well-informed, smart book which takes on the art and art history establishment with devastating results. A major cultural critic, Munson demonstrates how conformist and narrow the art establishment has become. Her chapters on the NEA, Harvard, and the contemporary art scene are compelling, harrowing, and amusing, all at the same time. This is a must-read for anyone interested in the state of today's art and how it got to be that way. Those with vested interests in the status quo are already starting to squeak!