Lucas Reviews

I've always been a Lucasfilm/Star Wars fanatic, and have always gobbled up any shred of info, whether it be about the stories, or the behind-the-scenes realm. I'm one of those fans who knows the names of the modelmakers responsible for those great, worn ships in the original film.

And while I am a bit over the top in regards to what I know, this in no way absolves John Baxter for the mountainous errors in his work. Just because I'm sharp on a lot regarding Lucas doesn't mean that Baxter's innacurracies won't be such a sin if they fall on uninformed ears.I won't go through each and every flaw, but let me just warn you that this book drops the ball repeatedly regarding what Lucasfilm fans would call rudimentary data.

I t's best to bypass this mess and select David Pollock's "Skywalking" instead. It's the oldest and still the best bio on this great talent. Another book that proved to be immensely entertaining (though only covering the era of the first trilogy) was Garry Jenkin's "Empire Building." If it's behind the scenes Star Wars stuff you're after, then this is absolutely THE book to get.
In closing, I'm most disappointed with Mythmaker because it pales in comparison to Baxter's Steven Spielberg bio released a few years before. It makes me wonder how accurate (or innacurate) THAT bio was.....

I am a big George Lucas fan and I found a few errors in this book. The one that really bothered me was that the author repeatedly stated that Jim Henson did the puppeteering and voice for Yoda. IT WAS FRANK OZ NOT JIM HENSON! That was soooo annoying! I kept wishing that the author was around so that I could just scream it in his face!

Other than these small details, the book was pretty good. But still, I can't help but wonder what else was inaccurate that I just took as new information.

This was the first real biography I read of George Lucas; since it I have read Dave Pollock's Skywalking, which is a far better and balanced look at the creator of Star Wars, George Lucas.

John Baxter's bio on Lucas is really mean toward its subject. In his narrative of the filmmaker's life he routinely slams Lucas, pointing out all the mistakes George made in his life and never really focusing on the happiness Lucas has brought to millions of moviegoers with the Star Wars and Indiana Jones films. In the end, it seems Lucas wins over Baxter with The Phantom Menace, but considering how much Baxter seems to hate George Lucas, I think I'm reaching a little bit.

Not only does Baxter hate Lucas, his book is littered with typos and errors. He never once gets the name of Steven Spielberg's college--Long Beach State--right (he calls it the University of California, Long Beach at one point and California State College, Long Beach in another). He mangles some of the details of The Phantom Menace as well (says that Valorum was played by Ian McDiarmid, when it was Terence Stamp who really played him). Some of the more gossipy parts in the book are backed up with shoddy references, too.

Another problem is that Baxter goes off on a lot of other tangents that are only vaguely related to Lucas. For instance, he discusses what Francis Coppola was doing while Star Wars was being produced, and the problems Star Wars' director of photography--Gil Taylor--had with Stanley Kubrick. Better editing would have eliminated these parts.

If you want a better and more balanced account of George Lucas' life, read Skywalking by Dave Pollock. Pollock doesn't take a critical machete to Lucas' life or films and there aren't any editorial mistakes.

I read his book for one his classes. I have never been so bored in my life. It did cure my insomnia, though.

I do have to agree with my fellow emerson colleague on Deluca. His books might be ok, but he is not the best teacher in the world. I took a few classes with him, and I thought he was a regular lecturer. After having graduated from emerson and gone off to grad school, I have come to realize that there are far more intelligent and less arrogant and aloof people than him. I think he should stop hiding behind his degree and books and become a better person. The greatest people I have met in life, have been the most humble people. Deluca IS NOT a humble person.

I am also a student at emerson college and I have to disagree that Professor Deluca is a good professor. He is impartial and displays favoritism. He is also extremely arrogant and he talks down on people. We all might not get doctorates from Stanford in our lifetime. But some of us do look up to him and yet he treats us badly and does not gives us a fair chance.
His books are just as dull as his lectures.

As a student of several of the REAL scholars in higher education, I found Lucas' trite characterizations of higher education and political correctness worthless. Like many other right wing dogmatics, Lucas fails to meet his own tests of academic quality. There is little evidence, few facts, and much hyperbole in his work. I wouldn't accept this fluff from an undergraduate. Has Lucas, like Bennett, Will, Roche, and the other conservative junta abandoned critical thinking? They have certainly abandoned fact, evidence, and rational thought. Too bad it's the old white guys who've killed education in this country.
The only saving grace is his critique of college sports; yet, it is so poorly developed that readers might be left without the thorough analysis of UNPAID PROFESSIONALS. Or, save your money and try reading Leslie and Slaughter's ACADEMIC CAPITALISM. Lucas could use a lesson on research methodology, scholarly writing, and engaged discussion.

I once frequented an amusement park with a lengthy log flume ride. The line for the ride was always quite long, and the ride was a rather laid-back course. The final seconds of the ride contained the only thrill - a rapid drop, large splash, and wet exit. Reading this book is a similar experience. The promised "provocative analysis" really does not begin until page 157.

Most of what precedes that point is historical analysis without much punch. The overview in chapter one is suitable only for the novice, focusing as it does on the insight that postsecondary institutions and the professoriate are a diverse lot, that more people attend college today than ever before, that student demographics have changed substantially in the last 30 years, and that college campuses confront a host of recurring controversies.

If possible, the second chapter is even a more laborious experience, extending a two page document that distinguishes the historical differences between community colleges, liberal arts colleges, and research universities into a fifty page monograph. Yes, contemporary universities embrace an exceptionally broad range of goals that includes student instruction, research, and service to the greater society. Yes, there is some degree of incompatibility between vocational training, professional preparation, and the more general benefits of a liberal education. That American institutions of higher education achieve each of these goals on a level envied by the rest of the world is scarcely mentioned.

Chapter three rehashes the old debate between elitism and egalitarianism in college admissions, a debate that seems to have been rendered permanently irrelevant by pragmatic concerns with enrollment levels. Lucas seems to lament that baccalaureate degrees may serve the same function that high school diplomas once served, but fails to associate this with the extension of adolescence into the twenties and the conversion of the American economy from the manufacturing of products to the management of information. Simply because it is seldom mentioned when discussing affirmative action, I will applaud Lucas' interesting distinction between race-based policies and alternatives that give greater import to socio-economic classes (pp. 115-119).

The curriculum is the focus of the fourth chapter in which Lucas appears to prefer pursuit of a general liberal education to professional specialization on the undergraduate level. Frankly, I do not think he supports his position very well. By his own admission it is difficult to measure the higher functions anecdotally associated with a liberal education (open-mindedness, critical thinking, etc.), and he fails to discuss a particularly salient issue - what is most developmentally appropriate for traditional-aged undergraduates?

His ten-point agenda for reform is built on the presumptive superiority of a liberal education and the confusion he associates with institutional embrace of conflicting goals. To the extent that one rejects these foundations, one is likely to reject his agenda. Perhaps there is merit in his insistence that existing academic departments restructure, but he provides no guidance on how the newly structured institution might avoid incipient bureaucratization.

The fifth chapter is almost a diatribe against the "publish or perish" evaluation standards of the professoriate. Easily quantifiable assessment standards often assume disproportionate influence; however, the degree of variability within academe, the ubiquity of student evaluations, and the high incident of academic employment by the unpublished all tend to weaken Lucas' contention that publishing requirements have undermined American higher education.

As one who is only beginning his academic career, I read Lucas' critique of tenure with interest (pp. 182-186), and I found his explication of pre-tenure pressures enlightening. That he fails to even mention adjunct instructors, on whose back the financial viability of many institutions rest, seems a significant weakness.

Using Lucas' own research, it is apparent that American higher education is primarily financed by tuition, grants, and public largess. Accountability, the keynote of chapter six, fails to acknowledge the magnitude of influence that accompanies financial support. Institutions unresponsive to these forces are unlikely to survive intact. The litany of changes Lucas advocates - strategic planning, faculty involvement, curriculum modification, instructional techniques, accreditation standards, teacher training, tenure reform, and faculty evaluation - are being made and will continue to be made according to the dictates of the various constituencies served by higher education. Institutional change is always slow, but as Lucas' historical analysis reveals, institutional change is steady and sure.

Lucas has a writing style that I personally found disquieting. It often reads like a well-written undergraduate research paper that hopes to prove its point by bombarding the reader with quotations. I would have preferred more references to empirical research and more rational argument. I was left with the concluding impression that the crisis in the academy is a product of conflicting values, journalistic hyperbole, and anachronism. Almost two-thirds of high school graduates attend college. It seems quite obvious to me that there is substantially more right with higher education that Lucas' crisis would seem to indicate.

This book is so bad, especially after waiting for a long time to get it. It is poorly designed, poorly written, and has some of the worst artwork that I have ever seen. And the parts for cybernetics, elementals and animal hybrids should be burned. This is a game about the martial arts, not superheros or ninja turtles. The discount point costs and the arena advantages are all that this book is good for.

In all respects, this is an interesting book. I remember wanting to buy it and then my friend (who i play Vampire with) bought before i could. n e way. It is interesting because it defines how to make specific characters from a myriad of fighting styles, adding powers and stuff... blah blah blah. the reasons is gsave it 3 stars is because if you step back from trying to descern why White-wolf published it, it really is quite funny. i have read through it and I think it deserves a go before you knock it.

This book gives a very detailed account of the German Army's Mountain Troops during the 2nd World War. Although well researched and very detailed the books lacks a certain amount of excitement that one would normally associate with a title such as this.

In addition topics such as selection criteria and training are not well covered which for a book on special forces is a bit disappointing.

I thought that because having the name A&E associated with it, the book would be an in-depth review of the man's life. Needless to say, after reading the book in one day, I noticed that my knowledge on Lucas had not improved.
Very few is added to what fans already know (that he almost got killed in a car crash, he struggled to make American Graffitti, and Star Wars was a surprise success to him)
This book lacks the depth a figure of Lucas' status should be given. I wanted to know personal data as family members, how was the relationship with his father (rumored by many to be represented in Darth Vader) if he was the geek in school or not, etc, etc.
Good for non-fans or persons that know almost nothing about him, pass if you have read or learnt something about this modern myth-maker.

We just returned from a trip to BC where we used this book in conjunction with others. Some of the information is useful, but time and time again we were disappointed, especially in the area of lodging. Several B&Bs and Lodges that were given very positive reviews were either very ordinary, motelish or were just plain dreadful. There is a good reason why these are hidden, and should remain so.

These little essays, taken one by one, offer interesting and insightful perspectives into different literary and cultural aspects of English and American society "from 1750 to 1900." But its hard to see how they embody (as it says on the flyleaf) "Our understanding of a fundamental literary shift of perspective, that from Romantic to Modern." Further, while "Romantic," is fairly easily understood and classified as a literary and cultural perspective and easily recognized as such. What is meant by "Modern"? Does "Modern" mean what was modern in 1900, or now, or a thouroughly different perspective on things extending from 1900 to the present? The book offers no real answer.-The overall effect of the book is that of small, extremely academic, essays crammed together without any bridges between them to explain what Lucas is trying to do here besides provide an anthology of his essays. Apparently, according to the flyleaf, we are to pay "close attention to key words and phrases" if we are to see how this book offers an invaluable contribution to "critical methodology." Take it from an old English Lit. Graduate student, this is but another contribution to academic doublespeak. Just read the essays on their own. They aren't half-bad. But, in general, run for the hills when you start hearing terms like "critical methodology." Terms like these destroy the meaning in language (Thus, of course, destroying language itself) and, further, push many a graduate student toward despair.

I'm not sure what I expected, but this wasn't it. The story is clear enough, but the writing style is very bland. An attempt is made at Yoda's style of speaking, but without much success. The illustrations are not quite right. There's no excitement here, either in prose or pictures.

Though it's a book for kids (my guess, ages 8-12), it seems to me the small size would put off most children.

I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone except a Star Wars completist.

This book is a good starter identification guide. However, if you want an in depth book with pathology and physiology comments, you'll be dissapointed