Steven Rongley
It's not all bad.
There's some great stuff in here, but it is too often drowned out by Bloom's incessant sniping at the supposed wicked Marxist-Feminist-Christian-Minority Voice critical-industrial-complex of the so-called “School of Resentment.” He makes compelling points in favor of the aesthetic value of literature, but never demonstrates that or why this should be considered superior to the “School of Resentment”'s perspective, a perspective which (insofar as it actually exists) seems more interested in whether the literature makes true or insightful statements. In Bloom's vision of these modern critical theories, I am reminded strongly of C.S. Lewis' arguments in An Experiment in Criticism or in The Abolition of Man that this question of whether or not a work makes true statements about reality is more important than its aesthetic value alone.
More accurately, perhaps, it is not novel to place “politics” over aesthetics—Lewis bemoaned prioritizing aesthetics over Truth. In many respects the past was the same, but the politics were then those of Empire, now of whichever ideology/ies) predominate/s in the academy.
Bloom insists on recognizing aesthetic value when he sees it—but this is then entirely arbitrary. I trust his expertise and what he sees in a work—but I am in no way obligated to agree, nor do I find that “newer canons” of the “School of Resentment” somehow exclude the above. His rejection of Alice Walker, Maya Angelou, and others seems deeply arbitrary here. Bloom is facially correct in claiming that a work is not good simply because it is written by the oppressed-but this is clearly a strawman of his opponents.
If you're interested in Bloom's arguments on the canon, the introduction is excellent for this, particularly p. 22-24 in the edition I read. For more on the aesthetic value-and the reasons why Bloom rejects certain forms of Great Books curricula, see p. 28. If you're interested more in his critical analysis of specific major works (the best part of the book), his insights are generally good if you're prepared to roll your eyes on occasion (on frequent occasion) when he rants about Marxist-Feminist-Christian-Minority Voice scholars.
Bloom's elegy for the canon seems ultimately misplaced. The momentary acceptance of bad art in the academy shouldn't really have concerned Bloom greatly—for if the canon is ultimately based on aesthetic value and influence as he believes, then it will endure. The canon-such as it even exists-seems more likely to ultimately be broadened than to be abrogated.
An impressive and thought-provoking examination of the fantasy genre. Full of incredible ideas, from exposing the reader to a variety fantastical traditions, to a clear examination of fantastical governance, to the most cogent exploration of fantasy economics I've ever read (and, granted, the only one).
Also there are rules and stuff I guess, but they really take second seat.
Excellent introduction for a small group Bible Study (and, rightfully, one that is provocative towards certain narratives often assumed by Evangelical cliques). A good introduction to some developed scholarship. It is hampered a fair bit by the length of the book itself, which means that often only one perspective (the author's) shines through. That I most often agree with him doesn't remedy this issue.
One odd thing was a surprising number of questions where our group found ourselves answering the question with a “....Yes?....” That is, questions that included only an introduction or statement with no corresponding question to direct reflection.
Overall, another solid entry in the series.
Dreamlike, but that is not necessarily a compliment.
The story feels very uneven, with some very successful and transcendent stories and some decidedly less so. The metanarrative struck me as strained and didn't seem to do a good job of explaining Anodos' motivations, actions, or what was going on.
As a parable, some of the interludes are excellent, some more questionable.
A (seriously) mixed bag of largely independent essays on the practical considerations of Just War Theory, both in and ad Bello. Excellent essays on topics like Siege Warfare and terrorism, less convincing ones on Supreme Necessity and Nuclear deterrence, hampered perhaps by the relative dearth of accurate data on some incidents prior to the opening of the Soviet Archive.
N.b. Not an introductory work, or an argument in defense of Just War Theory.
World Order is Not Immune to Entropy
“The liberal world order is fragile and impermanent. Like a garden, it is ever under siege from the natural forces of history, the jungle whose vines and weeds constantly threaten to overwhelm it...Unfortunately, we tend to take our world for granted. We have lived so long inside the bubble of the liberal order that we can imagine no other kind of world. We think it is natural and normal, even inevitable.”
An excellent exploration of internationalist American foreign policy–and why continued diplomacy, trade, and yes, even occasional military engagement is necessary to uphold and preserve the rights of all democracies and their people.
Osborn writes well, but the book lacks focus. More of the book focuses on fundamentalism and literalism than on the topic of animal suffering itself. The first part is spent evaluating fundamentalism and Biblical literalism, and it is here that the book shines. Osborn offers a well-thought out and engaging critique, and delivers a number of good insights on the topic, as well as a good defense of certain forms of theistic evolution over and against both pure materialism and strict literalism. His actual discussion of animal suffering, however, is brief and was unsatisfactory in both argument and conclusion. Several exegeses in the second part fail to engage with other interpreters, and his dismissal of perspectives like C.S. Lewis's is based on unsubstantiated speculation and virtually amounts to a “Well, what if he's wrong?” rather than a compelling argument. I was pleasantly surprised by the opening chapters, but I was ultimately left disappointed after completing his discussion of the problem posed in the title. 5/5 part one, 3/5 part 2.
Though, like the rest of the series, it is a solid introduction to the topic, this particular collection appears to lack the space necessary for some of the authors to fully develop their arguments. This problem is particularly noticeable for the defender of the Augustinian view, who is unable to compellingly justify why Augustine's view is definitive, focusing instead on the implications of that view. This issue was surprising to me, as a number of other volumes in the series are a great deal longer, so I am still unsure why this one needed to be as short as it is. Nonetheless, all the authors are considerate and offer compelling readings of historical and biblical thought. Additionally, the citations offer great sources for further reading if one is interested in exploring the topic further. Overall, it's a good introduction for educated laypeople and pastors looking to get better acquainted with the theology of marriage, though it's hardly a sufficient place to stop.
A Fun Story and Intriguing Concept
This story was fun to read in a lot of ways and centers around the frustration that comes with being powerful, but not powerful enough. It does so convincingly and earnestly, reminding me of the struggles I've heard many people in power express.
That said, it seemed to me to fall at the wrong length: too short to bring as much of an emotional impact as the author seemed to hope for, yet too long to leave the ideas as a strong and haunting impression, like a short story might've. This work seems to be almost written like a pilot episode: a struggle to display all the ideas of a story and a character while keeping an extremely condensed narrative. Intentionally or not, it succeeds in this regard, and I would be inclined to read a longer treatment of the character. There were a number of minor typos, though nothing particularly egregious and not too many for a self-published work.
All in all, it was a fun and short bus ride read. For $0.99, it's a good way to spend an hour or so.
Unlike most books about writing that I've read (which is, I admit, a very short list), this book tends to avoid prescription and specific advice. Rather, it's primarily concerned with what has worked, and what hasn't in writing. The subtitle is particularly apt: Cohen focuses primarily on successful literary works and authors and his own experiences working as their editor. It embraces and encourages the diversity of literature and style, while pointing out other resources in an extensive and well-chosen bibliography.
Though it lacks a strongly resonant central theme, I think in this case it works to the book's advantage. Literature is highly diverse, and is always changing with the sensibilities of its readers. Cohen tackles the issues that he seems to be most interested in or where he's seen the most problems. This made the book all the more helpful. Rather than mechanics alone, the focus is on feel and tone, established through extensive quotations of both authors and of their writing. In doing so, he implicitly acknowledges the reality that people write and read differently from one another, and prescriptive advice will almost always fall short for some.
All in all, an excellent read for anyone interested in writing better or reading more deeply and critically.
Though fairly dense and lacking in some significant areas (most notably the cultural history of women in Germany), this is probably the best short introduction to German cultural history. I would cautiously recommend it to readers who are already reading at an intermediate fluency in German, are interested in German cultural history, and don't know much about it already.