General-account

While the author is impressive, and lead an interesting life, I ws dissapointed by the book. Its mostly his biography, with little analysis.

What I was looking for was a book by someone from the COmmunist side on the forming, organisation, and running of the NLF. What were their concerns, difficulties etc. A few pages address this, but the vast majority are about the author and some of his friends.

As a biography its fine, but as a book on the NLF theer isnt enough there. It could have been cut by 2/3.
I can't recommend it for students of the Vietnam War.

Given the author's vast personal experience and newly acquired literary freedom, the work should have provided priceless insight into the Red Army and combat in Afghanistan. Instead, the book was nothing more than a series of interviews with officers, soldiers, statesmen, and deserters. Keeping in mind that Borovik was a writer for a Soviet magazine at the time, it shouldn't be too hard understand how he could have dropped the ball. The book reads like a long magazine article.

There were only descriptions of two brief actions in the entire book. One was in the opening chapters and the other was at the end of the story. To make matters worse, Borovik rails on about bloodshed, nightmares, and the countless horrors of war he's witnessed, but never gives any details. It is very frustrating for the reader.

One should also keep in mind that this book was written originally in Russian, intended for people who had been living in a society without freedom of the press. More ground breaking than anything else to them is the mere fact that Borovik was able to write a story stating that Moscow possibly wasn't telling the truth about the war, or that her soldiers may not believe in the communist cause, or that corruption was rampant in the Red Army.

That's all old hat to American readers and makes for dull reading.

It is disappointing that Ms. Ashrawi does not replace Arafat.

Rachel doesn't say anything worthwhile.
Rachel was obnoxious.... which in my 15yrs. (1974-'89) experience of living/working in San Francisco and working along side or in the homes of lesbians is their typical behavior....... so Parker did get that right.

You have to remember this is '80 while reading it - Spenser makes several "questionable" comments, and her foes are definitely many and bigoted. Right from the start Spenser has to protect her, although their personalities clash. He tromps all over her while trying to "save her" because of course she can't take care of herself. Rachel fires him, and *poof* she's kidnapped.

Spenser finds a bigoted family with some deep conflicts. He traces through a KKK member, some loansharks, gets beaten up and drives in the snow in his 1968 Chevy Convertible. Lucky he didn't try it in Susan's MG. Spenser drinks Becks, Molsons and Asti Spumanti. Rachel, of course, is rescued in dramatic fashion. The book ends with her curled up in Spenser's apartment, holding his hand as she sleeps.

My Notes: Well, I suppose even now bigotry exists, maybe I fool myself that it's not as bad as the book makes it out to be. It was pretty nasty for a woman who was just writing books. Spenser, who later has a gay police officer friend, is seriously offensive himself a few times. But I suppose to have him "supporting" a lesbian activist in '80 was a reasonably strong move. He has at various times lobster, shrimp, and oysters, even though he claimed earlier to not like fish.

Susan pokes her head in for a scene and *poof* is gone - not much for a woman he swore eternal love to and couldn't live without only a short while ago. As much as Susan can generally be annoying, I like when she and Rachel talk, and Susan is gently helping the Rachel-Spenser interaction go more smoothly. Rachel says "Jeez does Spenser protect you?" and Susan replies "No, we protect each other, sort of how I'm looking out for him now." Rachel grudgingly admits this is true, and healthy.

Interestingly, Susan knows how to cook in this one - onions, peppers, mushrooms. She even makes ham sandwiches (with the ham from Millerton NY, hickory smoked, no nitrates). She must have forgotten soon thereafter. Susan's power is growing - in this story it says "Her interest in people was emanating. One could almost feel it." It won't be long before the perennial word, "Palpable" shows up!!

Spenser is definitely relaxing into his role in the world - I think (bigotry aside) this is the first book that he's really "comfortable with himself" in. He doesn't question his right to do things, he just does them. He punches the picketer. He jumps in when people try to drag her off. He does his job, period. Susan calls him a "Sir Gawain".

It's interesting to hear Rachel bashing Spenser all the time but admit in the end that she needed him to be what he was to rescue her. I wonder if this is a pre-emptive strike at those reviewers who criticize Spenser for being so "macho" - right in the book you have the arguments both ways. Very entertaining. Sadly, no Hawk at all in this one.

Nevertheless, this is a crucial book, because it tells the story of the Conquest from the view of the conquered. That is needed to fully understand this vital historical process. The book is a selection of indigenous stories telling the event. One can perceive the utter terror and misery brought upon by the destruction of the Indian societies. The fear, the superstitions and the desolation of the Indians during and after the total destruction of their world. Leon Portilla has done a much-needed effort here. He deserves praise for it, and the book deserves to be read.

Everyone with an interest in the present and future of higher education in America will find this book to be at least interesting, and for many, dismaying and perhaps frightening. Most college teachers, I think, will find many things to which they can relate. I found the chronicle of Sacks's college teaching experience so similar to the kinds of things I have experienced as an educator that I couldn't put the book down.

The first part of the book is a tale of Sacks's experience teaching journalism at "a large suburban community college in the West," which he refers to only as "The College." Prior to being hired there, he was a Pulitzer Prize-nominated journalist. For various reasons, he had doubts about his future in that profession, and when a teaching job presented itself, he decided to give it a try. Whatever ideals he had about the teaching profession were quickly replaced by "confusion and bewilderment" brought on by the behavior and attitudes of Generation X students.

Sacks began teaching with the assumptions that students would read the assigned material, take notes, attend class, and turn assignments in on time. He also assumed that "C" represented average work. He very quickly learned that not only were these assumptions unfounded, but that in order to achieve tenure, he would have to play a different game. He came to realize that what these students wanted, for the most part, was to be entertained rather than educated. And that they believed that just by paying tuition they were entitled to a grade of "B" or higher whether or not they did any significant work. If these conditions were not met, he would receive negative student evaluations. And student evaluations were the main evidence cited in tenure decisions.

In discussions with colleagues he discovered that there was tacit agreement that this was the prevalent situation on campus, and that if he wanted to succeed as a teacher his student evaluations would have to improve. He was constantly admonished to "teach to the evaluations." When he changed his methods to become more entertaining (described in a chapter called "The Sandbox Experiment"), and in particular when he inflated his grades to a B, rather than a C, average, his evaluations improved dramatically.

Along the way, he encountered (either in his own classes or those of colleagues) students who asked such questions as "Do we have to read the text?" and "Why are colleges trying to force this stuff down our throats and trying to make us think when our minds and opinions are already formed?" He gradually came to see that a vicious circle existed: high academic standards meant higher attrition rates which meant budget cuts which meant loss of faculty jobs. The key to success was to ward off student failure in any way that worked.

Part 2 of the book is a more general discussion of the relation between higher education and the phenomenon of postmodernism. Sacks is quick to point out that he is not an expert in the philosophical foundations of the latter. Nevertheless, his explanation is reasonably clear, and he draws a pretty convincing picture of a generation in which skepticism and critical thought is replaced on the one hand by paranoia and distrust, and by credulousness on the other (e.g., belief in UFOs, astrology, etc.), in which "truth" is merely a social construct, everyone is entitled to succeed (where success is defined by standard of living), and in which anti-intellectualism is a virtue.

In the final chapter, Sacks makes some recommendations as to what might be done to help rectify what he obviously sees as a dangerous situation. He realizes that merely to perpuate teaching strategies that don't work in a postmodern world, even when augmented by the latest technology (an important point), will not suffice. The focus of education must shift from what you learn to how one uses that knowledge--or in Sack's words, "any given course would be one in learning how to do something, and at the same time...thinking about what you're doing, wondering why you're doing it, and imagining new ways of doing it." The role of the teacher would shift from being a "transmitter of knowledge" to that of an "expert consultant," who "[guides] students in the use of information-gathering tools, i.e., helping them learn how to learn," and "[helps] students imagine new ways of looking at knowledge, while prodding them to appreciate subtle complexities about a discipline not obtainable from machines and databases."

Sacks realizes that simply to adjust the role of the teacher as above isn't enough, however. For him the key question is the survival of higher education as a meaningful institution in our culture against the "onslaught of hyperconsumerism and amusement." Grade inflation is an obvious place to begin work, and Sacks suggests some positive steps institutions might take to combat it. The use of student evaluations in tenure decisions also needs to be scrutinized. Further, Sacks suggests that performance assessment (he cites Alverno College as an example where this has been used with success) be tried as an alternative, or at least a supplement, to traditional grading. Finally, he thinks that America ought to look more seriously at the idea that a universal college education maybe isn't for everybody after all, and that some sort of "comprehensive, national system of vocational and technical education" ought to be tried.

The debate between modernists and postmodernists will continue in spite of books like this, until postmodernism has run its course or until some new synthesis is reached. But Sacks has undeniably put his finger on a real crisis in current higher education. This is a book that should not be passed by lightly, regardless of one's philosophical position on the fate of modernism.

I recognize some of these characters from my own college follies (one of my favorite professors was considered "arrogant" because he demanded such things of students as reading the NY Times and watching the news regularly!)... yet agree with other reviews that the poor attention spans and consumerist attitudes have only gotten worse. I blame SpongeBob.

I wonder if there's something else going on besides what Sacks writes about - with this idea of the "quarter century crisis", perhaps adolescence and its ambivalence and passive-aggressiveness, is lasting longer. The persistently bad economy isn't promising students anything great after graduation - at least Gen Xers had the dot.com world and the raging Dow to motivate them.

Meanwhile, this "grade inflation" is not starting in college - it's going back to high school and earlier. If the state of Wisconsin can happily inflate how well their educational system is doing, how morally hard is it to coach kids to do well on the California Achievement Test or PSAT? Meanwhile, high school students in Europe and Great Britain are graduating with two years more experience and knowledge than American kids the same age and "rank".

Postmodernist thinking has definitely chipped away at the idea of reverence for elders, leaders or experts. It's also hurt these kids' sense of their own capabilities and weaknesses. When everyone is considered "special," but in a bland sort of way, like a preschool video game where "everyone is a winner," why wouldn't teenagers only do enough to "get by" and then still expect A grades? Meanwhile, deep down, these kids know that they have yet to be really tested, or challenged - and while some of them go on to relish learning, others avoid facing their own inadequacies. You *must* face your inadequacies and take chances (whether you win or screw up) to grow! And if the school systems and colleges aren't making them face facts, and really learn - wow, just consider what sort of graduates we're feeding into every sector of society, from government to corporate America.

Over and over, I was shocked to see students at a so-called "socially progressive" school (it wasn't Antioch, but you get the drift) avoid taking on any real responsibility or burden for positive social change. Students would whine about the lack of action in the classroom or on campus, then back down when challenged or encouraged to use the resources at their disposal! Students would "talk the talk" but shirk responsibility or creative risk-taking, and that was saddest of all - if you can't take chances in college, and expand your academic and social boundaries, where else will you do it?

Excellent Resource for College Greeks & anyone who wants to be an ally for all college students who are gay....