history

Any thoughtful observer of political and social discourse is forced to note the ironies and disjuncts in specific beliefs from time to time. Conservatives often support restrictions on behavior in order to effect security, while liberals preach freedom but are happy to truncate it in order to marshall the resources to support their favored victim classes. Either side, if honestly introspective, ought to be troubled about why this is. Thomas Sowell, one of America's most thoughtful and intellectually honest commentators explains just why this is and traces the origin of the question to the Enlightenment and post-enlightenment thinkers before and shortly after the French Revolution. He describes the key dichotomy as between the "constrained" and "unconstrained" views of human nature, which view mankind as flawed or perfectable, respectively. Another author describing comparable distinctions in international relations, Robert Kaplan, uses the terms Realist and Idealist to discuss the same cleavage. In setting this out, Sowell manages to produce a genuinely Aristotelian approach to modern thought that is extremely worth reading. What's more, he does all of this in a very readable, approachable prose that it more enjoyable to read than any text on such deep subjects ought to be. It's one of the very few books that improves the reader while giving pleasure in doing so.

Why do liberals berate conservatives as hard-hearted, morally repugnant, selfish caricatures of cartoon fatcats; while conservative will grant the liberals' their good intentions but remind them that road to hell is apved thusly by their wooly-headed, ivory tower schemes? And why are liberals castigiated as slick, short-sighted, and interest group-driven, while conservatives are lampooned as dumb, corrupt and morally evil?

These are just two of the questions tangentially answered by Thomas Sowell in this important book on the taxonomy and structure of our political debate. This work is sure to stand for the remainder of the century as *the* reference point from which dueling political frameworks are engaged.

Sowell's main thesis is that contrasting visions of human capability, knowledge, perfection, and self-interest underlie two very different visions of humanity, and it is on these visions that political ideology, debate, and worldview rest. Sowell's two visions are named, rather unhelpfully, the constrained and the unconstrained vision. No gold star here for Sowell on Marketing. So instead, I'll use Pinker's terminology, as I was introduced to this book via Steven Pinker's Blank Slate.

The Tragic (constrained) vision of human nature views man as possessing foibles, incentives, and the desire to act in his own self-interest. The Tragic "sees the evils of the world as deriving from the limited and unhappy choices available, given the inherent moral and intellectual limitations of human beings." Thus, the perfection of governance in the Tragic Vision is the American Revolution with its checks and balances. Further, history should guide us, as the unknowable tradeoffs between different policies and procedures have been ironed out through unstated practice. The Utopians are to be scorned for their theoretical leanings that have little to do with the real world: "Hobbes regarded universities as places where fashionable but insignificant words flourished and added that 'there is nothing so absurd, but may be found in the books of Philosophers."

The Utopian (unconstrained) vision holds that man has not yet achieved his full moral potential, and that that potential is essentially perfectible. It is "foolish and immoral choices explain the evils of the world - and that wiser or more moral and humane social policies are the solution." So while there are incentives that actually work in the here and now, this fact is somewhat irrelevant to the achievement of true justice. The Utopian holds that "potential is very different from the actual, and that means exist to improve human nature toward its potential, or that such means can be evolved or discovered, so that man will do the right thing for the right reason, rather than for ulterior psychic or economic rewards." So the Utopian "promotes pursuit of the highest ideals and the best solution" in the hopes of achieving this perfect man. And if the masses are slow in catching on, then it is the role of the intellectual vanguard to lead them there - even if in the short run, the masses are unhappy with the results because they have not yet achieved the ability to see the future. Their thought is that reason should guide us, but reason as determined by the best and brightest: professors, government workers, elected and unelected officials. In this regard, the French Revolution with its lofty ideals and disposal of the past is the perfection of governance.

Sowell, who is the Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at Stanford, certainly has his preferences in this debate, but keeps them entirely off-page here and lays out, in a remarkably even-handed portrayal his case.

Political visions are uncommonly linked across diverse fields of inquiry, that these two competing political visions have been dominant in the last two centuries (to throw in a bit of materialism here - perhaps due to the Industrial Revolution?), and extending from initial premises, each is a logical, coherent, cogent interpretation of the world that nonetheless conflicts absolutely with its counterpart. The implications are fascinating:

"While believers in the unconstrained vision seek the special causes of war, poverty, and crime, believers in the constrained vision seek the special causes of peace, wealth, or a law-abiding society.

"While the constrained vision sees human nature as essentially unchanged across the ages and around the world, the particular cultural expressions of human needs peculiar to specific societies are not seen as being readily and beneficially changeable by forcible intervention. By contrast, those with the unconstrained vision tend to view human nature as beneficially changeable and social customs as expendable holdovers from the past."

In sum, this will be the groundwork for philosophical and political discussions for generations to come. Sowell has quite clearly pointed out the different premises. Now it is up to us to understand, argue, and resolve.

In "A Conflict of Visions," Thomas Sowell compiles a study of the two dominant socio-political ideologies of the day via the idea of "visions"--that is, a received, almost precognitive set of assumptions about human nature and humanity's place in the world. Sowell calls these the "constrained" (i.e. "conservative") and "unconstrained" (i.e. "liberal") visions. The two visions are fundamentally different and, therefore, produce conflicting ideas about such basic concepts as knowledge and reason and conflicting attitudes toward such values as equality, power, and justice. Sowell substantiates his observations of the conflict by quoting often from those authors over the past 250 years who wrote most insightfully and prolifically from the vantage of one or the other of these visions--such writers as Edmund Burke, William Godwin, John Locke, Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas de Caritat Condorcet, Ronald Dworkin and Milton Friedman.

In the conservative vision, human nature is viewed as essentially selfish, and society protects individuals from each other through the various institutions, traditions, religions, and laws that have evolved over the course of history. However, the liberal vision considers human nature as essentially good and hampered only by various power structures and social restrictions (thus progress is made by subverting those institutions and traditions that conservatives prize). As one example of the effect this conflict of visions has on society, Sowell shows that the conservative vision has this view of knowledge: knowledge is as vast as the number of human beings in the world, and thus some form of democracy is the best method of ensuring that that knowledge is well represented in society. The conservative vision sees knowledge as one facet of the human experience, but it does not elevate reason to the highest value in that experience. The liberal vision sees knowledge as the key to solving the world's problems (whereas conservatives believe there are no solutions--rather, there are only "better" and "worse" options). In the liberal vision, the lack of knowledge (that is, rational enlightenment) is the cause of the world's problems. The mass of people are not bad, they are just unenlightened and thus subject to the common errors of the ignorant. Therefore, in this vision, what society most needs are enlightened individuals willing to remake the world on behalf of their brothers and sisters who lack their education and their special knowledge.

Sowell has produced a brilliant and invaluable book. In this age when comedians masquerade as valid pundits and when the talking heads in the media do not know their history--cannot remember even the details of foreign policy in the previous presidential administration--Thomas Sowell shines through as the rare sort of thinker with the potential to clarify the murky political debate in the United States.

Whether you know nothing about guns, or think you know it all, this book will surely enlighten you.

It begins appropriately with a chapter on safety and handling guns. From there it goes on to chapters about self-defense and tactics. Following that there is information about any type of gun that most people would be interested in owning.

Being female, I particularly liked the chapter about Women and Guns. Great information for women are have decided to be armed, but need to be informed first.

This book also covers just about everything you'd need to know about the legalities and politics of gun use and ownership.

Written in an entertaining and captivating style, you can't go wrong with this great book.

If you are going to only own one book on guns, this is it. Soup to nuts on why to own a gun, which ones to buy, what gear works, you name it. The section on U.S. gun laws is worth the price of the book alone. It's 700+ pages that doesn't gloss over anything; whether he's rating battle rifles or exploding the myths of gun control, Boston has clearly taken his time and done this one "right". A word of caution for those not familiar with Boston's work- this is not a book about hunting- it's about the true purpose of the Second Amendment clause "to keep and bear arms". You might as well go ahead and order two copies, because when you read it you're going to want to share it with friend....

Overall a great book. Some of the legislative facts are a bit off. IE NH does allow private sales of firearms. Open carry in a vehicle is legal. Mostly great information. Get the book and train with the right items.

"Portraits of Success: 9 Keys to Sustaining Value in Any Business" by James Olan Hutcheson is just another "how to succeed at business" book. I wish its value was more than that, but it isn't. It is neither passionate nor any more informative than its competitors.

In the business books I have read recently, I found this one lacks the authority and substance I found in others. William Pollard's "Soul of the Firm" has the authority, as he took ServiceMaster to a new level. "Values of the Game" by Bill Bradley was worth the read because of Bradley's unique metaphorical look at life. "Leadership" by Rudolph Giuliani has power because of what Giuliani has gone through. "Portraits," however, has a flaccid tone to it. I felt as if it was researched information regurgitated into book form. I felt like I was reading the kind of book which gets sold after a corporate sales seminar.

The book, as seen in the subtitle, can be boiled down to nine major points. In each, Hutcheson retells stories of business success and failures, from security company founder Richard Wackenhut to Yankees owner George Steinbrenner.

Action items accompany each chapter, and herein lay the book's greatest value. Hutcheson provides a topic sentence to lead the mini-lesson, but weakly completes the thesis in the following paragraphs.

The redundancy of subject matter mixed with a bland presentation has me suggesting to you to look elsewhere. It was not edited tightly enough to build the necessary tension and excitement. Overall, "Portraits of Success: 9 Keys to Sustaining Value in Any Business" lacks the poignancy I have come to expect from professional advancement books.

Anthony Trendl

James Olan Hutcheson has written a book that should prove invaluable to owners of small businesses and other nonhierarchical organizations. Portraits of Success: 9 Keys to Sustaining Value in Any Business is a book that deserves--and will hopefully get--a large readership.

Drawing on what he has seen in his own family business' transition to second generation leadership, as well as what he has witnessed as a consultant on such transitions, Hutcheson gives the reader much to think about. As he makes each point in his "9 Keys" he illustrates it with a real-life example.

Many of the keys are basic but easy to overlook and (after having overlooked them) sometimes tricky to introduce in a static leadership environment. Yet Hutcheson is a faithful guide through the peaks and valleys.

Having suffered through encounters with ineffective organizations (my daughter's school) and reveled in being a part of an effective, on-purpose organization (my Church), I cannot stress enough how important it is for people in leadership positions to be intentional in what they do and have the ability to be life-long learners. Learning about leadership and listening to those who "have been there," like Mr. Hutcheson, is a big part of this. Nothing less is in the balance than the difference between a life of drudgery and one of joy and freedom.

My only critique of this book is one that springs from my Christianity. I feel that the missing tenth (and possibly most important key) is Spiritual giftedness. When people serve in an area they not only enjoy, but also are gifted by God to serve in, explosive results are to be had. Also, as part of the Kingdom, "Business Traditions, Myths, and Shared Beliefs" melt away in the face of the kind of common purpose given by the Great Commission and the whole history of salvation.

Bearing this in mind and also recognizing that Mr. Hutcheson's audience probably have not all partaken of the Kingdom as of yet, I have to say that this book does a darn good job as a whole. It is less of a compilation of other sources than are most other leadership books. I found it refreshing to be able to distinguish an actual authorial voice in a work such as this. Too many leadership books read like a cross between a presentation and an instruction manual.

Get this book. It is well worth the time spent reading.

I was skeptical at first that this was a book by someone born with a silver spoon just looking to sell a book. But after reading through the thoughts and stories included, it's evident that Hutcheson has been on the front line throughout his career and the information included can be a benefit to any business owner and manager, particularly one looking to grow and transition ownership while facing the rough roads that will come with it.

I read Rivethead for a course in Michigan History at Central Michigan University. As a prospective history teacher, I plan to use Hamper's book in my high school classes. Hamper describes factory life in a manner that is both brutal and eloquant. This book helped me to understand the daily pains that so many Big Three employees and factory workers in general experience. My respect for these men and women that comprise the backbone of American life as grown expodentialy since reading Hamper's opus.

I bought this book on the recommendation of one of my graduate school professors, thinking I would suffer through it. Contrary to my preconceptions that it would be a dull account of factory life, I simply could not put the book down once I started reading it. Hamper's insight into the Greaseball Mecca (GM) assembly plant culture was both entertaining and informative. I started and finished the book in the time span of one weekend and plan to read it again soon. Ben apparently hasn't written another book yet...

I have no doubt that this is an accurate description of life at GM during his tenure. I wonder if it is similar now? Anyhow, I can see why many companies are now drug free at least in theory. I also wonder how many of these problems were self inflicted. Whatever is true Ben Hamper has certainly given us something to think about.

I am an American daughter of an Iranian man who grew up in Tehran the same time as the author, and I was THRILLED to find this book. It provided me with many insights and a sizeable history lesson about Iran and its culture. Ms. Farman-Farmaian writes clearly and factually, yet includes her own analysis of the amazing history and perpetual transitions that have characterized this ancient country. She provides an excellent introduction, pertinent background, and an exposure to some of the Farsi language, which gives the rest of the book depth and feeling and makes it easy to follow. Contrary to the Western connotation of a "Harem," Farman-Farmaian enlightens us with the powerful network of love and support, which deeply connected the women and siblings in her family. It is a moving account of a life of courage and dedication by a woman who dared to think beyond her cultural boundaries. I highly recommend it!

I've just bought this book for the fourth time. The story is so fascinating and the author is so personable that I have had to lend it out and then that person lends it out and somehow it never gets back to me. This autobiography tells a very personal story of a person raised in three very different worlds: as a daughter of the fourth wife of a very wealthy man in Tehran, as a student and then social worker living under the Shah, and then her life under the Ayatollah. Her story provides a glimpse into the history of Iran and an appreciation of a culture most of us know little of. Iranians all know the family of this author and those I have lent the book to like it. Americans love it. Everyone, without exception, I've talked to about this book has wanted to write the author and thank her for telling her story.

One of the best and most illuminating biographicies I have read. It's sad, insightful, but funny (for example, when Miss Farmaian arrives in Los Angeles after a long journey and asks to see the Statue of Liberty).

She explains why figures like Khomeni were so popular, though she is clearly unbiased since she was almost prosecuted for being a spy. She discusses the good and bad about the shah and provides tremendous insight into Moslem society. Why aren't there more books as good as this.

I had to read a good part of "The Decameron" last quarter and I have gone back to read more stories from it even though the Fall quarter is over. This is a great book: funny, entertaining, subtly revolutionary, insightful, and superbly well-written. Approach it without fear. It is a Classic, but it will have you laughing, thinking, and learning far better than any current best-seller. Anyone with an interest in journalism and/or history will profit from Boccaccio's Introduction, at the beginning of the First Day. His description of the Plague in Florence is vivid and gripping, and this eventually provides the background for the setting of the one hundred and one tales that seven young women and three young men will narrate in a villa away from the dying city. Also, the Introduction to the Fourth Day presents the reader with an unfinished, but hilarious story about a man who has been kept away from women. This story is what my teacher called the 101st, and I have to agree with her.

Do not think that all "The Decameron" deals with is sex. The mostly illicit sexual encounters depicted are some times funny, sometimes sad, but they share a common trait with the stories from the Tenth Day, for example (these ones are mostly about sacrifice, abnegation, and servitude), or with those of the Second: Boccaccio's concern for his society and the terrible tensions that had reached a breaking point by the 14th century. The Plague, in Boccaccio's universe, acts as a catalyst of emotions, desires, and changes that had to come.

Read, then, about Alibech putting the Devil back in Hell, Lisabetta and her pot of basil, Ser Ceperello and his "saintly" life, Griselda and her incredible loyalty in spite of the suffering at the hands of a God-like husband, Tancredi and his disturbing love for his daughter, Masetto and the new kind of society he helps create with some less-than-religious nuns, and then it will be easier to understand why Boccaccio is so popular after 650 years. And although it may be skipped by most readers, do not miss the Translator's (G. M. McWilliam) introduction on the history of "The Decameron" proper, and that of its many, and mostly unfortunate, translations into English. This book is one of the wisest, most economic ways of obtaining entertainment and culture. Do not miss it.

It seems almost redundant that I bother to rate this with yet another 5-star review (especially since I didn't buy it from Amazon-- Sshhhh, don't tell anyone), but this is one of the books that changed my life.

As a mind struggling to repair the damage caused by the American education system, I set out to follow other curriculums from times when learning was actually valued. Since many of the so-called "classics" American students today are forced to read in school are thinly-disguised socialist propaganda, I chose to look to much earlier times. I picked up The Decameron by chance, having remembered it from an off-hand statement a high school history teacher had made once. The book had everything, exalting adventure, romance, heroism, virtue, and other things I had been taught were subjective and dangerous. I found it the most refined and tastefully deviant book I had ever read and I have never been able to understand why students are not exposed to it as the basis for the study of literature.

Boccaccio's stories (told one per day, by each of the ten characters over ten days) give great insight into the midieval paradigm while poking fun at its obvious problems. The tales cover the whole of Europe, North Africa, and Asia Minor, which was very unique for their time. The rolls of heroes involve characters of every culture, race, religion, and background in the known world-- something unheard of before this book. Boccaccio's great love and understanding of women also shines through, the expression of which tops the list of reasons as to why he was exiled from Florence! Most of the stories are based on actual people and events, though the author takes a great deal of artistic license in some cases. A great many little-known facts can be learned by reading the historical notes (one reason why I chose the Penguin Classic version). Boccaccio surpasses every other man of letters (before him or since) in ability and creativity and will no doubt do so for centuries to come.

'The Decameron' is a fascinating example of classic literature that remains fresh and entertaining today. Written in the mid-14th century, it concerns the first major outbreak of the black plague in Europe, which first emerged in Italy in approximately 1347. Boccaccio begins, in the prologue, by stating his purpose for writing the book - namely, to entertain literate women with nothing else to do with their time. The story itself concerns ten young Florentines (seven women - Pampinea, Filomena, Neifile, Fiammetta, Elissa, Lauretta, and Emilia; and three men - Panfilo, Dioneo, and Filostrato) who flee the city in hopes of escaping the plague. To occupy themselves during this time, they tell each other stories, with each person telling one story per day to make a total of 100 stories over the course of the entire book. At the beginning of the first day, Boccaccio provides an excellent and detailed description of the plague itself. The book ends with the refugees returning to their homes, and a closing epilogue from the author.

I very much enjoyed 'The Decameron.' It is interesting and easy to read. The characters in the various stories are ordinary people and this makes them seem very real. Many of them actually are based on real people. Some of the stories, too, are inspired by actual events, though not all. This particular edition is an excellent translation. It is very user-friendly while still retaining the 14th century 'feel' of it. I also liked the organization of the book, as it was always very easy to find a 'stopping place.' With some novels, it's hard to set them down, but since The Decameron is a collection of short stories, one can always stop at the end of any particular story and come back later.

Boccaccio claims that his goal in writing 'The Decameron' was to entertain and 'provide succour and diversion' (Prologue 3) to young women who are in love - presumably those whose love lives are not going well at the moment. He says he wishes to 'offer some solace' (Prologue 2) to these women, and also 'some useful advice' (Prologue 3). While this sounds like a noble aim on first glance, I have to wonder about his sincerity. A good many of the stories involve characters who go to rather immoral ends to achieve their aims, and I find it odd that such examples would be given in a book intended to instruct a young lady.

Nevertheless, the book is great fun to read. The stories are lively and colorful, and often quite humorous. It provides an excellent insight into the everyday lives of people during this time period. I will caution, however, that most of the stories involve sexuality in some way, and many revolved around it completely. If you are easily offended by bawdy humor, this may not be the book for you. Nearly all the characters of the various tales are sexually active, most with more than one partner. There are also homosexual and bisexual characters. Sexual infidelity is treated here as not only acceptable, but widely encouraged. Characters who cheat on their spouses regularly come out on top, while those that are cuckolded are laughed at and made to look like fools. The unfaithful partner is rewarded and the faithful one shamed and called a prude.

The one thing I do wish Boccaccio had talked more about is the ten people who were actually telling the stories. There are hints of Filostrato having a romantic interest in fellow-storyteller Filomena, but this is never followed up on, except to hint that Filomena is herself interested in someone else not of the company. I would like to know if anything more ever came of Filostrato's interest. I would also have liked to know more of what happened to the ten storytellers upon returning to Florence at the end of the book. Had the plague passed? What had happened to those they left behind? Did any of the ten themselves catch the plague? All of this is left out and I found the ending to be somewhat abrupt.

Perhaps most unclear to me, however, is how the ten were even able to flee the plague as they did. There is no talk of preparation, and it seems that they just dropped everything and left. The places they stayed were abandoned estates that they simply happened upon. Boccaccio says of the second place they stayed, 'she brought them [. . .] to a most beautiful and ornate palace. [. . .] They explored it from end to end and were filled with admiration for its spacious halls and well-kept, elegant rooms, which were equipped with everything they could possibly need, and they came to the conclusion that only a gentleman of the highest rank could have owned it' (Introduction, Third Day, 189). Why were places such as this abandoned? Had its owner/s died of plague? Or if the owners were not dead but had instead fled from the plague, why did they not take some of their things with them? Why was everything left in these places as if nothing was amiss? It all seems a bit unreal to me.

Overall the book is written very well for what it is - a collection of short stories. It is, however, lacking in character development. Most of the storytellers were very flat emotionally, and it would have been nice to see them fleshed out a little more. But in the context of a short story or group of short stories this lack of depth is more forgivable than it would be in a novel. With the exception of Dioneo, who seems to be the most creative and fun-loving of the ten, and Filostrato, who seems absorbed in moping and self-pity for much of the book (presumably over his unrequited interest in Filomena), I found it hard to distinguish one storyteller from another. But the focal point of the book is the stories themselves, and these are all highly entertaining. Though the frequent sexual references may make the book inappropriate for younger audiences, I would highly recommend it for any mature reader.

Now that we are a decade removed from the fall of the Soviet Empire, it is a wonderful to look back and read a fabulous primary source about the events. Remnick, the Moscow correspondant for The Washington Post, during the late 80's and early 90's (and since the editor of the New Yorker, which was a well deserved honor for a fabulous journalist, if I may say so myself) was right on the scene when the incredible collapse of Communism took place. He interviewed hundreds, if not thousands, of people who had lived through the Soviet regime and who played some role, regarldless of how small and seemingly insignificant, in the transformation of the nation, and this research paid huge dividends. He combines all these personal stories into one great book that explains and analyzes why and how this happened. It is very well written, and while being comprehensive remains comprehensible. It is a wonderful book and anyone who is interested in Russia (or would like to become so), likes history in general, or enjoys good semi-academic writing this book is for you.

David Remnick in "Lenin's Tomb" writes a fascinating book on the demise of the Soviet Union. Remnick manages to convey the views of the liberals who want to democratize the country and the neo-Stalinist conservatives who want to turn the clock back to the repression of life under Stalin.

The author has little sympathy for Mikhail Gorbachev who once he launched "perestroika" could not make the final commitment to democracy and republicanism and remained trapped in the dying and corrupt Communist Party. Yet, Gorbachev's half-hearted attempts at reform nearly ended in a disasterous rigt-wing coup. Only, the incompetence of the plotters and will of the people not to turn back to a corrupt failed system prevented the USSR in falling back into despotism.

Because of "glasnost and perestroika" Remnick was able to obtain candid views from everyone he interviewed during his stay in the Soviet Union. Miners, dissident and even communist party apparatchiks spoke freely about the good and bad of Russia. Nearly, 50 years after his death, Stalin's shadow still hovered over everything and everyone in the nation. Liberals such as Andrei Sakharov wanted the government and the party to fully acknowledge the heinous attrocities of mass murder and imprisonments committed during Stalin's reign, Khrukhschev made a tentative start at 20th party congress in denouncing Stalin but failed to follow through with real reform. During the Brezhnev years the country lurched backwards thast by the time Gorbachev came to power the Soviet Union was totally morally, politically and economically bankrupt.

Remnick also does a fine job showing the first hesitant steps toward capitalism yet evenn today 10 years after the Soviet Union collapsed Russia still refuses to make the fundamental changes to bring a market economy fully to fruition. Under the Communists there was "equity in poverty" today in Russia you see the extremes of rich and poor. This is a wonderful book for anyone interested in the demise of the Soviet Union, but it needs an update to encompass the last decade.

The book is a compilation of short stories (each chapter a dozen pages or so) about the author's first-hand experiences in the Gorbachev's Soviet Union. From Baltic to Sakhalin and from coal miners to Gorbachev himself, from Stalin to Yeltsin and from Solzhenitsyn to Sakharov, the book paints the picture of the monolith's fall. This colorful collage describing the critical period in Russian history, combined with keen commentary, creates for the reader the distinct flavor of the time.

For Russia, it was the age of confusion and disillusionment. Gorbachev's half-hearted reforms (the interest in truth ended where the Party interests were concerned, the pursuit of democracy gave way to the pursuit of the runaway republics etc.) were matched by the half-hearted '91 coup (no real plan, no propaganda with the military, Lenin wouldn't have approved).

For generations, Russian people did not know much of the sad history of their country and less still about the life in the West. The blissful ignorance was one thing that helped them in their miserable existence. Their various degrees of belief in the grand ideals were the other. With glasnost, Gorbachev aimed at opening the gates of truth while preserving the faith. In all honesty, it was impossible: the foundation for the faith was thoroughly rotten and relaxing the state control of mass media could only reveal it. All of a sudden, millions of people had to face hard evidence showing that the glorious history of their country never was. That the Bolshevik revolution was but a ruthless coup followed by a bloody terror. That many national heroes, all the way to Lenin, were privilege- and power-hungry maniacs. The Russian people had to go (and are still going) through an incredible adjustment of their understanding of right and wrong, brought about by a mere possibility of truth in the phrase of Molotov (himself not the most impeccable politician): "Compared to Lenin Stalin was a mere lamb". Similarly, it was a hard realization for many a soviet man that in the late 80's "an average Soviet had to work 10 times longer than the average American to buy a pound of meat". The full awareness of their tragic history and miserable reality must make it so much more difficult for Russian people to live in the country which is overwhelmingly corrupt, lawless and poor.

Remnick's parents and in-laws, all four having escaped from the old empire, could not imagine going back even for a visit, apparently having no faith in the Russian democratic changeover. On the other side of the ocean, the Russian military colonel excavating the Katyn massacre site, by disobeying direct orders from a KGB general to stop the work, believed in the prevalence of positive change in Russia. Today's Russia, with its authoritarian government and shady political and legal process, still leaves its democratic future a matter of faith.

By way of some criticism, Gorbachev brought about an incredible change. His glasnost and personal presence revived the anemic (or galvanized the non-existent) political forces unheard of in a largely Brezhnev-era Russia. He fought many of the first battles alone. The book does not make a case for that. Glasnost provided food for the hungry Soviet mind, but perestroika, restructuring, was supposed to change the way Soviet people live. The book could have benefited from taking on perestroika in some detail.

Overall, very enjoyable and engaging.

The main improvements, as far as I can tell, that Cooper has made, in comparison to Hamilton & Cairns' popular collection, are in not using any translations by Cornford or Jowett and in "completing" the "Platonic" corpus, i.e. by including Alcibiades I, Alcibiades II, Cleitophon, Hipparchus, Minos, Lovers, and Theages. But I don't know how much readers of the Hamilton & Cairns collection missed any of these (or even whether they *should* have missed any of them), except Alcibiades I and *perhaps* the Cleitophon, since (except for these two) they are mostly agreed to be spurious.

Two other good points of Cooper's text are his Introduction (which is refreshingly unbiased with respect, e.g., to the question of the chronology of the dialogues) and the Index.

On to some criticisms:

The translations are not particularly good, except Rowe's rendition of the Statesman (though I think Seth Benardete's was better). I should say, though, that it is a great relief finally to see the end of the reign of Jowett's and Cornford's awful and inaccurate translations, many of which were included in Hamilton & Cairns' collection. (When I say "good", I mean mostly *literal*.) But it doesn't help that there has been little or no effort put into getting the various translators to agree on how to translate of important Greek terms, or even into getting a single translator to translate important terms consistently: Cooper explains, "...No general effort has been made to ensure consistency in the translation of recurrent words or phrases across the vast extent of Plato's works (that would intrude too greatly on the prerogatives and the individual judgment of the translators to whose scholarly expertise we are indebted for these _Complete Works_)..." (xxviii). And there are *many* translators; with a few exceptions (notably Grube's translation of Apology, Crito, Euthyphro, Meno, Phaedo, Republic), there is practically a different translator or pair of translators for each dialogue. Also, aside from new translations of the spurious works, most translations of the genuine Platonic works in Cooper's text have been previously published, mostly by Hackett. The only new translations of (probably) genuine Platonic works are those of the Alcibiades I, Cratylus, Epinomis, Hippias Minor, Menexenus, Critias, Timaeus. And "new", of course, doesn't necessarily (or even usually) mean *better*.

Cooper makes a very telling comment about his expectations of translation: "When we English-speaking readers turn to Plato's texts, we want to find a Plato who speaks in English--our English..." (xxvi). This is easy to grant in one sense: we of course want an *English* translation. But Cooper's comment seems to suggest that we readers want Plato to SPEAK LIKE WE DO. I don't know that this is something that we *should* expect. After all, Plato spoke and thought in a language that is very different from our language, and almost 2 dozen centuries separates us from the man himself and the ideas he expresses: we cannot expect him to talk or think like us, and if we try to make him do so then we will likely turn Plato's words into bland expressions of things we already know are true or things we already know are false. We should expect much more from one of the greatest minds of all time.

Cooper has preserved the Thrasyllan arrangement of the dialogues. I can't think of any good reason why he did so, other than for the sake of preserving tradition (see his pp. x-xi). That arrangement does not agree with most modern views on the actual order in which the dialogues where written. I can appreciate why Cooper didn't try to arrange them in accordance with any modern view. But as a student, I find the Thrasyllan order continually frustrating: I just can't get accustomed to the arrangement (the farthest I've come is to understand that the Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo are somewhere in the beginning of the book); I find myself regularly having to consult the table of contents to find the dialogue I'm looking for. For easier reference I would much rather have the dialogues simply arranged alphabetically (keeping the "Letters" and the clearly spurious works in the back).

Lastly, the physical book itself (particularly the binding) is not very durable. The pages are very thin, as I'm sure they must be to keep the volume to a manageable size, a little over 2.25 inches thick. But the binding on mine came unglued not too long after I started using it.

I guess it's good in some sense--convenient--to have the entire "Platonic corpus" all in one volume. But in many cases, I have found myself still using (and buying) translations that are superior to the ones Cooper has included in this collection. But for those who want most or all of Plato's works without having to buy many separate volumes, this is the best one-volume collection available.

John M. Cooper's "Comlete Works of Plato" is the best single volume anthology of Plato around. Shrouded within the eighteen hundred pages of this book lie many treasures of abundant proportions.

This edition for the first time exposes these new translations: Cratylus, Alcibiades, Second Alcibiades, Hipparchus, Rival Lovers, Theages, Lesser Hippias, Menexemus, Clitiphon, Timaeus, Critias, Minos, Epinomis, Definitions, On Justice, On Virtue, Demodocus, Sisyphus, Halcyon, and Eryxias.

Also the introduction makes accessible techniques while reading Plato to give a more profound sense of the dialouges in order to distinguish Plato's ideas as a whole. Another point of interest is the section on definitions, which is a dictionary of 185 important philosophical terms that developed throughout the Socratic era. I am very happy to have purchased this volume and I hope you find the same joy in buying it for yourself.

Usually I don't have a head for collected works: I had much more fun reading Hamlet in a slim, single volume than I would've in the clumsy Riverside Shakespeare. This book is an exception. It is absolutely wonderful to have the world of Plato at one's fingertips; to flip through the dialogues and letters and definitions and just take in a few pages, perhaps going back and reading one entire if one finds it at all interesting.

About Plato as a philosopher, it's hard to write a review. I used to be one of the many students to hate Plato; not anymore. My thinking is, The Republic shouldn't be read until a fair amount of other works are read. Plato just says too many neat things--all of them more than make up for the sometimes-doubtful though sometimes quite interesting philosophy of the Republic. Example: "Time is a moving image of eternity." (I paraphrase here...) That's from Timaeus. Now those are the words of a true mystic in touch with the grandness of the universe--not the seeming fascist who wrote The Laws.

In order to read Plato, you've just got to focus on all the good stuff the man wrote. When you do this, the seemingly beastly stuff will make more sense--though you may not agree with it.

I hasten to add that The Symposium is a much better place to start than The Republic. If you are new to Plato, read this first--and delight: Here is a work both profound, funny, and sexy, just like some of our own century's better literature (Proust, Joyce).

Barry Unsworth's novel Sacred Hunger is an exquisitely crafted tale of commerce and corruption set in 18th century England, at the heart of which lies the tension between the moral characters of two cousins. Erasmus Kemp is the intense, arrogant son of a slave ship owner, who holds the prevailing opinion of the day that the lawful accumulation of wealth is the only way a man should live his life. Mathew Paris is the ship's doctor recently rescued from prison by his uncle for publishing blasphemous and seditious views on evolution. Their relationship is set against the backdrop of the Liverpool Merchant's ill-fated voyage to Africa to buy slaves, and the mutiny that follows.

Paris is a thoughtful and troubled man whose constant battle against pride enriches him with a humanity and compassion that are beyond his cousin's reach or understanding. The respective self awareness of the two characters is fascinating: while Kemp has no conscious doubt whatsoever that right is on his side, Paris is plagued by self-doubt and guilt at his wife's death while he was in prison. Kemp's hatred for Paris is a deep-rooted one, possibly founded on the sub-conscious knowledge that it is in fact his cousin who is the better man, despite what society would have him believe. Kemp possesses power and wealth, but these aren't enough to combat the monomania of his hatred for Paris and its tragic consequences. Unsworth portrays vividly the moral bankruptcy that festers at the heart of 18th century English society, where the kidnapping and trading of human beings is seen as a lawful enterprise while the mere expression of views contrary to the current religious ones is seen as unlawful and pernicious. Sacred Hunger attempts a formidable examination of human nature and what man can be driven to inflict on man for the sake of power and wealth, and the author succeeds in what he sets out to do with admirable assurance. The quality of Unworth's prose is astonishing. He writes with an economy and grace that no other contemporary author (that I know of) can match. The period detail is beautifully drawn and the style spare and evocative.

Sacred Hunger is a magnificent book: it really does rival the great Victorian novels in terms of its scope of ambition, moral exploration, convincing characterisation and marvellous scene setting. I cannot believe that there has been a better historical novel published in the last twenty years.

This is one of the most painful books I have ever read, and my action of mailing copies to my closest friends is both an action of great friendship and great sadism. This story of the slave-trade and a new society formed after one slave-ship escapes -- through sickness, mutiny, opportunity -- pains as much as it pleases. Characters we live with and love are hunted down by characters who see them only as animals. We see both societies that can come about, only to face the fact that they will not be permitted to exist -- will be hunted mercilessly.

And from the very beginning of the book, we know that events will come to a very bad end, that a paradise found will be recalled only by a pathetic old man (who we later know in his youth) whose strange stories tell us, before the book unfolds, that paradise will be lost -- *is* lost before it is even found. As for the irony of the title, *Sacred Hunger* seems to be the insatiable imperialistic drive towards hierarchy according to skin color, slavery, world expansion. It is small consolation that their seems no curbing of that voracious hunger.

I find that once I send this book to a friend, I follow up to make sure it's been read. Like Coleridge's wedding guest, I need to impart this story. I lurk near the wedding guests, ready to leap out with the tale.

It reached my soul, and may yours.

What MORON at Norton decided that they should give away the whole plot on the book's back side ?! As if it wasn't enough to give away the beginning, the middle and the end of the story on the book's back side, they have made certain to take away any thrill the reader might get by giving away the outcome of the story also on the front page. What was wrong with the first edition ? The front page illustration was also a lot better on the first edition. Luckily I had already read this book, I just ordered it for a friend, thus I could warn him about the idiot cover. When it comes to the content of the book, it's brilliant, -to a degree where you end up ordering it from Amazon if you can't find your old copy, in order to lend it to someone who has just praised "Master and Commander".

This was the most god-awful piece of crap ever. I was forced to read it in high school and I'm still emotionally scarred. However, if you are into reading about arrogant, self-centered people who love to praise themselves, by all means buy this book.

My carrier in the Air Force started as Engine Mechanic in early 1950. Then started flying in 1950 on c-54's, moved on to a new airplane, the Douglas Sky Master C-124 as a Flight Engineer and ended up with over 10,083 hours logged. Having read General Yeager's book, twice, I still enjoyed reading it again. You don't have to be cracy to fly, but it sure helps. At one time in Yuma,Arziona, with the help of a Pilot and an outside power unit, we started ALL 4 engines at the same time. Didn't have the nerve to do it again. Even climbed the propeler once to win a bet, didn't do that again either, my stomache like to have kill me. General Yeager, I salute you for a great book. Write another one so that I can relive some of your past as a Pilot

The word around the campfire is that Chuck Yeager is real SOB. Fortunately, I heard this long after I'd read this book and decided he was anything but. I still question this "SOB" assessment. General Yeager signs books, answers fan mail and cracks great jokes. This is the Chuck Yeager that comes across in the pages of this book, which is undoubtedly one of the best aviation yarns ever written.

Yeager had a way of being at the right place at the right time. Those places and times form the heart of this book, and the heart of the golden age of aviation itself. If there is a person most qualified to tell the story of how America transitioned from piston-fired aircraft into the supersonic jet age, Chuck is that person. Told in a loose, casual manner, the story whizzes along at mach speed, slowing only to allow "other voices" (friends, family, comrades) to further illustrate Chuck's highly adventurous life.

The book can be very funny, as when Yeager describes "topping" a tree with his WWII trainer's wingtip; it can be suspenseful, as when Yeager and others describe his nearly fatal flight beyond Mach 2. And the book can be sad, as when he illustrates the dangers of flight testing by revealing that streets at Edwards Air Force Base were named after fallen test pilots. Of course, it's all old news now - some of the lore has even decayed into clichés. But the magic of this book is that the moment you pick it up and start reading, it all seems new again.

Yeager bashers always seem to miss what this book hits on so well; it's not the things he did, it's the way he did them. This isn't the story of a war ace turned arrogant test pilot; this is the story of a country boy who inadvertently made a name for himself merely by doing what came naturally to him. We should all be so lucky.