Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.08 AVERAGE
3.08 AVERAGE
tristy's review against another edition
2.0
I really wanted to like this. I'm a huge fan of [a:Marion Woodman|14630|Marion Woodman|http://www.goodreads.com/images/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg] (why isn't she listed as co-author, Goodreads?) and [a:Robert Bly|17703|Robert Bly|http://www.goodreads.com/images/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg] is certainly a brilliant and interesting man. But there is so much wrong with this book. It's based on a workshop they co-facilitated together to bring the genders "back in touch with each other." Yet, they split the book up - with Bly writing the first half and Woodman finishing it. Bly's writing is dry, stilted and boring (surprising!) and Woodman's writing, while having sparkles of her incredible brilliance and writing style, also feels forced. They in fact, talk about how they weren't ready to have their workshop filmed, but did it anyway (and apparently SIX hours of discussion exist somewhere), and the same feels true for this book. They never achieved the goal of bringing the two genders back in touch with each other. Their mission failed. Of all the myths to choose from, why did they choose this particular Russian tale? I am thankful for the concept of a Maiden KING (not Queen!) and I am glad Baba Yaga made an appearance, but again, there are so many better tales about the play of masculine and feminine and they never explain what drew them to this particular tale. I'm sad to say this is pretty much a waste of time.
aemy's review against another edition
2.0
I don’t think this book is particularly accessible without a strong grasp of the premises of jungian psychology and archetypes. It is also firmly rooted in the cultural context of the late 1990s (it feels like a quarter of the book is spent discussing the death of Princess Diana). I was also disappointed with its fundamental commitment to a strict gender binary, even as it purported to not be. Despite this, there were moments that I found very compelling.