You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
kevin_shepherd's Reviews (563)
Physicist Max Born on Einstein - “Einstein would be one of the greatest theoretical physicists of all time even if he had not written a single line on relativity.” (pg 7)
Marie Curie on Einstein - “I was able to appreciate the clarity of his mind, the breadth of his information, and the profundity of his knowledge… One has every right to build the greatest hopes on him and to see in him one of the leading theoreticians of the future.” (pg 98)
Physicist Henri Poincaré on Einstein - “What we must particularly admire in him is the facility with which he adapts himself to new concepts and that he knows how to draw from them every conclusion.” (pg 99)
Einstein on Einstein - “To punish me for my contempt of authority, fate has made me an authority myself.” (pg 24)
This is a fantastic biography written for a wide demographic; just be aware that the science herein may be minimal but it is still rather formidable. There is just enough physics here to convey the staggering enormity of Einstein’s intellect but, even though the author tried to step-down quantum mechanics to my level (a level that is somewhere between cro-magnon and pond turtle), I still had to stop occasionally and rub Aspercreme on my temples.
“Nobody in [American] football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein.” ~Joe Theisman
Marie Curie on Einstein - “I was able to appreciate the clarity of his mind, the breadth of his information, and the profundity of his knowledge… One has every right to build the greatest hopes on him and to see in him one of the leading theoreticians of the future.” (pg 98)
Physicist Henri Poincaré on Einstein - “What we must particularly admire in him is the facility with which he adapts himself to new concepts and that he knows how to draw from them every conclusion.” (pg 99)
Einstein on Einstein - “To punish me for my contempt of authority, fate has made me an authority myself.” (pg 24)
This is a fantastic biography written for a wide demographic; just be aware that the science herein may be minimal but it is still rather formidable. There is just enough physics here to convey the staggering enormity of Einstein’s intellect but, even though the author tried to step-down quantum mechanics to my level (a level that is somewhere between cro-magnon and pond turtle), I still had to stop occasionally and rub Aspercreme on my temples.
“Nobody in [American] football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein.” ~Joe Theisman
Classic Sci-Fi from one of the Godfathers of the genre. Sturgeon’s tale of an assemblage of misfits, each with a special skill, coming together to perform as a single organism [“Homo gestalt”] is both dark and strangely uplifting. I’m not really a connoisseur of fiction but occasionally, from time to time, I stumble upon a hidden gem or an underrated opus. This might be one of those times.
On the Shaping of Information
It is always enlightening to seek out what is omitted in propaganda campaigns. Take, for example, the Gulf War (1990/1991). When queried as to why the U.S. and Britain were bombing Iraq the most frequently given answer was that Saddam Hussein was a monster, that he committed heinous atrocities against his own people. It was a reply that was doled out in near unanimity and one that was quite impossible to refute.
Chomsky warns that any answer that is given equivocally and unanimously is worthy of a red flag.
Case in point: a quick Google search shows that yes, Saddam did indeed gas his own people. This “ultimate horror” occurred in March of 1988 and then again in August of 1988. The next logical question is: ‘how did the U.S. and Britain react?’
Answer: they reacted by continuing, nay, they reacted by ACCELERATING their support for Saddam. Therefore, the pat answer as to why the U.S. and Britain were bombing Iraq couldn’t possibly be true. Every news story and press conference that pointed out that “Saddam was a monster who committed atrocities against his own people” omitted three very important words: “with our support.” Yes he was a monster and yes he committed atrocities but he was a monster WITH OUR SUPPORT. He committed atrocities WITH OUR SUPPORT.
“If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion.”
Joseph Goebbels is credited, rightly or wrongly, with pointing out that people will believe that a square is in fact a circle IF the misinformation is repeated often and with conviction. “They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe and disguise ideas.”
At the end of almost every lecture, Chomsky closes with an open mic Q&A. Quite often someone in his audience will say that they can't believe anything he says because it is in total conflict with everything they were told from the media, from their parents, or from their peers; and they don't have time to go look at all the footnotes. Chomsky’s response is simple and clear. The internet is a lethal weapon. Make time to look at the footnotes. Check your sources. Think for yourself.
“These are not laws of nature. They can be changed; they can be changed right here. Unless they're changed in the United States it's not gonna matter much what changes elsewhere.” ~Noam Chomsky
It is always enlightening to seek out what is omitted in propaganda campaigns. Take, for example, the Gulf War (1990/1991). When queried as to why the U.S. and Britain were bombing Iraq the most frequently given answer was that Saddam Hussein was a monster, that he committed heinous atrocities against his own people. It was a reply that was doled out in near unanimity and one that was quite impossible to refute.
Chomsky warns that any answer that is given equivocally and unanimously is worthy of a red flag.
Case in point: a quick Google search shows that yes, Saddam did indeed gas his own people. This “ultimate horror” occurred in March of 1988 and then again in August of 1988. The next logical question is: ‘how did the U.S. and Britain react?’
Answer: they reacted by continuing, nay, they reacted by ACCELERATING their support for Saddam. Therefore, the pat answer as to why the U.S. and Britain were bombing Iraq couldn’t possibly be true. Every news story and press conference that pointed out that “Saddam was a monster who committed atrocities against his own people” omitted three very important words: “with our support.” Yes he was a monster and yes he committed atrocities but he was a monster WITH OUR SUPPORT. He committed atrocities WITH OUR SUPPORT.
“If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion.”
Joseph Goebbels is credited, rightly or wrongly, with pointing out that people will believe that a square is in fact a circle IF the misinformation is repeated often and with conviction. “They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe and disguise ideas.”
At the end of almost every lecture, Chomsky closes with an open mic Q&A. Quite often someone in his audience will say that they can't believe anything he says because it is in total conflict with everything they were told from the media, from their parents, or from their peers; and they don't have time to go look at all the footnotes. Chomsky’s response is simple and clear. The internet is a lethal weapon. Make time to look at the footnotes. Check your sources. Think for yourself.
“These are not laws of nature. They can be changed; they can be changed right here. Unless they're changed in the United States it's not gonna matter much what changes elsewhere.” ~Noam Chomsky
Let’s be honest, I just don’t play well with fiction. I try to pick up on symbolism and allegory and metaphors, but it all seems so convoluted and unnecessary. Seriously, if you’re unhappy with socialism or capitalism then just say so. Why do you feel compelled to express your displeasure through talking crickets giving sage counsel to marionettes, or through retired civil servants bitterly contemplating the duality of wet snow? Take Chomsky for example, if he was disenchanted with the system at hand he wrote, “I am disenchanted with the system at hand” and then he proceeded to give you ten or twenty or a hundred reasons why. But not Dostoyevsky. Dostoyevsky gave us wet snow.
Moving on…
My first impression is that Dostoyevsky’s protagonist is tilting at the windmill of determinism. He repeatedly asserts that he is not a spiteful person yet his defining characteristic seems to be his ability to hurt, annoy and offend those around him. He’s not really a dick at heart, but being a dick gives him so much pleasure that he can’t really help himself.
My second impression is that Dostoyevsky’s protagonist is chafing under the constraints of Russian nihilism. His love interest, a prostitute, is convinced that she can better her situation and rise in the hierarchy of the brothel by aligning with and embracing the political establishment. Our anti-hero, predictably, thinks otherwise.
Am I off base? I don’t know enough about Russian history to know what, if anything, Dostoyevsky is railing against. I hate that I agonize and overthink and second guess myself to the point of insomnia. Why do you always do this to me Fyodor? Why????
Moving on…
My first impression is that Dostoyevsky’s protagonist is tilting at the windmill of determinism. He repeatedly asserts that he is not a spiteful person yet his defining characteristic seems to be his ability to hurt, annoy and offend those around him. He’s not really a dick at heart, but being a dick gives him so much pleasure that he can’t really help himself.
My second impression is that Dostoyevsky’s protagonist is chafing under the constraints of Russian nihilism. His love interest, a prostitute, is convinced that she can better her situation and rise in the hierarchy of the brothel by aligning with and embracing the political establishment. Our anti-hero, predictably, thinks otherwise.
Am I off base? I don’t know enough about Russian history to know what, if anything, Dostoyevsky is railing against. I hate that I agonize and overthink and second guess myself to the point of insomnia. Why do you always do this to me Fyodor? Why????
In spite of the fact that Helen Gurley Brown’s cult classic was somewhat of a milestone in feminist achievement, there is still a lot here to dislike.
First, let me say that I can’t fault an author for “dated” enterprises some sixty years after first publication (1962). Brown had no way of knowing that things like green stamps and Fuller brushes and Val-a-Pak suitcases would go the way of the dodo.
And to be fair, her appalling attitude toward gay men came sorta vicariously, by way of the American Psychiatric Association who classified homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973…
“…your most wicked and base thoughts—secret fantasies—even leanings to homosexuality, are not unusual and should not alarm you… This is the consensus of psychiatrists. Doing something about these thoughts and not merely thinking them is what makes you cuckoo!”
“How do you tell when a man isn’t a man? …If he has a male roommate and he’s over forty, there’s very little doubt about his sex. He’s a girl. How else can you tell? Homosexual men are usually tied in with their mothers.”
But beyond the homophobia, there is the fat shaming…
“I weigh 109, and people are quite snooty when I try to join a diet discussion… Fatties never give skinnies credit for any will power.”
“If you have potato-puff hips and a large stomach, it’s true you better stick with your best style, which is undoubtedly a tent.”
“…fatties and slobs are not in such hot emotional shape. They say that only when we love ourselves are we free to love anybody else.”
And beyond the fat shaming, there lies a patriarchal macrocosm…
“I think marriage is insurance for the worst years of your life. During your best years you don’t need a husband. You do need a man of course every step of the way…”
“…a job gives a single woman something to be. A married woman already is something.”
And if that’s not enough to stifle your Sex-and-the-Single-Girl sentimentality, there are the racist slurs; not the overt N-word slams (that would be too obvious), but rather the sly vernacular of the late ‘50s/early ‘60s—that era of back-of-the-bus segregation that waxes nostalgic inside every MAGA-hatted head. Her dog whistle is “Ubangi.” Ubangi, in Brown’s context, is a bigoted reference to the African women of Kyabé, a community made famous by the photojournalists of National Geographic who documented (exploited?) their tribal custom of lip piercing and lip distention with large wooden disks…
“Any unusual jewelry is a come-on, but it should be beautiful or you’ll look too Ubangi.”
“…junk-jewelry fanciers are so weak-willed! Just one more bracelet and a few more beads, and first thing you know every Ubangi in town is in a jealous snit.”
I’m not here to throw Gurley Brown under the cancel-culture bus. She did indeed advocate for the sexual liberation of women, even if the women she advocated for were primarily privileged and WASP-ish. One of my favorite reviews of this book referred to HGB as a “proto-feminist” - I think that’s appropriate. I also think that 2 stars is me being generous.
First, let me say that I can’t fault an author for “dated” enterprises some sixty years after first publication (1962). Brown had no way of knowing that things like green stamps and Fuller brushes and Val-a-Pak suitcases would go the way of the dodo.
And to be fair, her appalling attitude toward gay men came sorta vicariously, by way of the American Psychiatric Association who classified homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973…
“…your most wicked and base thoughts—secret fantasies—even leanings to homosexuality, are not unusual and should not alarm you… This is the consensus of psychiatrists. Doing something about these thoughts and not merely thinking them is what makes you cuckoo!”
“How do you tell when a man isn’t a man? …If he has a male roommate and he’s over forty, there’s very little doubt about his sex. He’s a girl. How else can you tell? Homosexual men are usually tied in with their mothers.”
But beyond the homophobia, there is the fat shaming…
“I weigh 109, and people are quite snooty when I try to join a diet discussion… Fatties never give skinnies credit for any will power.”
“If you have potato-puff hips and a large stomach, it’s true you better stick with your best style, which is undoubtedly a tent.”
“…fatties and slobs are not in such hot emotional shape. They say that only when we love ourselves are we free to love anybody else.”
And beyond the fat shaming, there lies a patriarchal macrocosm…
“I think marriage is insurance for the worst years of your life. During your best years you don’t need a husband. You do need a man of course every step of the way…”
“…a job gives a single woman something to be. A married woman already is something.”
And if that’s not enough to stifle your Sex-and-the-Single-Girl sentimentality, there are the racist slurs; not the overt N-word slams (that would be too obvious), but rather the sly vernacular of the late ‘50s/early ‘60s—that era of back-of-the-bus segregation that waxes nostalgic inside every MAGA-hatted head. Her dog whistle is “Ubangi.” Ubangi, in Brown’s context, is a bigoted reference to the African women of Kyabé, a community made famous by the photojournalists of National Geographic who documented (exploited?) their tribal custom of lip piercing and lip distention with large wooden disks…
“Any unusual jewelry is a come-on, but it should be beautiful or you’ll look too Ubangi.”
“…junk-jewelry fanciers are so weak-willed! Just one more bracelet and a few more beads, and first thing you know every Ubangi in town is in a jealous snit.”
I’m not here to throw Gurley Brown under the cancel-culture bus. She did indeed advocate for the sexual liberation of women, even if the women she advocated for were primarily privileged and WASP-ish. One of my favorite reviews of this book referred to HGB as a “proto-feminist” - I think that’s appropriate. I also think that 2 stars is me being generous.
Never judge a book by its cover.
The French to English translation is far too literal, making what may have been a fantastic book almost unreadable.
The French to English translation is far too literal, making what may have been a fantastic book almost unreadable.
A nice exposition on the relationship between horror, as an entertainment genre, and World War I. The author’s approach is smart, scholarly and extensive; so extensive in fact that if your love of horror is utterly existential and you feel you are ready to commune with the Dalai Lama of Dread, W. Scott Poole is your man.
If there is a knock on Poole’s deductive reasoning it’s that he sometimes paints his speculations with a fairly broad brush. Sketching the connective tissue between the trenches of 1918 and the Hollywood backlots of 2018 is five parts historical referencing, three parts psychological analysis and one part blind faith. To say that ‘without Gallipoli there would be no Godzilla,’ or ‘without the Somme there would be no Salem’s Lot’ may indeed be true, but the plethora of other events within the time span dilutes the logic and throws a shadow of doubt on the interpretations.
Also, the author’s passion makes him prone to drift off topic now and again - so prepare yourself for a sociopolitical tangent* or two.
*hint, if you’re an easily offended fan of Salvador Dalí you might want to take a pass on this one.
If there is a knock on Poole’s deductive reasoning it’s that he sometimes paints his speculations with a fairly broad brush. Sketching the connective tissue between the trenches of 1918 and the Hollywood backlots of 2018 is five parts historical referencing, three parts psychological analysis and one part blind faith. To say that ‘without Gallipoli there would be no Godzilla,’ or ‘without the Somme there would be no Salem’s Lot’ may indeed be true, but the plethora of other events within the time span dilutes the logic and throws a shadow of doubt on the interpretations.
Also, the author’s passion makes him prone to drift off topic now and again - so prepare yourself for a sociopolitical tangent* or two.
*hint, if you’re an easily offended fan of Salvador Dalí you might want to take a pass on this one.
1964 - Sol Tax, as editor and chief, presents twenty one essays, written by nineteen gifted anthropology professors, representing nineteen separate anthropological disciplines.
HoA is fairly academic -
“...when structural description is extended outward via the referential function of language, it leads from analysis of linguistic form into analysis of patterns of use in contexts of situation. The same holds true when the scope of structural description is extended along the lines of the renewed interest in social variation...”
HoA is a little dated -
Because it was published in 1964, many of its suppositions have been superseded, through advancements in the science, by better rooted conclusions. Some of the essays stress outmoded processes such as an emphasis on race, or an emphasis on Freudian principles, or an emphasis on the ‘hierarchy’ of nature.
*NOTE: Be prepared for a few cringe worthy references (e.g. referring to women as “commodities,” referring to Africans as “negroids,” etc.).
HoA has Laura Nader! -
Laura Nader’s ‘Perspectives Gained From Field Work’ is as fresh and relevant today as ever. Nader writes about the epiphanies of insight accrued by the science of Cultural Anthropology via a methodology which has changed very little. Her essay alone is, in my humble opinion, worth the price of the book.
“Each of the nineteen anthropologists has described particular phenomena of biology and of culture; of archeology, linguistics, or ethnography; of politics, society, economics, religion, or the arts. All of us are specialists, but despite the diversity of our interests, we are nevertheless closely united in the science of man... All of us tend to believe equally that what we have learned in anthropology is important for everybody in the world to know, and some of us find it difficult not to shout it from the housetops.” ~Sol Tax
HoA is fairly academic -
“...when structural description is extended outward via the referential function of language, it leads from analysis of linguistic form into analysis of patterns of use in contexts of situation. The same holds true when the scope of structural description is extended along the lines of the renewed interest in social variation...”
HoA is a little dated -
Because it was published in 1964, many of its suppositions have been superseded, through advancements in the science, by better rooted conclusions. Some of the essays stress outmoded processes such as an emphasis on race, or an emphasis on Freudian principles, or an emphasis on the ‘hierarchy’ of nature.
*NOTE: Be prepared for a few cringe worthy references (e.g. referring to women as “commodities,” referring to Africans as “negroids,” etc.).
HoA has Laura Nader! -
Laura Nader’s ‘Perspectives Gained From Field Work’ is as fresh and relevant today as ever. Nader writes about the epiphanies of insight accrued by the science of Cultural Anthropology via a methodology which has changed very little. Her essay alone is, in my humble opinion, worth the price of the book.
“Each of the nineteen anthropologists has described particular phenomena of biology and of culture; of archeology, linguistics, or ethnography; of politics, society, economics, religion, or the arts. All of us are specialists, but despite the diversity of our interests, we are nevertheless closely united in the science of man... All of us tend to believe equally that what we have learned in anthropology is important for everybody in the world to know, and some of us find it difficult not to shout it from the housetops.” ~Sol Tax
I enjoy Poe more than I should, especially in stories, short as they are, in which those in authority or power receive their just comeuppance.
Fantastic, funny and consuming! This is one of those rare gems of literature that is at once simplistic and deep. I had a hard time putting it down. ‘Arguably Vonnegut at his didactic best; accept no substitutes.