Not bad, but if you were really looking for some real knowledge of Lewis' teaching style this isn't it...it's pleasant reading, but not terribly informative. Also, it does not show the complete Lewis character. Based on sources at Oxford, the real C.S. Lewis was impersonal (even by British academic standards) with some of his students, and could be withering to those whom he felt were not terribly bright or motivated.

I've always been a bit surprised and suspicious of the C. S. Lewis industry: the fact that I like reading Lewis, doesn't mean I like reading about him. (Though, if push comes to shove, I have to admit I do. Just no slobbering, please.) Fortunately this is a collection of essays by colleagues, students, and friends of Lewis who, even while writing about Lewis, have other things on their minds -- the purpose of English teaching, Oxford, redemption, even (in the gardener's case) his own bad jokes. There are even a few critical stories. Most of the essays are well written and insightful, and gave plenty of Boswell-like anecdotes not only of Lewis, but of other peculiar denizens of Oxford as well. Graham could have saved himself the occasional bone thrown to evangelicals, though, as far as I'm concerned. I really don't care how Bob Jones reconciles the work of the Holy Spirit and beer. Billy Graham and J. I. Packer didn't seem to have much to say. Also, the editor protested a bit too much about "hero worship." There's no need to apologize for this book, otherwise.

The book arrived in the mail on Friday afternoon. By Saturday afternoon I was chewing on crumbs.

To me, one of the most interest comments was the suggestion by one writer that Lewis had been influenced by the marvellous chapter "The Ethics of Elfland" in G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. I am beginning to suspect that Wilhelm Grimm was a very clever, and also successful, evangelist, and that there might be a secret link between the Seven Dwarves and Trumpkin.

author, Jesus and the Religions of Man

I guess if you enjoy reading Rolling Stone, then this is a great reference. However, if you listen to slightly more challenging, but equally essential music and are one of the ones complaining about the lack of a new edition, then look no further than the fifth edition of the Trouser Press Guide. Available right now from Amazon. But don't expect to read about Led Zeppelin or the Eagles in the TPG.

This is the second edition of this particular tome, and for somebody trying to get a sense of the history of rock 'n' roll and which old albums by artists are worth tracking down (and which ones aren't), it's a very valuable thing to have around.

Now, I mention this 2nd edition bit because I first stumbled upon this book sometime in the mid-late '80s, and the 1st edition from '79 or so did great coverage of old albums from the '50s-'70s, but good luck on getting the latest word on John Cougar or Def Leppard or the King of Pop or those other '80s artists we loved so much! Some solace was to be found when a 2nd edition came out in 1992 -- you could now find out what Rolling Stoners thought about '80s albums you had aleady purchased by then (in addition to the '50s-'70s albums, naturally).

Well, I think you see what I'm getting at. This is a great guide to what's out there at the time of publication, but it rapidly goes out-of-date. Sure, you'll find out good information about (yes, I'll go ahead and call him what I know him as) Prince's older albums, but as far as learning about the 348 albums he's released since 1992, you're out of luck. This is a book that really needs to come out in annual editions -- though that would be a difficult and likely unprofitable option for the writers. Too bad -- I may actually be willing to plunk down the money once a year for this thing.

Excellent and good fun. The New York Dolls review sums up the tone of this guide nicely. Definitely not for the Top 40 crowd though. If you're one of them, stay away as you'll probably get somewhat insulted.
A drawback is that out of print albums were omitted, which makes the guide incomplete as soon as these albums are reissued. And of course the guide is outdated. Any guide is the moment is goes off to the presses.
That said, we want an update now.

If this book would remain neutral, I would give it 3 stars, but the fact, that Moore has to produce something, that is not allowed in the work, i.e. nasty and subjective gossip, reduces the value of this book to zero stars. Journalism is not what the work is about, and James Moore fell into this trap.

James Moore achieves with this book not only to give
a many-sided picture of Gurdjieff, but also of his search
for truth, the main ideas of what he taught and how he
accomplished it as a teacher.

In addition you will find a detailed chronology of Gurdjieff's
life, clarifying notes on many subjects, full references
to the sources of the book and a select bibliography.

Mr. Moore's background in the Gurdjieff Work has given
him direct contacts with many people who knew Gurdjieff
or his teaching well. This has given him the possibility
to write of many things that can not be found in any
other books.

I like the contents and the way he writes!

Not being a naval expert, my review of this book might be taken with a grain of salt.

That being said, there are several things missing from this study that probably should have been included. The book lists an enormous amount of data, mostly ship weights and armaments. The tactical difference between a 9-inch gun over a 10-inch gun, however, is not discussed. It's obviously a central issue, yet the book just lists the guns of a given ship with no analysis of why one chosen weapon system matters more than another.

This goes for the weight, too. My eyes began to glaze over after the 100th tonnage listing because there was no context given as to why one number mattered more than another.

More illustrations would also have been helpful, as the differences between ship designs were emphasized. But, with the way the author wrote the book, it was often difficult to visualize the differences. A glossary would also have been a welcome addition.

The way a ship's design influenced tactics was pretty much breezed over as well.

So, for all the information packed into the book, I finished it with only a general understanding of the material.

This book will be a disappointment to the serious student of naval history. The author has an annoying tendancy to make sweeping statements of major historical import, followed by little or no supportive evidence. Most of the assertions concerning major design developments of antiquity are nothing more than educated guesses, often accompanied by disclaimers to that effect! Nonetheless, the scope of the work is ambitious, and the volume is useful if only as a broad timeline of the most significant design developments. As to the statement by the author that the book also ties these developments into the political and sociological evolution of modern civilization, those chapters must be in another volume. I couldn't find them.

An elementary familiarity with pre-Christian classical (and other) mythology would show that virtually every attempt to
to de-bunk Frazer's claims, must be seriously flawed. Frazer did not see himself as an 'iconoclast,' he merely wished to point out that archetypally - the Christian'mythos' of the 'god-man' being sacrificed upon a tree - was not a new event, symbolically, however unique the Christian 'mythos' may be to its followers - it had its antecedents. Taken in a Jungian sense, this need not be seen as a weakening of the Christian mythos, but may even strengthen it, insofar as it confirms the existence of archetypal patterns and determinants in consciousness - transcending dogmatic claims made in the name of any one determinant, just as they transcend rationalistic endeavours to reduce them to a 'nothing but.' Christianity grew out of - and was built upon classical antiquity. It is in many ways determined by it, as for instance, in celebrating the birth of Christ at the winter solstice (the shortest day of the year) symbolically, when light triumphs over darkness - in the life of nature. The true nativity of Jesus was located somewhere in January,and the Church Fathers used their wisdom, shifting it to coincide with the Saturnalia. 'Christmas' time is thoroughly pervaded with 'Pagan' symbolism, (viz. the Yule' celebrations etc.) and it is small minded and a denial of history to claim otherwise. Frazer faked nothing, which had not in a sense, already been 'faked' by the Church, because in their wisdom, the Church Fathers felt obliged to recognise the power of pre-Christian myths. Robert Graves explored the 'tree god' theme all over again with his 'King Jesus.'But anyway, why blow this single aspect of Frazer's work out of proportion. Frazer's discussion of the sacrifice of the 'tree-god' goes alongside countless other myths and myth-motifs.

Sir James Frazer is sometimes considered a brilliant iconoclast who put Christianity into anthropological perspective, exposing it as one of many dying God and virgin mother legends. In fact his scholarship was seriously flawed. This witty and erudite book is a fascinating piece of detective work, showing how and why Frazer slanted his facts

I was excited to read this book, as I have a degree in criminology from a British university and currently research firearms in the U.S. I was very disappointed. While this book has interesting points about perceptions of crime, the American political process, and the troubling state of criminal justice, its research methods and analytic conclusions are deeply flawed. Windlesham critiques American crime policy and law using examples of crimes in Britain, as if Britain and the U.S. could and should be compared without hestitation. He critiques NRA statements and policy recommendations as misguided ideology, but uses Handgun Control Inc.'s writings as if it was scholarship. He barely refers to any concrete criminological studies on firearms, prefering to use medical studies on guns, which most sociologists and criminologists have illustrated are often deeply methodologically flawed. He does not use the solid scholarship on guns in the U.S. written by well-known criminologists, even when that research would reinforce his overall points. Lastly, he glosses over research on the Second Amendment and its supposed impediment to gun control, using partisan writings and very little work from legitimate lawyers and historians. Overall, this book was a serious disappointment. For much better research in a similar vein, try books by Franklin Zimring, Gary Kleck, or Jan Dizard et al.'s book "Guns in America." Though very different, these works are honest attempts to understand complicated issues. Windlesham's book is not.

Lord Windlesham is an english conservative who was horrified by the United States Crime Control Act of 1994. He argues with compeling logic that the trends in criminal legislation in the United States is for large numbers of low level offenders to be locked up at enormous public expense for no good reason.

A sobering and ineresting book by a person who is in no way on the "liberal" side of politics.

This book for help in my job

This book was great for my psych class, but I believe it would also be great as a refernce tool for either psych or sociology students. Clearly written, made my class a lot easier!!

Rockwell may have been the only hope to how our world became today.
America no longer the same country it was say 30 years ago.
mass non-white immigration from third world nations flooding America has taken away the spiritual beauty of this once proud land.Rockwell was our only hope.if he live today.the Nazi Party
may have gotton a good start.Rockwell was indeed the Greatest man who walked this nation!

This is a small book with 145 pages of text, 50+ pages of endnotes, and a weak index. Rather than tell the story of Rockwell, his lieutenants, and movement, Simonelli does a hatchet job continually referring to Rockwell as a hate monger. The author apparently thinks this needless repetition is necessary to get his points across.

Simonelli does bring further to light Solomon Fineberg's successful operation with his fellow Jews power to keep Rockwell from getting media attention, but he discusses it as if it occurred only between Jewish organizations. The real campaign was to orchestrated Jewish controlled news media. The book fails to mention the FBI's parallel program, COINTELPRO, which was both illegal and damaging to Rockwell.

The other book, William Schmaltz's , "George Lincoln Rockwell & the American Nazi Party," is a better and much more interesting book. It gives details of many of Rockwell's life, operations, confrontations with police, and much more detail on his lieutenants. "White Power," Rockwell's own book, which is still available, is well worth reading.

One has to suspect that Simonelli's book was a Ph.D. dissertation. It can serve as a reference for future biographers but generally is biased, a slow read, and unscholarly yet overly academic.

Simonelli's book has two main virtues. First, he had a great deal of access to Rockwell's correpondence and papers and quotes from it liberally. Second, he had a great deal of access to the files of Jewish organizations and individuals who opposed Rockwell.

In spite of this wealth of primary sources, however, the book is disappointing and prefunctory. It seems that after all his archival sleuthing, Simonelli lost interest in his subject matter when he actually sat down to write the book. This leads to a distorted picture of Rockell's ideas and personality. A much fuller picture is found in the Schmaltz biography HATE.

One case in point: Simonelli's discussion of the case against John Patler, Rockwell's convicted killer, leaves out crucial pieces of evidence, giving the impression that the case against Patler was weaker than it actually was. Then Simonelli goes on to air the conspiracy theories blaming Matt Koehl, William Pierce, and others for the murder. These may seem plausible to the reader only because the case against Patler is stated weakly. This is VERY MISLEADING and quite simply unjust.

Simonelli actually does a better job of documenting how Jewish organizations first tried to terrorize and intimidate Rockwell, and then, failing that, resorted to a very successful press blackout to deny him publicity and prevent his ideas from being heard and debated. Simonelli demonstrates just how powerful the Jewish control over the media is, and how Americans are fed a version of reality that is distorted to protect and advance Jewish interests. This is a frightening thought, because if they did it then, they can do it now too.

The bottom line: I recommend this book as a supplement to Schmaltz's HATE, but not as a substitute. If you read one book on Rockwell, read HATE.

Any book that can render this kind of reaction by intellectuals and regular folk alike should be on everyone's reading list. In today's culture of complaint, people hide bad art and cheap sensational ideas behind political/ideological fads and the automatic public reactions to their support or refutation all the time. Yet even with a healthy skepticism firmly in place, one must look at the thought provoking questions that this book demands are asked- and the near automatic visceral emotions that seem to go with them.

I read this book several years ago in college. Though I didn't particularly like the preachy style, or much of the rhetoric seemingly impossible to prove scientifically, it successfully started me on an intellectual journey through a plethora of Egyptological authors of the past two centuries and a spiritual awakening. This book, I am reminded, has such power, because it raises more uncomfortable questions than it answers.

In the spirit of such work, the reason for being of all scholarship, I'd like to ask all others past, present and future who have or plan to review this book: have you read inki_snkm@yahoo.com's review of this yet (June 29, 1998)? Were you aware of the facts he brings to light and refers to- more importantly, the intellectual paradigms he used to formulate his opinions, as those are (linguistics specifically)part and parcel of the methods, principles and practices of all Western scholars?

Why do you think all architecture schools across all of Western civilization through the centuries to today begin their students' studies with the Pyramids?

Have you seen the pyramids of the Sudan and Nubia, some predating those of Giza, recently unearthed by German archaeological teams?

And what do you think our Founding Fathers (Washington, Jefferson, et al) would have thought of such a work (and think of the back of the dollar bill before you answer)?

This book has its faults, but its ability to make you think, whether you want to or not, isn't one of them.

Any book that can render this kind of reaction by intellectuals and regular folk alike should be on everyone's reading list. Even in today's polemical culture of complaint, where people hide bad art and cheap sensational ideas behind political/ideological fads or automatic public reactions to their support or refutation, one must look at the thought provoking questions that this book arises- and the near automatic emotions that go with them. I read this book several years ago in college. Though I didn't particularly like the preachy style, it successfully started me on an intellectual journey through a plethora of authors of the past two centuries and a spiritual awakening. This book, I am reminded, has such power, because it raises more uncomfortable questions than it answers. In the spirit of such work, the raison detre of all scholarship, I'd like to ask all others past, present and future who have or plan to review this book: have you read inki_snkm@yahoo.com's review of this yet? Were you aware of the facts he brings to light and refers to- more importantly, the intellectual paradigms he used to formulate his opinions, as those are (linguistics specifically)part and parcel of the methods, principles and practices of all Western scholars? Why do you think all architecture schools across all of Western civilization through the centuries to today begin their students' studies with the Pyramids? Have you seen the pyramids of the Sudan and Nubia, some predating those of Giza, recently unearthed by German archaeological teams? And what do you think our Founding Fathers (Washington, Jefferson, et al) would have thought of such a work (and think of the back of the dollar bill before you answer)?

Any book that can render this kind of reaction by intellectuals and regular folk alike should be on everyone's reading list. In today's culture of complaint, people hide bad art and cheap sensational ideas behind political/ideological fads and the automatic public reactions to their support or refutation all the time. Yet even with a healthy skepticism firmly in place, one must look at the thought provoking questions that this book demands are asked--and the near automatic visceral emotions that seem to go with them.

I read this book several years ago in college. Though I didn't particularly like the preachy style, or much of the rhetoric seemingly impossible to prove scientifically, it successfully started me on an intellectual journey through a plethora of Egyptological authors of the past two centuries and a spiritual awakening. This book, I am reminded, has such power, because it raises more uncomfortable questions than it answers.

Before or even after an opinion of this work has become set in stone in one's mind (usually inspired by an emotional knee-jerk reaction, as if the book is little more than a political metaphor and not an attempt to rediscover the actual ancient world) one must ask themselves, as I was again forced to upon re-reading it:

Have you actually READ the book?

Have you read inki_snkm@yahoo.com's review of this yet (June 29, 1998)? Were you aware of the facts he brings to light and refers to- more importantly, the intellectual paradigms he used to formulate his opinions, as those are (linguistics specifically)part and parcel of the methods, principles and practices of all Western scholars?

Why do you think all architecture schools across all of Western civilization throughout the centuries to today begin their students' studies with the Pyramids?

Have you seen the pyramids of the Sudan and Nubia, some predating those of Giza, recently unearthed by German archaeological teams?

And what do you think our Founding Fathers (Washington, Jefferson, et al) would have thought of such a work (and think of the back of the dollar bill before you answer)?

This book, even with the sermon-like fault of its structure (which says as much about when it was written--and what it took for someone with these kinds of ideas to be published at the time--as the author) remains powerful and influential because of the degree to which it wrestles and answers these kinds of questions. STOLEN LAGACY has its faults, but its ability to make you think, whether you want to or not, isn't one of them.

Definitiely worth reading; also worth owning...and continually argued about.

Basically this could be a good book, if it would remain neutral. But Mr. Moore is trying to put down some of the most remarkable
followers of the Gurdjieff work, and by doing so he looses all creditability in writing a book about Gurdjieff. It is one of the biggest mistake, to try to copy Gurdjeff. He had a specific task, and pouring mud into clear water is not only negativity, it is harmful! This comes out of ego, and Moore is not doing anything to bear some of the suffering of .........

Gurdjieff remains a fascinating figure. Sadly the standard of writing is very poor. I don't know a great deal about the author but he sure ain't a scholar or academic on this evidence. Too much horrible, purple prose. Borrow it rather than buy it. Better still search for one of the few people still alive who can give a personal account of G.

I'll just say briefly that this book is the best biographic text of Gurdjieff available, and while it is a bit prolix it is not purple, as someone claimed. Actually I find it almost novelistically readable.