My first exposure to QFT was Sunny Auyang's "How is Quantum Field Theory Possible?" I had hoped to find more details about the theory itself to supplement the parts of Auyang's presentation that I found difficult. I was disappointed to find Teller presenting QFT as it was in the 1960s, forty years ago, in contrast to Auyang's much more modern approach.

Five facts about QFT were brought home to me by Teller's book. (1) QFT is a metatheory, not a theory. It doesn't become a theory until critical parts are filled in by an actual model such as the Standard Model of particle physics. Teller gives no clue about how this works. (2) QFT is incomplete in many ways beyond its absence of gravity. (3) QFT is inconsistent, giving different answers to the same problem depending on what methods you use to solve it. Choosing the correct method is a key talent physicists must acquire. (4) QFT is sometimes very sound, giving extraordinarily accurate answers. These problems are all captured by observing that (5) QFT (at least as presented by Teller) is not rigorous; it's a toolkit of formalisms and techniques that have been developed with a perspective much more like engineering than like mathematics.

Teller's target audience is physicists who are able to treat nonrelativistic quantum mechanics and its interpretive problems as uninteresting background, and who want to know a little bit about some of the additonal interpretive issues that caused trouble during the development of QFT. If you want to know how those issues relate to the classic problems of philosophy, you need to go elsewhere. Auyang is a good place to start, providing significantly more sophistication in both philosophy and mathematics.

Philosophical debate on quantum mechanics was very intense and widespread in the twentieth century, and it continues without abatement in the twenty-first. Philosophical issues in quantum field theory (QFT) however are not as common, this being due possibly to the level of physics and mathematics needed to master the subject. This book is one of the few that has appeared that deal with these issues, and it serves as a fairly good introduction to them.

In the preface, the author describes quantum field as a subject that is "notoriously hard to learn". He admits having severe difficulty in the learning of it, which he blames on the lack of good presentations of the subject. One can easily find though superb explanations of QFT in the literature, both in preprint and textbook form. His presentation of QFT could loosely be described as the "older" quantum field theory, since he does not address guage theories and makes no use of modern mathematical formalism. By his own admission, all of the ideas in the book were known by 1950.

The title of the book reflects the author's view of an interpretation of a theory, namely that it gives a similarity relation that is hypothesize to hold between a model and the properties of things that the model is supposed to characterize. This notion of similarity is a purely qualitative one though, as is typical in most discourses on philosophy. For the author, the issue for interpretation is the phenomenon of "superposition" in QFT, and he also endeavors to show that the "particle" intepretation of QFT is at equal level with the "field" theoretic one. He believes that current views on QFT get the particle aspect wrong, nor show how the particle and field aspects fit together. It is the particle labeling he says, that causes problems, and his solution is via the Fock space formalism, which avoids what he calls the "surplus structure" of conventional quantum mechanics, and which avoids the temptation to ascribe properties to particles. Instead he uses a conception of "quanta", which gives information only on what patterns of properties are exhibited. The Fock space basis states, and consequently the operators are indexed by space-time points, entailing naturally an interpretation of the theory in terms of fields. However, the notion of "operator-valued fields" that is typically expoused by practioners is criticized by the author and he lays out a different interpretation (but again using the Fock formalism), using as examples coherent states and vacuum fluctuations. He recognizes, quite correctly, that an interpretation as a quantum field takes place in a loose analogical relation to classical physics.

No treatment of quantum field theory could be complete without including a discussion of renormalization. The author does not really add anything new in his discussion, as a reader can gain essentially the same content and insight (and more) in currrent papers, preprints, monographs, and textbooks on the subject. The use of cut-offs and dimensional regularization are briefly discussed, but no new insights are given into them. His solution to the problem of renormalization is what he calls a "mask-of-ignorance" approach, in which he asserts that a correct quantum field theory will be completely free of infinities. The correct theory is unknown, but this does not matter as long as attention is restricted to expressions that are independent of the cutoff and the regularization scheme. This has been said many times already though, by many different researchers and expositors of quantum field theory. A quantum field theory free from divergences has yet to be found, but another approach to the problem of infinities has taken over, that one going by the name of string theory.

I should say first that I write as a mathematician who is not a physicist, but who is interested in the subject. For readers with some knowledge of nonrelativistic, single particle quantum mechanics, this is a good place to get an idea of what quantum field theory is about. The opening chapters are more philosophical than the later ones, which are more mathematical, but one should be willing to consider the topic from both these angles in order to get the most from this book. The development of the occupation-number formalism and Fock space is very clear and enjoyable, but matters get more difficult later on. The occasional excursions into relativistic field theory frankly lost me a couple of times. The last chapter, on renormalization, however, is again very lucid and accessible to someone with even a modest background. It seems to me that much of the interpretive work Teller undertakes is to understand the relationship and possible differences between quantum field-theory -- i.e., QFT as quantization of classical fields -- and quantum-field theory -- i.e., a field theory of 'quanta' which lack radical individuation, or as Teller says, "primitive thisness." Along these lines he gives some very good cautions against interpreting Feynman diagrams literally. Since the work is highly introductory in nature, being much less technical and extensive than books of similar titles by Sterman, Kaku, et al., it seems a little expensive at its full $35 hardcover price, but is certainly worth the $16.95 asked for paperbound

The timelines and bibliography are good. Otherwise, I would say this book reminds me of an offhand attempt to dispose of a topic the author has little interest in or sympathy for. Just to make the series complete. Shallow. If you want to read a much better Kierkegaard intro, try Donald D. Palmer's Kierkegaard for Beginners. It takes a little longer than 90 minutes, but it's written with gusto.

This book should have CAUTION written on it, as it is dangerous. Let me give you a few examples:

1) On page 7 it says, "Kierkegaard wasn't really a philosopher at all. At least not in the academic sense." If we say that academic philosophy does not recognize Kierkegaard as a philosopher we must also recognize that Kierkegaard thinks academic philosophy is a nest of charlatans and liars who have no right to judge his work. For Kierkegaard, Socrates is the paradigmatic philosopher. Imagine, for a moment, Plato's dialogue Protagoras. There is Socrates, who receives no money for teaching because he has nothing to teach. There are, on the other hand, the sophists, who claim to be able to teach the Sciences, real knowledge, in return for pay. Who does the academic philosopher resemble: Socrates or the sophist? Who does Kierkegaard more resemble? If Kierkegaard is not a philosopher, how is Socrates one? Certainly, Kierkegaard never claimed to be a philosopher (despite his Doctorate in Philosophy), calling himself a poet, but it must always be remembered that this is because he holds academic philosophers in contempt.

2) On page 8 is the claim that Kierkegaard invented existentialism, a claim about as absurd as Socrates invented philosophy or Jesus, Christianity. Sartre invented existentialism and then enlisted "precursors" to support the claim that he hadn't. Existentialism is one interpretation of Kierkegaard's work and is probably not the best one. Now that Post-Modernism is all the rage, Kierkegaard is being seen as Post-Modern (see Both-And by Michael Strawser). The problem is that what you bring to Kierkegaard is what you get out of him and if you are looking for existentialism in Kierkegaard, you will find it, whether its there or not.

3) In the chapter on "Life and Works" one of the most pervasive and difficult to dispell error about Kierkegaard is presented as fact. The author describes the pseudonymous authorship as Kierkegaard's attempt to disguise himself. This is true enough. The problem is that a pseudonym did nothing, in a small town like Copenhagen, to disguise his identity. Everybody in town knew who the author of Either/Or was. So clearly to say as the author did, "Once again Kierkegaard found himself in a pickle. . . .Put simply he wanted to hide behind a pseudonym, yet at the same time he wished to make it obvious it was a pseudonym"(p. 35) is disingenuous. Hello, I think everybody is going to figure out that A and B are not real names. I don't think he needs to signal people that these are pseudonyms. So what has Kierkegaard got to hide. Himself. He is trying to get free of his own history. He creates, not just pseudonyms, but characters which themselves embody philosophical ideas. By coming to understand the expressions, concerns and moods of these characters, a careful reader comes to understand a philosophical idea (for instance, in either /Or A embodies the aesthetic existence sphere and B the ethical sphere). There is a danger therefore in talking too much about Regine Olsen or Michael P. Kierkegaard as the source or meaning of Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works. Then one has a source for pat answers about Kierkegaard's meaning with no real interpretive depth. As long as one continues talking about Kierkegaard upbringing or his engagement one risks a surface interpretation displacing any hope of a deeper understanding.

I suggest Douglas Mullen's book Self-deception and cowardice in the Present Age, or Parables of Kierkegaard by Thomas Oden as alternatives.

Strathern is a master at this kind of work, which mixes biography, critical analysis, historical context and humor all in a concise, informative & entertaining package. He lists a time line for the philosopher, his place in world/philosophic history & a selection of works for furthur reading. This series of books by Strathern is a wonderful course in Philosophy 101 without ever having to go to college, all presented in plain, easy to understand English without being bogged down with philosophy's often confusing vernacular. If you are expecting an in-depth review or complete analysis of the philosopher's life & work, read another book. This is meant to be a quick, concise overview & that's just what it provides. There's suggested readings listed in the back for people who want to investigate Kierkegaard's life & works more thoroughly.

Did anyone proof this book? It's full of grammar, punctuation and typing errors. "This deference to prior decisions is the principal precedental effect, also called state decisis." Don't forget to ask your law professors about state decisis on your first day of class. "They not being provided for their accuracy." Thanks for the disclaimer, Grog. Apparently a cave man or woman edited this book. The examples go on and on. The fact that no one cares enough to correct these errors is sad; it makes it difficult to take the authors seriously. This, however, would all be a minor inconvenience if not for the fact that the information provided in Law School Companion is marginal at best. You can't help but feel as you turn the pages that The Princeton Review threw this together to make some extra money. Almost 40% of the book is devoted to sample course outlines. Sure, they call it Appendix I, but it's still part of the book. If you're looking for a book on law school preparation, this is not the one for you. The authors recommend that you read "one or two" books over the summer. That's great advice if you want to struggle to receive poor grades during your first year. The only real prep advice they give is to attend the NILE Law School Prep Program. In fact, the only phone number they give you is that of NILE. Turns out, two of the authors are NILE directors and the other is a NILE instructor! I expected more from The Princeton Review. If you're looking for a book on prep, try Planet Law School. I bought eight books on prep and found PLS gave me the most for my money. Many of the publications that the book recommends are difficult to obtain, but hunt is worth it.

I have read this book and know the authors. I know them because I attended the NILE program for several years before attending law school. Whether you buy this book and use it like a bible in law school or only buy it as a perusal of "what's to come" in law school, you should unquestionably get your hands on a NILE application and invest the money to go sometime before you begin law school. The authors of this book are dedicated to educating America's aspiring attorneys, and those who are "just looking" at the profession. As a successful law school graduate and second year associate at a great firm I can tell anyone considering law school that NILE is the single best preparatory experience you can find before actually going to law school. By the way, outlines are important for studying for exams. So if you're tempted to write off the book because of its concentration on course outlines...you'll be grateful for the guide when you're sitting in your apartment two weeks before exams and everyone is talking about their "study outlines." At that point, feeling lost and alone, open this book and thank the authors for a road map to your first outline. And remember, no book can make law school easy...if it could, we attorneys wouldn't grin in knowing sympathy when you, the law student, tell us how tough it is, and how confused you felt during those first few months. You don't need a book, you need a simple roadmap...and this is a roadmap. What you fill in along the way will be your "law school experience."

Please know that there are countless books which try to tell entering law school students about what to expect, how to deal with adversity, and reveal various strategies for success in law school. While this book is very effective about revealing the basic facts of law school, every future law school student must realize that there is no ONE set way to prepare for law school. If there were, there would be one book by one author and it would be the final word. But law school is not that way, life is not that way. Every person will have a unique experience in law school. If you are looking for a book to calm your nerves and make you feel more secure about what the next three years have in store for you, this book is right for you. But keep in mind that your experience will ultimately prevail over knowledge you gain from a book. I am entering my third year in law school, and the advice I recieved from other law students helped me more than any "help-book" did. My advice is for a prospective student to buy a variety of books to see different takes on law school. Include this book, then find a book by a law school graduate and get a book by a current law student. By seeing law school through different perspectives, you will be better prepared to have YOUR EXPERIENCE, and that one is the most important.

Some may enjoy this very loose trip to the past but it was dull for me. Lots of conjecture about the distant past. I prefer something more concrete.

Okay, Okay so this isn't up to the Kirkus Reviews' idea of good anthropology...But, for those of us who love a fun, speculative look at the human behavior it's great!! There does seem to be some inborn need to experiment with our thought processes and this book makes a strong case for an historical presidence.

Devereux's Trip is an essential work for those interested in human origins and development; the development, evolution and exploration of the human consciousness; and the application and influence of natural psychotropic substances in these realms. The Trip may be a somewhat cumbersome read for those unacquainted with academically rigorous anthropological discourse-- the text is often meticulously detailed, providing an account of what seems to be every conceivable snippet of evidence for the exploratory use of psychotropics throughout the long span of human prehistory. However, such detailed examination is used to establish and re-enforce the author's important and extremely valuable insights. What others have only conjectured in this understudied field, Devereux substantiates and strengthens. As those aware of the power of psychotropics and their marked influence upon many of our world's dominant religions, philosophies and arts have long assumed, psychotropics HAVE and continue to play an incredible role in our continuing collective experience. Here in Devereux's Long Trip is the who, what, when, where, why, and how much (!) -- a mesmerizing tour through our ancestor's peculiar past with particular emphasis on this undervalued facet of that past, a photo album replete with fascinating glimpses into the universal drive and thirst for discovery, knowledge and truth. Highly recommended to those already interested in psychotropic use, as this text, above many others, provides an accurate introductory sweep of the true depth of such experimentation and exploration; but even more highly recommended to those skeptical of the influence, value, importance and benefits such substances, curiously available in our own Grand Backyard, have the potential capacity to provide.

The book promises a lot but delivers very little. In the final analysis it is a book in the typical management science genre. The conclusions are based on anecdotal observations. The book offers little for the hands-on manager looking for guidance in forming a commercialization strategy for new technologies.

Most marketing books in the high tech area assume that the company putting new, high tech products into the market are large and with an established presence and reputation in the market place - this gives them a good start in commercialising and marketing. Some even say that marketing high tech products is no different than for consumer products and can essentially follow the steps of 'finding out what the customers want and then giving it to them'. Millier challenges this and states that there are many circumstances where the technology has to be 'pushed' or 'sold' into a market that may be uninterested at best or negative. The book seems to be written from experience and his recommendations and explanations are backed up with case histories mostly from Europe, where he lives and works. I found his approach to this difficult area more down to earth and realistic than many others that only draw from one industry or are 'converted' consumer textbooks.For people with new technology but not in big multi-nationals I think that this book has something useful to offer.

This book is a must read book for whose who are willing to launch a new technological product that does not have a market yet. This book is full of practical & realistic insights. It is a very important area that almost no other books that I know address. When ressources are limited, 'marketing the unknown' will drive you to a fundemental , structured & highly defendable (to your organisation) plan. Experiences proved it works and lead to results.

I was very surprised when I ordered this book and found out that yes, indeed, it was merely a very tiny portion of what I had expected. I suppose I should have known from the price, but the description (at least at that time) did not make it clear that it wasn't the entire dictionary.

While this may be a very thorough source for the words it covers, it should be noted in the basic information that this is ONLY 128 pages of a 15,000 page work. The description above is very misleading.

itz a dictionary. what more can i say

A morbid attraction to the dying words of a great writer that fails greatly here. Occasionaly there are glimpses of her past greatness but most of the book is full of nonsense such as like: "I've never been pretentious.", "Both of us are innocents" (Refering to her 29 year old lover and her in her 80's (?)), "I don't know how to add. All I know how to do is create."

This very short work is followed by an essay that has some insight but mostly it's serious prose that sounds weighter than it really is. It is written by Christiane Blot-Labarrere who is (according to the book) "among the very few whose writtings were respected by Duras."

This is the type of book many creative writting students are writting and it is an example of why many intellgent readers do not read "serious books." Pick up the Lover instead to see this woaman's greatness.

This book's greatest values are (a) a look into the mind of a great author approaching death and (b) an interesting writing style ... Duras with a touch of Jabes! Duras approaches death with an honest mix of human emotions - sometimes very attached to Yann, sometimes reconciled to death as the ultimate letting go of Yann; sometimes proud and nearly pretentious regarding her writings, sometimes humbly expecting to be soon forgotten. Unlike some authors writing in similiar straits, Duras feels no need to pretend that age has made her wise. Rather she reflects as if age has only made her experienced.

If you've not read Duras and have no particular interest in human reaction to impending death, read several Duras books before reading No More but at some point read No More - it is time well spent.

Marguerite's last book. A conversation with her last lover, Yann Andrea, about herself, her love of him, her "I-got-used-to-it" genius and the feeling that the end is coming. Very impressive, but only for radical "durasians"

This book was one of my required text during Massage school. I found it to be a very hard read. Too much fluff & not enough stuff. The majority of my fellow classmates felt the same.

OUTCOME-BASED MASSAGE Carla-Krystin Andrade & Paul Clifford Lippincott William's & Wilkins 2001 373pp £22.50 ISBN 0 7818 1743 4

The American authors of this book provide a very thorough view of a wide range of massage approaches including superficial reflex, superficial fluidd, neuromuscular, connective tissue, passive movement and percussive techniques. The detail on treatment techniques make it more appropriate for the student physiotherapist, but the occupational therapist working in neurology or rehabilitation is likely to find the diagrams and photographs in the text helpful in informing their practice.

As an occupational therapy student, I found the focus on outcome measures and the treatment process helpful in considering my own practice. Looking at the links between impairment and outcome and the approach to goal-setting is of interest.

The chapter on the best posture for the clinician in delivering treatment helped, me not just with this kind of treatment, but also in considering my general physical use of self and my use in manual handling. There is an emphasis on the clinician preparing herself for treatment, an approach which occupational therapists, in the heat of the moment, can sometimes forget.

This is a book which I am unlikely to read cover to cover but which I will dip in to when I want to understand how to deal with physical problems. I think it will help me to interpret a client's dysfunction more effectively than I could otherwise have done. I am not sure that occupational therapists will want to go out and buy it for their course but it would be worth persuading your physiotherapist friends to buy and then borrowing it as required! One word of warning, the book seems to be designed to use as a practical reference manual and is printed on light weight paper, which makes it easy to carry around but not very robust.

As an instructor of PT Students, this is by far the best overall text for massage and soft-tissue techniques on the market. It uses Guide to PT Practice language and the impairment model. The cases demonstrate decision making, documentation, and suggest the adjunct treatments that would be indicated. This text is clear, concise and clinically relevant in today's practice environment. In addition to basic massage, it also covers trigger points, reflexology, manual lymph drainage, and other techniques, and gives appropriate emphasis to each. An excellent resource for any educational program or PT practice performing massage!

This started very well. It's worth reading, a good overview of how taoism developed, lucid explanations of some of the more arcane/theological ideas (like "the three pure ones"). It's accessible but still scholarly.

But then, when he gets to internal alchemy, he suddenly shifts into an obviously sectarian point-of-view with several fanatical opinions that he starts passing off as some sort of ultimate truth. For example, he basically says anyone, even a chinese, who is in the west operating under the title "taoist master" is by definition a fraud. That one would have to go to the far east and spend many years looking for a real master among the lonely mountain crags, blah, blah, blah. In other words, this holy practice isn't for the likes of you and me, brother and sister. I read later that this guys is some kind of initiate into a particular taoist sect.

I can think of two people from the east who are operating as taoist masters in the west: Master Ni Hua Ching and Mantak Chia (both of whom offer books through amazon) and are very well respected.

My question is: through what omniscience does mr. Wildish claim to know about every master living in the west? Is he saying if he and his friends don't personally know the man or woman, they must be no good? This is ridiculous.

That mars the book seriously. If you are trying to write as a scholar you should also adopt the rules of scholarship and stick to what you can know and leave the sectarian baloney to other people.

Still, if you can put up with that sort of thing, it's worth reading.

Mr. Wildish TRIED to write an introduction to Taoism, but he made several errors.

Page VII: The Author states "Taoism predates christianity by 400-500 years.

Taoism goes back more than 5,000 years. Predating both Judaism, and the offshoot religion "christianity".

Page 4: "The legendary Yellow Emperor is regarded as a founding father of Chinese civilization, and is said to have lived between 2697 and 2597 BCE."

These dates are in error (about 200 years before the birth of the Yellow Emperor) The Yellow Emperors treatise on internal medicine was allegedly written in 2445 BCE.

Page 17: Mr. Wildish misnames one of the three treasures as Ching. The three treasures are Jing, Ch'i, and Shen.

Page 98: Mr. Wildish misnames the Conception, and Governing Qi vessels as the Directing and Tu meridians. Qi Vessels and meridians are NOT the same.

If you want to study Taoism; please see my Taoism listmania list, or even better; buy a copy of "The Shambhalla Guide To Taoism" by Eva Wong; Two Bears.

Wah doh Ogedoda (We give thanks Great Spirit)

Wildish does an admirable job of trying to convey the history, development and basic principles of Taoism in this very slim book. He has used Eva Wong's material as his main source - this is evident by his use of "ching" as opposed to the more 'standard' "jing" found in many Taoist texts. He also uses dates found in Wong's books.

The book combines a useful blend of history and philosophy to convey the general ideas behind Taoism. There are also some short sections on external and internal alchemy including some very basic information on Qigong.

This is far superior to "Simple Taoism" and would be a good starting point for someone who is curious about Taoism. The next step would be Wong's work and perhaps Schipper's "The Taoist Body". Grigg's "The Tao of Zen" has some great historical work as well.

I believe the first edition of this book was published in the late sixties. Well before the 1982 publication of Frank MacShane's gigantic tome "The Selected Letters of Raymond Chandler", and Robert B. Parker's "Poodle Springs" in which he would complete "The Poodle Springs Story" But now that those books exist (one of which has been reprinted in two seperate editions to tie in with HBO's 1998 telvision movie "Poodle Springs") they make "Raymond Chandler Speaking" obsolete and as such 99.99% useless. All of the essays that are reprinted are also reprinted in the stellar Library of America volume "Later Novels and Other Writings" All of the added together means that the sole reason to purchase "Raymond Chandler Speaking" is the short story "A Couple of Writers". Why no one else has reprinted it is beyond me. And another thing, how can a whole section be devoted to Raymond Chandler on famous crimes and not include Chandler's 1948 article for "Cosmopolitan" "The Ten Greatest Crimes of the Century"??? In which case "Raymond Chandler Speaking would only be 99.98% useless as this article has not been published in book form. I obtained my copy from the public library in the form of a grainy photocopy. As near as I can tell, this paperback copy was published in '97 which would have given them more than enough time from the publication of Macshane and Parker's books to revise this new edition to include more relevant items.

Originally published in 1962, this collage of excerpts from Chandler's letters, essays and drafts today is a rather unsatisfactory way to begin dabbling in Chandler's non-fiction. A much better book is the Selected Letters of Raymond Chandler, and I understand a new book of the man's correspondance will be published in early 2001. The problem with Raymond Chandler Speaking is that everything is sliced, diced and presented in a very artificial order. You have a sections such as "Raymond Chandler on Cats," Raymond Chandler on Detective Novels," and "Raymond Chandler on Writers." Most of the material is excerpted from letters--letters which appear in full and in chronological order in the Selected Letters of RC. In this book, just as Chandler's rhythm starts to click in, just as the writing's beginning to get interesting, the snippet ends. Editor Dorothy Gardiner has made a good first attempt at giving readers a feel for the author, but its been done much better since then. Of course, you get some good oddball selections from RC, like a short story ("A Couple of Writers"), the "Writers in Hollywood" essay and RC's contribution to Poodle Springs, a 12-page start to a novel that Robert B. Parker would later finish and publish as a post-mortem collaboration. There's enough here to warrant a Chandler completist to include in his/her collection, but if you want to read something with a little more momentum and that gives you a better sense of RC as a person, read the Selected Letters first.

A "page turner" is a term I usually reserve for compelling and dramatic fiction, but in this case it is apt for "Raymond Chandler Speaking," the closest thing we have to a memoir or autobiography from the most influential mystery writer of the 20th century. Although not a particularly prolific novelist, Chandler was, nevertheless, an inveterate letter writer, and his words, penned in the haunting hours of the night and probably often in an alcoholic stupor, provide wonderful insight into this man who turned a low-brow fictional form into poetry. If you've enjoyed his novels, but not gotten around to this collection of letters and a few other writings (including the first four chapters of his last novel, "Poodle Springs"), then you're in for a treat: the colorful phrase, the scintillating simile, the terse but punchy sentence-all trademarks of his groundbreaking fiction-are found in abundance here, as Chandler waxes philosophically on Hollywood, agents, writers, publishers, and cats (the feline kind). You will find something in this small volume that you could not possibly anticipate on a topic you would think would be off turf: for me it was Chandler writing on the dysfunctional effects of television, as he saw it in 1950; with pen cynically dripping with sarcasm, he wrote: "Television is really what we have been looking for all our lives.... You turn a few knobs, a few of those mechanical adjustments at which the higher apes are so proficient, and lean back and drain your mind of all thought.... You don't have to concentrate. You don't have to react. You don't have to remember. You don't miss your brain because you don't need it." Fifty years later, a good portion of the sum of academic and professional criticism of television are mere extensions of Chandler's intuitive judgment about the medium. Chandler's matchless mind and personality could have led him to many successful careers, if he controlled his personal demons; but he chose detective fiction over business, academics, politics or social/cultural criticism. This volume of letters and writings give us insight into his complex mind with its deep secrets and doubts. Little wonder this book, first published in 1962, remains (with updated introductory material) in print and a staple for libraries and the personal collections of people who like exploring the treads of genius that launched a new literary form.