To paraphrase A. S. Byatt, Leavis shows us the terrible, magnificent importance and urgency of English literature and simultaneously deprives us of any confidence in our own capacity to contribute to, or change it. This book is a classic example of his style. While Leavis's lack of equivocation is still thrilling, so totalising are his views that we are often left wondering if we even deserve to be thinking about the same issues. The problem with Leavis is not simply that he took a false position with regard to the relationship between culture and literature. The problem is that he, like Matthew Arnold before him, failed to acknowledge the ideological basis for his vision. Despite having aesthetic values which were clearly ideologically-informed, they both treated these values as if they were non-ideological. They saw their aesthetic choices as facts, necessarily ideology-free and non-negotiable. Arnold can be forgiven for such a view, living in the nineteenth century. For Leavis it was a luxury. For us, it is indefensible.

Throughout his life, Leavis steadfastly refused to defend his critical standards because he did not see them as choices which needed defending. Yet a defence of the Leavisite criteria - something which will make this book more meaningful to contemporary readers - can actually be mounted, and John Casey provides one in 'The Language of Criticism' (1966). This defence does not suggest Leavis's views are as unarguably true as he imagined them to be. Rather, it articulates the implied theory of art which underlies them, and thereby opens them up for serious debate: something which Leavis himself was never courageous enough to do.

I have opted to use this book in a course on newswriting for various distribution channels but I am not as pleased with it as I anticipated. One of the first disappointments is that the accompanying classroom material promoted in the text is simply not available, and the publisher is not willing to say if it ever will be. The material included a video of some of the footage discussed in the text, and a promised web site, which was to keep current examples of good and bad writing available, with other goodies hinted at. Both promised to be great classroom tools to enhance understanding, but now I find myself having to try to explain why referenced examples in the text do not exist. The book, however, does a very solid job of providing an overview of several valuable concepts - most notably the idea that good writing is still at the core of communications, with delivery systems helping aim at specific audiences with specific interests and needs. The emphasis on content and accuracy, regardless of delivery, is strong throughout the book. The authors use two major news stories as illustrations across the chapters, which is nice to follow, but also a little confusing, since we don't have the video clips to support the discussions. The material is not damaged, though, and the principles are still communicated. It's not very detailed and I would like to have seen more specific advice given involving the distinctions between the writing styles themselves. The material is touched on, but not heavily addressed. That, however, would have lengthened the 225-page book and made it more intimitating that it needs to be. Perhaps in this era of exploring this issue of writing across the media, this brevity is the right approach. I know I'll have more success getting students to make it through this book than I do requiring them to wade through some other heftier texts I've tried. In all, it's a great first step. Now it's time for more detail and analysis. Who's game?

This book is an anthology of essays describing some important aspects of literature and criticism. It's a really good idea, but badly done here. The book identifies itself as 'a landmark introduction to the work of literary theory' and claims to be suitable for 'the reader beginning to learn about critical theory.' A more accurate description might be, 'written by stuffy, self-important old people for same to enjoy.'

The editors seem to have taken great pains to select works written by people who feel a need to choose the longest word they can find to represent an idea; if a suitably long word does not exist, they combine a word with prefixes and suffixes until they are satisfied. There is no reason to write like this, especially if you're trying to teach someone something. The chapters of the book can be translated into speaking man's English to good effect, and every one of the 28 critical terms really is simple enough to explain without the comically frequent fallback on Latin phrases and words.

I don't know why so many people think this is a great book. Maybe because it's filled with words like 'prosopopoeia,' which is, I'll admit, a valid English word, but a little bit limited in its general use among readers beginning to learn about critical theory. The flow of the essays becomes stinted by the necessity of referring to a dictionary at every fourth word and then translating the resulting mess into a sentence that normal people understand.

In short, this is a bad textbook. The authors have hidden very simple concepts behind such a thick wall of confusing use of language and terminology that the reader becomes a gold miner, chipping away at the useless mountain of words before him to extract what little vein of content he can find.

This book offers a very interesting, concise look into many of the terms employed by contemporary literary/critical theory. I would suggest anyone read this book if they want a short introduction to some of the thoughts employed by contemporary critics when analyzing a piece of literature. It is not, however, sufficient as an introduction to that theory. I would suggest supplementing this text with several primary sources--people who want to speak intelligently about Foucault or Derrida or Lacan or Saussure should read their primary readings. If one decides not to, one comes out with the impression that these literary critics could give the last, or at least the most authoritative, word on their topic. This is, of course, not necessarily so. Use this book, it is an exemplary secondary source on literary theory, but supplement it with primary readings to get a more nuanced impression of contemporary thoughts about literature.

Many times I found myself arguing against the assertions made about literature and theory in this book. I think, perhaps, that sometimes particular "American" critics fail to capture the fullness of the arguments by French theorists. This is not to say that "American" theorists "do not get it"; however, it should make you weary about simply accepting the presentation of the topics in this book. The ideas presented by literary theory are inordinately complex, and sometimes it takes actually grappling with the confusing language of the French, or of the translated French (though this introduces yet another problem) to actually understand what critics actually say about literature.

By all means, buy this book for a concise rendering of the issues. However, do not think for a moment that this book accurately portrays contemporary literary study in its fullness. There is so much more than this book initially communicates.

The book provides a very useful guide to terms ranging from Lacanian desire to narrative. Each author discusses the history of the term and its current use and then goes on to use the term to inform their own critical reading of a specific text or texts, providing a very useful illustration of the term's implications.

The important thing that I notice is that the book is too heavily based on the Open Card framework. I needed instead a book on java card first. Only found some tutorials on the net until now.

As a person who is concerning in developing javacards via OCF, found this one very useful due to contents that it has on framework. You could get and develop off-card apps, if it does make sense to you..

While there is no doubt that Frank Lloyd Wright's houses are spectacular, and I am a big fan, this book does them no justice at all. It is scrappily put together and contains some of the worst photography I have ever seen. A real let down. While it does not cost much, your money will be wasted if you buy this book.

I would not recommend this book; I really could not find anything worth the time it took to read it. I only got half way through it and that was about 100 pages too much. There are too many good books out there.

Despite having an accurate title and being the most recent biography of George H. Thomas this book was the pits. The author relies too much on primary sources and battle reports and thus takes the exciting story of a Virginian who fought for the Union during the Civil War into an unreadable mess. I am glad to see books written on Thomas, however this one is a major disappointment.