Obtuse, ill-concieved, and at times poorly organized, this book was the bane of my undergraduate Medieval EuropeClass... I found it to have little value in understanding the cult of ennobled love in Medieval Europe. Few times did I actually garner new insight about the subject, and to make matters worse, I not only had to write a paper on it, I also was not fortunate enough to purhase it on Amazon.com I bought at my campus bookstore and I ended up paying more for it.

Ennobling love explores the gradual transformation on the concept of love in medival Europe. Jaeger argues that, from the early to the later middle ages, the European aristocracy had developed two distinct forms of love. The first form, "Ciceronian" or old love, was based on Roman ideals that were adapted by the early medieval courts. This love was based on the nobility of the person's mind and soul, and this shared love was a reflection of both parties' superior virtue. The individuals were not in love with the other's physical beauty, but with their inner worth, which made these relationships predominantly non-sexual. To express this feeling of mutual excellence this form of love needed to be a public affair.These bonds between men had always been prevelant in warrior societies, where comradship was vital for both the individual's and the society's survival. Jaeger sees a new pattern of courtly love emerging in the twelfth century, that of "Ovidian" or "new love". He argues that this reflected the increased inclusion of women in society and the proliferation, in learned society of the sensuous poems of the Roman poet Ovid. This form of love differed greatly from its chaste This form of love differed greatly from its chaste Ciceronian counterpart, in that it involved women, and was sexual in nature. In this form of love the woman became the reward for the man's moral improvement. Unlike the logical relationships between males, Ovidian love was highly passionate, and at times illogical. Love was portrayed as part of the natural world and came to be seen as beyond the control of human beings. Courtly literature attempted to reconcile this physical love with ennobling love. For Historians of sexuality, Jaeger presents the challenge of whether the study of "homosexuality" is valid. He argues that modern scholars are too influenced by Freudian thinking and fail to comprehend the different mindset of the medieval individual.In doing he seems to ignore prefreudian researchers who suggest that certain behaviors could be seen as homoseual by modern definitions. I would add that the question of whether the term homosexual is a valid to term is a relativly moot point. Whether individuals had sex or not and defined themselves as a unique group is not nearly important as the ideal of masculine culture. What level of attraction or praise of the worth and beauty of same sex individuals was acceptable in the medieval world is an issue I am interested in, not an argument over linguistics.Though I would agree with Jaeger that it is difficult to escape from our own notions on masculinity and relationships sexual and non-sexual. Overall this was a very interesting read.

Little information other than extremely general data on historic returns. One of the few investment books I have ever read that I did not find something useful to remember.

Not bad for a someone on the street, however, it has very limited use for a professional. Contains a lot of repeats (and I mean a lot of). Would not recommend if a professional insight to hedge funds is being searched for. The book would be useful for those who are completely hedge fund illiterate or just curious what a hedge fund is.

Even though this book is 3 years old, it still serves as a very good primer to the hedge fund industry. Anyone wishing to gain a fundamental understanding of how hedge funds work and how they can be used will find the book easy to read. A lot of details are covered; e.g., a discussion about hedge fund indexes. Even for a professional like myself, I find the book to be a good reference every time I forget a concept or two.

I spent a month in Central America, circling from Belize through Northern Guatemala into Chiapas back into South-Central Guatemala into Honduras back up to East Guatemala and into Belize again. Normally, I always travel with Lonely Planet guidebooks. However, I got this book instead of the one by Lonely Planet covering the same basic area because I had read negative reviews of the LP version here on Amazon. I won't make that mistake again -- the Rough Guide to the Maya World is a disappointment.

The Good:
The strongest point was the the cultural background, though counterintuitively, it is relegated to the back of the book as kind of an afterthought. Based on my past experiences with LP, I still believe that Lonely Planet is more comprehensive, though, so this is faint praise for the Rough Guide.

The Bad:
Maybe this happens with all guidebooks to volatile regions, but much of the info was woefully out of date. At least one of the five or so restaurants listed in every city I visted had gone out of business. Prices, especially for expeditions from Flores, had very nearly doubled in some cases.

On a related note, and much less forgivable, some places were in different locations than they were marked on the maps. In some cases, the text gave the right address, but the map was mismarked. In other cases, text was scattered across the maps in a way that you couldn't figure out which building it was referring to. LP crushes the Rough Guide both in the quality and quantity of maps -- several times I wandered into town with no map, something that LP will never do to you.

Some info which would have been interesting to know and very easy to list (population, for example, or detailed info about the climate and temperature, or info about local artwork and craftwork, or even descriptions of what the particular crafts and food that made a town famous) were absent.

Listed durations for Guatemalan buses were laughable. Take whatever the Rough Guide says a trip will last and add about 33%. Maybe even 50%. If they say that a trip will last five hours or more, expect it to take a full day. Belize and Mexico were generally more accurate.

The physical book itself was not very durable, and after taking generally good case of it for 3 weeks, pages started to fall out even though I had not bent the book or otherwise harshly handled it. This made me really appreciate LP's durable spines.

One very irritating trend in the book is that borders often have different and conflicting information listed for them, depending on which country chapter you are reading -- for example, the Guatemala chapter will describe the border as staffed by very corrupt officials and with 3 connecting buses every day into Mexico, while the Mexico chapter won't mention the border guards and will list 5 connecting buses into Mexico. It's as if the writers for each country never compared their notes, or went at different times, or the editors never proofread everything to have it all add up. In short, the border info is pretty sloppy.

Worst of all, border taxes (legitimate ones for boat and air departures rather than the shakedowns the books describes and which seldom actually happen) were out of date -- you have to pay a big chunk of change to leave Guatemala by plane or boat, for example, and Belize always gouges you for leaving, though not the same price for each means of transport. Check with online bulletin boards for up to date info.

Conclusion:
Like I said, the Rough Guide disappointed me. While probably only about 15% was wrong, I ended up spending considerable time and money because of those shortcomings. Even though the LP guide for the same area has been trashed by Amazon users, I would still advise getting that book, if only for the benefit of having a complete set of maps at your disposal. Also, in my experience, LP books are more coherent and readable. Sight unseen, I say go with LP instead.

It was time for our annual trip to foreign fields, so Imogen and I visited Merida in the Yucatan Peninsula in September 2000. We took two guidebooks with us -- the Rough Guide to the Mayan World and a slightly out of date Lonely Planet Guide to Mexico. Our intention was to visit several Mayan sites on the vacation, so we chose the Rough Guide expecting the coverage of the Mayan sites to be good. As it turned out, we found the Rough Guide to be particularly disappointing in the coverage of the Mayan sites, particularly when compared with the Lonely Planet guide. The Rough Guide reads as if it has been cobbled together from the different Rough Guides for the different countries that make up the Mayan region. We did not think there had been sufficient effort to build a focus on the Mayan world.

While out in Mexico, we went on two highly enjoyable trips to the two major Mayan sites in the state of Yucatan -- Chichen Itza and Uxmal. There are maps of both of these sites in both guidebooks, but the description and explanation in the text of the Lonely Planet guide surpasses that of the Rough Guide. However, where we felt the Rough Guide really disappointed was in the coverage of minor sites. We journeyed to Uxmal via the Ruta Puuc. This is a roundabout route that takes in four minor sites before reaching the grand finale of Uxmal. The Lonely Planet guide had at least a couple of paragraphs on each of these minor sites and occasionally a map. The Rough Guide had almost nothing for some of the sites. When we were traveling to the sites on a very smooth road, it amused us to read the description of the barely paved road we were actually using according to the Rough Guide. I suppose the Rough Guide made us feel like we were undertaking a far more difficult and romantic adventure.

On a brighter note, the Rough Guide did a better job of describing the town of Merida. We found Merida's bus service particularly confusing since there are at least five bus terminals that are well used. The Rough Guide gave a slightly clearer account of which terminals to use. One small point is to ignore all of the prices in either of the books. This accuracy is not the fault of either of the books but just the nature of the Mexican currency. Both books make it clear that the prices will be inaccurate, however it is still worth repeating. Just by way of an example, the Rough Guide quotes the entry price for Uxmal as 4 US dollars. We actually handed over 80 pesos each, or closer to 9 US dollars. This magnitude of difference was not uncommon. I suspect the Rough Guide was written when the Mexican peso had just dropped to a low against the dollar and prices in Mexico had not adjusted.

Viva Mexico! But take the Lonely Planet Guide!