"Brush" is my favorite "little boy" book, although it's perfectly wonderful for little girls too. I buy it in bulk when it's available in print (it's sometimes very hard to find) and give it as presents whenever I can. "Brush" reaffirms the magic of childhood and gently reminds parents that they really don't know it all.

When a little boy's naughty dog misbehaves, his parents insist he give it away (that is still the harshest part to swallow). Heartbroken, the little one searches for a replacement among his family funriture. He finally settles on an old scrub brush, which he adopts as his pet. He inists that it is real and takes it (on a leash) everywhere with him. The grown ups in his life balk at this charade and chide him for his frivolous imagination. But he does not despair. One evening when his family is in danger, Brush saves the day, proving that things are not always what they seem. Fortunately, the parents admit their shortsightedness and embrace Brush as one of their own. I love this book because it is at once kooky, sweet, funny, and poignant. We grown ups don't know it all. And listening to our children opens up worlds of wonder that we might never experience if we don't really listen to what they have to say.

The title of this book, The Lexicon of Terror, really only covers one chapter and an occassional reference here and there to how the junta manipulated language to influence the minds of the people. The book mostly covered the context of the Dirty War, the main bad guys, and many stories of victims.

After interviewing the victims, Feitlowitz has no mercy for the military perpatrators of the war. Even when she interviews Balza, the army cheif of staff in 1996 who seemed like one of the more repantant of the military guys, she isn't afraid to ask him tough questions.

She covers the book in both dichronic and synchronic time. She goes through chronology from the coup that put Videla in charge to the recovery of the country that was still going on when she finished her book in 1997. But in addition to that, she covers the stories of the individuals involved in the atrocities. One of the details that struck me the most was when she talked about former desaparecidos running into their former captors on the street. One captor even asked a victim how her family was doing.

Feitlowitz also tells about Scilingo, a former navy officer tortured by his memories of throwing living but drugged "subversives" from a plane on the infamous night flights. His life was ruined by his participation. She even makes an effort to explain that complicity in the army was guaranteed because if a member of the army did not follow orders or expressed concern with what was happening, they would soon disappear themselves. The excuse rings a little hollow, though, because of the brutalness of the torture.

History is frightening. I enjoyed how she talked about the way words were used as propaganda because it is an aspect of all governments. While I don't think our current administration is on par with Videla by any means, they certainly twist words to influence the way we thing about things, that play on our patriotism (the Patriot Act for instance) and our fear of terrorism. I don't think there is a government that doesn't try to influence the vocabulary of its people for their own purposes. Being able to recognize what they are doing allows us to maintain our freedom.

This is a shocking and painful book to read. There are other books which document the torture and atrocities of the Argentinian Dirty War in more detail, but none that reveals the horror of it all by providing examples and analysis of the words, phrases and verbal concepts of the perpetrators and their victims. The title, "Lexicon of Terror," could not have been chosen better for seemingly neutural words like "process" and "change" and dozend of others are shown to have been corrupted intellectually so that the physical corruption which followed was almost inevitable.

The book combines three disciplines that are rarely treated in the same volume, much less understood by the same person. But history, lexicography, and journalism are intertwined to such a degree that the blend is complete.

The author, in her low key style, deals with occurances and happenings that for most of us would cry out for justice. But by limiting her treatment to understanding the problem, she is even more effective on motivating the reader to search for soloution.

Most of us are familiar with the phrase that knowledge is power, but this relatively short book is a great example of the power (in this case for evil) of language. The reader will never look at partisan political dialogue in the same way again.

One annoying feature is terribly small type, so those who need reading glasses, do not forget them. The rest of the work is brilliant and terrible in the literal meaning of the word, which is what makes it so wonderful, thoudh disconcerting and depressing as well.

Reading this volume is a must for anyone who loves and respects language, freedom, and human rights for you will learn how intertwined they can be.

What really struck me about this book was how well Maruerite Feitlowitz captured the subtleties of the effects terror and repression had on the Argentine population. For example, she discusses how a popular women's magazine, Para Ti, incorporated pro-Proceso rhetoric and even military-inspired fashion into its message during the war. The book is based extensively on first-person testimonials, many of which come from interviews conducted by Feitlowitz herself. Two chapters I found especially revealing dealt with the failure of Jewish leadership to defend its people during the crisis, and with the crippling effect of repression on one rural agrarian league. Two minor complaints: There was little discussion of the systematic repression of union leaders, which intended to (and succeeded in) severely weakening labor's role in Argentina. Also, at least in the paperback version, the print was tiny! If your eyes are getting weak, reading glasses are a must!

It's amazing how our perspective changes as we age. What we thought was important as children may now seem completely insignificant, replaced by entirely new priorities, priorities children wouldn't even understand. At the same time, things we used to take for granted, like having dinner on the table, being taken care of when we're ill, or getting toys fixed when they are broken, have become items on adult worry lists.

Your perspective on literature can change, too. Reading a story for a second time can give you a completely different view of it. "Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain, which I enjoyed as a sort of an adventure story when I was a kid, now reads as a harsh criticism of society in general and the institution of slavery in particular.

The same thing is true of "Gulliver's Travels" by Jonathan Swift. The first thing I realized upon opening the cover of this book as a college student was that I probably had never really read it before.

I knew the basic plot of Lemuel Gulliver's first two voyages to Lilliput and Brobdingnag, home of the tiny and giant people, respectively, but he had two other voyages of which I was not even aware: to a land of philosophers who are so lost in thought they can't see the simplest practical details, Laputa, and to a land ruled by wise and gentle horses or Houyhnhnms and peopled by wild, beastly human-like creatures called Yahoos.

While this book has become famous and even beloved by children, Jonathan Swift was certainly not trying to write a children's book.

Swift was well known for his sharp, biting wit, and his bitter criticism of 18th century England and all her ills. This is the man who, to point out how ridiculous English prejudices had become, wrote "A Modest Proposal" which suggested that the Irish raise their children as cattle, to be eaten as meat, and thereby solve the problems of poverty and starvation faced in that country. As horrible as that proposal is, it was only an extension of the kinds of solutions being proposed at the time.

So, although "Gulliver's Travels" is entertaining, entertainment was not Swift's primary purpose. Swift used this tale of a guillable traveler exploring strange lands to point out some of the inane and ridiculous elements of his own society.

For example, in describing the government of Lilliput, Swift explains that officials are selected based on how well they can play two games, Rope-Dancing and Leaping and Creeping. These two games required great skill in balance, entertained the watching public, and placed the politicians in rather ridiculous positions, perhaps not so differently from elections of leaders in the 18th century and even in modern times.

Give this book a look again, or for the first time. Even in cases in which the exact object of Swift's satire has been forgotten, his sweeping social commentary still rings true. Sometimes it really does seem that we are all a bunch of Yahoos.

Jonathan Swift's 18th century satire, Gulliver's Travels, is an extraordinary tale of the adventures of an English ship surgeon. The ship surgeon, Gulliver, by a series of unfortunate events on each of his four voyages at sea, receives the chance to explore the cultures of the countries of Lilliput, Brobdingnag, Laputa, Balnibarbi, Glubbdubdrib, Luggnagg and the land of the Houyhnhnms. Each land is considerably different from the others, and creates quite an entertaining read.

While the story itself is particularly unusual, the satirical element which Swift applied to it adds another level of comprehension. If understood, one could have a nice chuckle at the way Swift mockingly portrays ideas and people through the various cultures which Gulliver encounters. Some similes, however, are intended to get a more serious meaning across. For example, in his first journey of the book, Gulliver finds himself in the country of Lilliput where the people are only six inches tall, save the king who is seven. In this land there are two groups which were distinguished by which side a person breaks their eggs on. One king published an edict commanding all his subjects to break their eggs on the small side, but many would've picked death over breaking their eggs on the 'wrong' side, so many did. By this, Swift meant to throw contempt on the exaggerated importance that people place on their differences, as on which side one breaks an egg is a very trivial thing. The two groups mentioned represent the Catholic and Protestant religions, between which were many wars and massacres during the 1500's when the Protestants first appeared.

Gulliver's Travels takes the reader to many lands, all different and unique ' each adding another perspective on traditional beliefs and ways of thinking. Gulliver changes as much as the scenery around him, and after each voyage he has changed dramatically. At the end he has transformed so much that I feel really sorry for his family ' although it's only love that could allow them to put up with his strange behaviors.

I would recommend this book to anyone with an appetite for literature, as Gulliver's Travels is an excellent satire of the ways of the thinking in the early 1700's. Also, the author does a good job in describing the lands which Gulliver visits in great detail. Although Swift may not have written this book with intense action scenes and steamy romance, it is definitely a work worthy of the people of today.

Swift's classic satire of English and European governments, societies, and cultures should be required reading of every college student. (Except for those who appear to be in law school as is the earlier reviewer who referred to Swift as being an "18th century Unabomber." Swift may have been conservative in his beliefs and not cared much for individuals such as Robert Boyle, who is satirized in the book, but he was not violent. Perhaps our "law student/reviewer" is offended by Swift's biting satire of lawyers and politicians in part four.) The version I read was an annotated edition by Isaac Asimov and contained many passages that had been deleted by previous publishers. Asimov's comments enable the reader to more fully appreciate Swift's satire. In part one of the novel, a ship's surgeon, Lemuel Gulliver, is shipwreaked and finds himself on the island of Lilliput, the inhabitants all being only six inches high. This section is great satire of English politics and wars. Royal ponp, feuds amongst the populace, and wars are made to look rediculous. In the second part, Gulliver finds himself in Brobdingnag in which he is only six "inches" tall (relatively speaking). This part forms another satire of European governments. In part three, Gulliver visits the flying island of Laputa where shades of ancient scholars can be called up. This section is a satire on philosophers and scientists. Scientists are portrayed as men so wrapped up intheir speculations as to be totally useless in practical affairs. Absurd experiments are described (for example, extracting sunlight from cucumbers (but, extracting energy from cucumbers and other plants is no longer so absurd Jonathan)). Also described in this third part are the Struldbergs, men and women who are immortal but who turn out to be miserable and pitiable. In part four, Gulliver travels to the Land of the Houyhnhnms, horses with intelligence but who have no passion or emotion. The word "Yahoo" originates in this part. READ IT!