This book is a little dated and the print is densely packed, but it's still an excellent book for those who want to learn about the psychological issues faced by children of divorce. Written by a leading child psychiatrist, it deals in a chronological fashion with the stages of divorce, including how and when to tell kids about an impending separation, informing friends and teachers, and adjusting to new homes and stepfamilies. This is not really a pop self-help book and it never simplifies problems, but there is specific and sound practical advice within the sometimes technical text.

I am a mother who is facing a possible second divorce. My two children from my first marriage of 15 years were 4 and 6 at the time of our separation. They are now 20 and 22 and I think will be fine; however, in reading his chapter on "Telling the Children," I had the luxury to know/feel the validity of his message. I am finding jems throughout the book and, while I bought it at a time when I thought my second divorce was a case of "when" not "if," it has helped my husband of 10 years and I look at our situation with new understanding and hope. We have a 9 year old and I am so glad that regardless of what happens with our marriage I feel much more equiped to do right by our son.

The epic of Gilgamesh would, of course, be of historical interest regardless of its content, since it seems to be the oldest written narrative in human history. Its relevance, however, goes far beyond the purely archival -- the story is engaging and powerful, and addresses fundamental questions of humanity. The combination of these two important characteristics makes for a classic creation of human culture; it is somehow comforting and at the same time humbling to know that people 3000 years ago struggled with the same questions with which we struggle still today.

I have read several renderings of the Gilgamesh epic, and in my opinion this version by John Gardner and John Maier is the best overall. It is probably the most direct translation you will find. The original text from which this translation is drawn (the "Sin-leqi-unninni" version) is written on 12 stone tablets, each of which has 6 columns of cuneiform. (The appendix includes pictures of some of the tablets, along with commetnary about the translation process.) Gardner and Maier have preserved this format, dividing their text according to the tablet and column divisions of the original. They have also, for the most part, translated line-by-line from the original, rather than reorganizing it as many other renderings have done.

The result is a work of disarming simplicity. Taking little or no poetic license, Gardner and Maier allow the text to speak for itself. Not being a reader of Akkadian myself, I cannot say how literal or accurate this translation is; I can, however, say that, to me as a reader, it FEELS authentic, and I think that is at least as important. The story has a timeless quality which, in other renderings, is sometimes obscured by excessive verbal flourishes on the part of the "translation" -- not so here.

On its own, the text would make this book a worthwhile purchase, but there's more to this translation than just the story. Extensive commentary follows each column, providing a wide range of helpful information. Since this translation draws only from the Sin-leqi-unninni original tablets, which are damaged in some places, the commentary gives occasional pointers to other versions, and attempts to piece together missing sections. There is also historical and cultural background where appropriate, explaining for instance the various gods referenced, and more literary commentary on the story itself.

And, though I have not addressed it specifically as yet, the story is remarkable. It covers a broad range of emotions, and manages to tug at the heart in several ways. In some places, the action is simply stated without emotional exposition; in other places, the language becomes more expressive, and probes the souls of the characters.

Some readers may be deterred by one byproduct of the translation's careful adherence to the original: where there are gaps in the original text (due to damage to the stone tablets), Gardner and Maier have simply left the gaps in their translation. This is unusual; most renderings attempt to smooth over such gaps by drawing from other sources. This is only a superficial problem, however. Gardner and Maier DO draw from other sources to complete the picture, but they wisely do so in the commentary rather than attempting to patch the text itself. This allows the reader to assemble the whole picture himself where necessary, rather than having it handed to him preassembled from undisclosed fragments.

All in all this is a wonderful book. It concisely provides a clear version of the story and a wealth of relevant commentary.

This is one of the oldest known heroic poems, with some versions dating back to the Old Babylonian age about 2000 BC. What survives of the twelve tablets that make up the Gilgamesh epic tells a story about a king of Uruk, named Gilgamesh, who goes on an epic search for immortality with his companion Enkidu which leads him through many adventures and eventually takes him to a Noah-like sage who tells him the story of the flood.
Much of the twelve tablets on which the poem were written has been lost, but enough survives (through various copies and versions of the work) to be able to piece it together into a fairly coherent form. Gardner and Maier do an excellent job here of presenting the text, of translating it in a reliable and enjoyable manner, and of providing sufficient notes (actually, over half this book is notes!) to give the reader a very good feel for this beautiful poem.
This is an epic in many senses of the word, but it differs somewhat in scope from the Greek and Medieval heroic poems that we have. Still, for fans of the epic, for those interested in Homer, Virgil, Dante, or Milton, Gilgamesh provides an interesting look at an early Babylonian/Sumerian text.

Anyone who doesn't like this book must have difficulty in the face of the sublime. Not only is the Gilgamesh epic itself one of those rare gems of ancient literature, but the Gardner/Maier version is an extraordinarily accomplished translation. The book is one you will want to read multiply, to own and consult at regular intervals, as gradually the other major works of Western culture (the Bible, the Odyssey, etc.) are filtered through its astonishing lens. I love it.

Short review: ... buy it. If it requires selling vital organs or loved ones to pay for it, it's worth it.

Long review: I enrolled in an Art History course with no idea what I was going to get as a textbook. This book is well-written, intelligent, informative without being overly esoteric, and above all beautiful. The prints are generally in color and always well-reproduced. Historical context is always provided, which gives a solid background for anybody looking to learn about the time any artwork was created. The text also offers insightful commentary about each piece selected for display. This book is so good, in fact, that it's become known as the semi-official Art History 101 textbook. Even if the history's not your thing (and for crying out loud, why not?), the book provides untold hours of beauty.

One word: perfection.

Despite 10 pound book up four flights of stairs at school, I found that this book is one of the most resourceful. There is a historical timeline that parallels goings on in the rest of the world that is very helpful so that you could get the gist of what's going on at the time. Also, in the text itself, it gives definitive explanations to what is happening at the time so that you can understand fully what the artist is saying or where he/she is coming from. For those who do not know classics, bibilical stories, and other things, there are also good explanations for those, so the reader/student is enlightened and erstwhile, in comprehension of the work. Absolutely the best resource when it comes to art history and the interpretation of art.

This book is a must for all art lovers,from the serious professional, to the first-year student, to the hobbyist who paints for fun or enjoys the art museum.If you only have one book on art history and appreciation,let this be it.

Gardner's self-published work is extremely deficient scientifically, exhibits extreme gender-bias toward women and assumes that all women are vindictive and all children are liars. This "syndrome" he purports is not based on systematic research, instead developed from personal observation and prejudices. Gardner has never tested his theory, and most of its foundational assumptions have been disproven. Virtually every symptom Gardner describes as evidence of PAS is open to opposing interpretations. Gardner's recommendations to send children to juvenile detention centers and mothers to jail for reporting abuse fly in the face of the goal of any therapy or treatment--establishing trust and "do no harm". This is nothing more than one man's opinion which is now being used across the country as a slick legal defense for abusive parents to gain custody of their victims and exact revenge upon the protective parent. It should not be relied upon by any reasonable person. Mental health professionals should be cautioned against using such an unscientific and harmful ideology in custody evaluations, as it could potentially result in ethics violations and malpractice claims by protective parents and their children who have been irreparably harmed by incompetent assessments.

Clear, clean,professional analysis of psychotic child abuse in
custody and child support litigation.

My sister found this book a lifesaver.

She does not have a clinical background, but she could finally give a name to what her husband was doing to the children. She was the alienated parent -- a mirror reverse from the traditional.

She highly recommends this author. Also she recommends his followup book **Therapeutic Interventions for Children with Parental Alienation Syndrome** by Richard A. Gardner.

If any part of these books will help my sister get out of her miserable situation, then they are worth their weight in gold.

MjM

This was a very good book. I read parts of it with my stepchildren and they seemed to respond very well. It was to the point and did not skirt any issues. I would recommend this book to all stepfamilies, however, I would suggest that for younger children, an adult read with them or be available for discussion after the child reads. Very, very open and honest.

I let someone borrow my ninth edition and my friend lost it. So I got the tenth edition. I love it. It gives breif history on the popular artists. It gives enough background so you are able to use it for references. I'm not an art major, but I really love the fact that it compiles many artists together. I was at the bookstore and I was looking at individual artist's books. That was when I realized how much I love this book. All the great stuff are in here.

I was introduced by my art history class. But now it's a hobbie to just read up on it.

All reliable evidence indicates Sacco and Vanzetti are emblematic of rather low-level, low-life anti-intellectual types. They were clearly guilty but unfortunately (for them) they committed their vile murder in a time when decency still reigned (even in Massachusetts) and fair trials were still the norm of the day. Lost in all of this is the name of the poor victim. You can read entire essays railing against the evils of racism,etc. and not find the name of the victim. The poor fellow is lost in the fray of leftist babble. In the end, justice was served and the two immigrant anarchists who, after all, sought the destruction of American society were put to death for their evil actions. Still, reading this compilation of their letters serves several useful purposes: 1) it clearly indicates how stupid they were; 2) it reminds one that even evil nuts have families whom they care about (can one imagine reading the prison letters of Dr. Joseph Goebells "I love you, deary and the little kidders too."); it demonstrates once and for all the boorish mentality of the nutcase (admittedly a redundant phrase)leftwing; 4) it demonstrates that liberals have always been stupid.

Polenberg of Cornell University The introduction to The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti (Penguin Books 1997) by Professor Richard Polenberg is richly informative. The publication is timely and useful. Readers must ask whether these letters offer a clue to the moral character of convicted murderers Sacco and Vanzetti. John Nicholas Beffel, radical journalist who roomed with chief defense counsel Fred Moore during the Dedham trial, declared in “The New Republic,” December 29, 1920, that Vanzetti was a “philosophical anarchist.” In “The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti” (March 1927), Harvard Law School Professor Felix Frankfurter called Vanzetti “a dreamy fish peddler” (p. 101). Bruce Bliven, “managing editor of the liberal New Republic” (a phrase from American National Biography), wrote of Sacco and Vanzetti: “Their faith is philosophical anarchism.” See TNR: June 22, 1927, p. 121. When an unknown reviewer in the April 1929 issue of the anarchist journal “The Road to Freedom” argued that Upton Sinclair’s novel “Boston” was the work of an unfit historian, Sinclair replied angrily in the June issue: “It is a fact that Sacco was a ‘Militant Anarchist.’” Anarchist editor Hippolyte Havel agreed. In the August 1929 issue of “Lantern” Walter Lippmann wrote: “By every test that I know of for judging character, these are the letters [The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti] of innocent men.” Note: The brackets are by Lippmann Frederick Allen (Only Yesterday, 1931) said Vanzetti was “clearly a remarkable man--an intellectual of noble character, a philosophical anarchist of a type which it seemed impossible to associate with a pay-roll murder.” Alfred Jules Ayer, Professor of Logic at Oxford, reviewing Francis Russell’s 1962 book on Sacco and Vanzetti, wrote: “Both men were active anarchists of an idealistic kind.” Ayer said the letters of Vanzetti revealed “a man of great swetnesss and nobility of character.” See New Statesman: 5 July 1963. Sacco-Vanzetti scholars who met at the Boston Public Library on October 26 and 27, 1979, reminded readers that time is a great corrective. Professor Nunzio Pernicone, on the second conference day said: “ . . . these men [Sacco and Vanzetti] were not philosophical anarchists; they were genuine, militant revolutionaries.” See “Sacco-Vanzetti: Developments and Reconsiderations--1979,” the 1982 publication by Trustees of the Public Library of the City of Boston. In “Sacco and Vanzetti: The Anarchist Background,” a 1991 publication by Princeton University Press, Professor Paul Avrich wrote: “Both [Sacco and Vanzetti] were ultra-militants, . . .” See p. 161 for Avrich’s citation to Sinclair’s letters that acknowledge the militancy of Sacco and Vanzetti. On page xxxix of his Introduction, Polenberg calls Edmund M. Morgan a historian. In fact, Morgan is called Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University on the back cover of the 1978 reprint of “The Legacy of Sacco and Vanzetti,” that 1948 book by Joughin and Morgan that Tom O’Connorr said had educated a generation of college students and professors. Polenberg’s assertion (p. xxxix) that Joughin and Morgan, . . .believed Sacco and Vanzetti innocent, . . .” must be severely qualified. Morgan said Ehrmann’s book, “The Untried Case: The Sacco-Vanzetti Case and the Morelli Gang,” failed to convince him that the Morelli gang, not Sacco and Vanzetti, had committed the crime at South Braintree. Morgan also said that if Sacco and Vanzetti “were alive today [1934] and were to be tried again, . . . and if a verdict were returned, it could not be set aside as contrary to the weight of evidence, at least against Sacco.” See Harvard Law Review, January 1934. Morgan has more telling concessions in the book he and Joughin published in 1948. On pp. 55-56 he calls Vanzetti’s Plymouth trial fair, the verdict just. On p. 46 Morgan writes: “ . . . this cross-examination, taken alone,

tends strongly to show that a group of Italians had framed an alibi for Vanzetti and had coached this bright youngster [Beltrado Brini] to tell his story with details which would tie in with the incidents related by other witnesses.” On pages 48-49 Morgan says Vanzetti’s statements on the Plymouth trial are suspect. A handbook on the two disputed trials is “Kill Now, Talk Forever: Debating Sacco and Vanzetti,” an ebook by 1stBooks Library. Soft cover issue will be available before the end of summer....

This is the most important testament to a now largely forgotten tragedy of American politics. Sacco and Vanzetti were essentially convicted and executed for being unpatriotic foreigners, regardless of the crime they were accused of [for which no specific evidence was presented against them]. They waited for seven years in prison before their execution, during which time they wrote these letters. Their English, though it improved through the years, was never fully accomplished. But the results are extraordinary. The letters express ideas about life, society, faith, politics and human feelings, and the often clumsy and misused language actually makes the expression more lucid and more beautiful. The path of trial, appeal and final sentencing runs through clearly, and as the end approaches the letters are inexpressibly heartbreaking, as when Sacco asks his wife to tell his daughter "that I love her so much, and again, so much." This book has been in and out of print since the late 1920's, and is often unavailable in libraries because patrons steal it. It is a blessing that Penguin has brought it back.

Don't buy this book. It was written in - when? It reads like it was written in the 50's although I think it was in the 70's. It's really a terrible book, wasn't helpful at all even though a counselor recommended it. What a total waste of money it was for me.

When I read the introduction, I had high hopes for this book. However, the book has some very disturbing parts. For instance, talking about where children will live when parents separate, Gardner brings up that some children end up in boarding school and foster homes. I was skeptical about that, but continued on. When he said that many foster homes are bad, I wondered if he considered what kinds of things he was telling these children. From my experience, children of divorce have enough fears and ghosts. They don't need an "expert" putting more fears into their heads.

I was also upset by the notion that he suggested that some parents don't love their children. While he may be correct, I don't feel that his planting the idea in their minds is going to make them feel any more comfortable with their parents divorcing.

I did not allow my child to read this. With all her raw emotions, I felt it would be abusive on my part to expose her to new, unnecessary fears.

This book is fantastically un-PC; so much that it verges on shocking. Those who want some bland and reassuring pap for their nearest/dearest child of divorce should look elsewhere.

I know nothing of the author biographically, but I can tell he's seen a lot of unhappy children. He's seen them lied to by adults whose intentions spanned the gamut of good and bad, and seen that misdirection and ephemism hurt children more than directness ever could. In other words, Gardner respects children and understands their need for plain talk. This book advocates for them.

Parents may be offended. But divorces occur more often where fundamental tenets of healthy relationships aren't respected, and things we rarely talk about are done to kids as a matter of course. Kids get used as adult-companionship substitutes. Kids get used as weapons against the Ex, or meal tickets. Parents drift off after the divorce and never drift back again. Parents fawn and drool on birthdays or Christmas and fail to call the rest of the year. To Gardner, this suggests a parent who does not love their child. What does it suggest to you?

The current vogue is pad all this over and "be reassuring," but Gardner prefers to let them in on the truth -- believing truth is something even children can eventually come to terms with.

Dr. Richard Gardner has devised unique theories and research models to explain why in all normal families the children have sex with their fathers. It is only the abnormal family, those families with a crazy, maladjusted, sexually unresponsive mothers, do the children not have or enjoy sex with their fathers. Good reading for pedophiles.