This short collection of essays is published by the free market Institute of Economic Affairs in London. The occasion for launching this volume was the introduction of an annual lecture series, 'The Templeton Forum on Markets and Morality' based on an idea by Michael Novak.

The four essayists, Brian Griffiths, Robert Sirico, Norman Barry and Frank Field approach the issue from their own philosophical standpoints but in general are in agreement that morality and markets are compatible. Norman Barry's paper for me is the most interesting in that he postulates the development of rules from the emergence of a spontaneous order rather than having a pre-established framework of rules or ethics. While others may argue that markets require a framework of rules to operate in and cite minimal government or an established church, Barry's paper opens up the whole question of what constitutes moral and ethical behaviour to begin with.

It is this particular proposition which holds out particular interest for more lectures like this in the future. Historically there have been thoise in favour of the market who wish to circumscribe it's impact and who cite all sorts of reasons such as the possible collapse of society if free markets are allowed free rein. Ranged against that position are those who despise markets altogether and those who believe that free markets bring true freedom. As someone who believes in the latter, it seems to me that the political changes in the world over the last twenty five years or so have resulted in large gains for those who believe in the controlled markets view at the dtriment of followers of the anti-market view. Organised religion has much to lose by increasing choice for individuals, and much to lose by democracy but that is another story, and has resisted strongly.

This collection of essays seems to be the first shot in a major debate between conservatives and classical liberals which will go to the heart of the arguement about the market.

Why only four stars? Well, I would have liked to have read more papers.

I have to say, this is an amazing book. It is coherant, fluent, and above all, easy to read.
The infomation given is presentd well, especially for students (such as myself) studying McCarthy and the Red Scare. Neverthelss, you won't find yourself bogged down in a tide of historical phrases that leave you confused.
If there is one bad thing about this book, it would be that it is too easy to get into, and incredibly hard to put down again.

If this book really does cost what it says it does, then the editorial review is less than useless. It's sad. Hey, I understand your stock prices are dropping, but don't start loosing the quality.

IS THIS PRICE RIGHT? IKNOW A FRIEND WHO PURCHAED ONE LESS THAN I EXPECTED. AM I WRONG?

Much work remains to be done to rescue from academic dismissal on the grounds that it is "melodramatic" not just a significant body of film but of literature and music as well. But the author of this book-polemic ignores the aesthetic while politicizing the theoretical. His representation of gender roles in the "world at large," moreover, is no less Manichean than the narrative worlds that are the subject of his discourse. Women suffer under "patriarchy" (mainly because Lacanian theorists and the likes of Catherine McKinnon say so), and the oppressive power relations evident in cinematic melodrama should make us want to address life's gravest problems, which can all ultimately be traced to the rule of patriarchy.

This book may prove useful to a few readers as an introduction to some major currents in 1980s French post-structuralist theory, but it falls far short in addressing the aesthetics or pleasures of the texts it examines let alone the challenging field of "music drama."