Fortune cookies? Michael Lind, who wrote the New York Times review, could not have read the same book I did. In fact, Strauss and Howe explain their method at length and devote at least 70 pages to what is surely the most specific and breathtakingly concrete narrative of the next thirty years available anywhere. If anything, The Fourth Turning errs in not having enough fortune cookies in it. (When unveiling the future, after all, a little vagueness is prudent.) Lind, on the other hand, recently wrote a book subtitled "The Fourth American Revolution" but somehow forgot to mention whether this revolution would happen two years from now or two thousand years from now. I suggest readers judge these two books by noticing which one puts its bets, if not its fortune cookies, on the table

Since Strauss and Howe first got together to write GENERATIONS, they have demonstrated uncanny insight into American culture, the rhythms of history, and what the future will likely bring. Where their particular perspective deviates from your own, you can easily interpret their insights from multiple vantage points. If your experience with Strauss and Howe's work is similar to my own, it will transform your view of the world and your life. Do yourself and others you care about a favor and read it.

I found Strauss and Howe's hypothesis of a four-stroke generational cycle fascinating, and it does have a lot to say about groups behavior, especially how society treats its members of different ages at different points in time. It also suggests points of departure for other historical studies, like why bebop, modern science fiction, and slapstick Hollywood cartoons developed at about the same time. (A personal note; many of my favorite classical composers were born between 1860 and 1885, which nearly coincides with Strauss and Howe's "Missionary" generation.) Finally, the book has a lot to suggest about the nature of historical interpretation--how similar events occuring at different times might inspire very different reactions. The idea becomes problematic when the writers extrapolate from the behavior of groups to the behavior of individuals. First of all, some of their examples don't fit with the generations they cite. (Grace Slick, for example, was actually born in 1941, putting her in the "Silent" generation instead of the "Baby Boom".) Secondly, the profiles Strauss and Howe construct for "typical" members of particular generations are so general, it's easy to find some things descriptive of oneself and the people one knows. Because human beings tend to want to impose patterns on behavior where none may exist, these generational profiles don't necessarily have any more validity than, say, horoscopes. Another problem is that the hypothesis is only extended to the USA. While the appendix has some speculations on how the four-stroke cycle might work elsewhere, the writers don't provide the support for it that they do for this country. This leads one to wonder if the cycle applies outside the USA at all. Then too, in a time when nations interact more than ever, how societies whose generational cycles are out of sync affect one another? Again, there are some good ideas in this book, but readers should approach it with some skepticism.

Authors Neil Howe and William Strauss explore the history of American generation more in depth than in their other book The Fourth Turning. Generations is most valuable for giving the reader insight into the mind set and behavior of different generations and how they react to one another. It gives you a greater understanding of people, generations, and how they affect history. Strauss and Howe take a diplomatic approach in their evaluation of different generations stating that they have their strengths and weaknesses and hence I came up with the above title for the review to describe the book.

A basic explanation of their theory is that history moves by seasons from spring to winter. In spring, there is a civilizational high of good behavior, peace, and prosperity but also stultifying conformity and spiritual deadness. In summer, there is a consciousness revolution, in which the younger generation rebels against their elders and their institutions. In fall, there is an unraveling in which people turn inwards and focus on their private satisfactions and let public institutions and the community values fall into neglect. In winter, there is a crisis of usually war or economic depression that forces everyone to become more communal and morally strict again.

The generations are of 4 types. A prophet generation is born in a civilization high of springtime. They are inwardly focused on spiritual values. They rebel in youth, but become morally authoritarian in old age during a crisis. A nomad generation is born in a summer of consciousness revolution and aren't raised very well since their elder parents are more focused on themselves than their children. This generation is considered a lost or bad generation in which crime and immorality increase with its rising. A hero generation is born in the fall of an unraveling; they become the heroes during a crisis when they are young adults. An artist generation is born during a crisis; they are a meek and mild generation who are sensitive to other's needs and are indecisive as leaders.

When reading the book I couldn't help noting that a prophet generation often generates an unneeded crisis to solve. President George W. Bush is of a prophet generation and I kept thinking of him as a prime example of that, making Saddam Hussein to be bigger threat than he really is. I also made judgements against the artist's generations emphasis of plurality and diversity and the expense of cultural cohesion. I made judgements against the hero generation for hogging most of the public spending on themselves, letting young people fend for themselves. I made judgements against my own nomad generations for their excessive love of tasteless entertainment and general down in the dumps depression and negativity.

It was also interesting to note that during civilizational crisis and high, society is generally anti-female and pro-male in its outlook. In a consciousness revolution and an unraveling, it is general pro-female and anti-male. Depending on the times, people will general espouse philosophies that celebrate or denigrate either sex.

The current generations now living in large numbers are the G.I. elders who are heroes passing on, the Artistic Silent generation who are in elderhood, the Prophetic Baby Boomers who are entering elderhood, The Nomadic Gen Xer's who are beginning to enter middle-age, and Heroic Millennials who are beginning to move into rising adulthood. A new artistic/compromiser generation will eventually replace Millennials in the youth category.

A heroic generation usually values conformity over individualism and they tend to be rationalistic and secular. They build public institutions and generally are young adults during a prosperous, optimistic age. An Artist generation is known for its high educational level and professional expertise. A Prophet genereration is known for its focus on inward idealistic spiritual values and its weakening educational levels. A Nomad generation is known as pragmatic, cynical, unbelieving, pessimistic and poorly educated generation who are middle-aged technical managers of a crisis era. They are wild as kids and young adults, but cautious and reactionary as older people. Each generation rebels against the values of the others, which has a tendency to balance out any excesses given to any one value.

The authors give famous examples of different generational types, some of which fit the type while others don't. The ones that don't are interesting to note: Norman Rockwell, that creator of wholesome Americana art was from the bad Lost generation. He seems more like Hero generational type. Andrew Jackson, that Southern hell-raiser who chased a rival with a knife in the days of his youth was of the supposedly meek and mild Artist/Compromiser generation. He seems more like a Bad/ Nomadic generational type.

A friend of mine lent me this book a few weeks ago. Skeptical about any book purporting to predict the future, I immediately read their predictions section - after all, the book was published ten years ago. To my surprise, I found that their predictions for 1992-2002 were largely correct! So I started again, at the beginning. The book is a work of genius.

The central tenet of this book is that generations don't age the same way, and when looking at generations through history, the correct way to look at them is by cohort - that is, by groups with similar birth years - rather than by age. In other words, if you're born in 1950 and grow up in the '60s and '70s, you'll be different at age 50 than you will if you're born in 1970 and grow up in the '80s and '90s. Strauss and Howe then trace a number of generational cohorts through American History, and find evidence of a cycle of generational types - usually a four part cycle, but in one case a three part cycle. For example, they liken Gen X (whom they call "13ers"), born in 1961-1980, to the "Lost" generation born in the late 1800s.

As a trailing edge boomer, born in 1960, I was not surprised to find that the authors, both boomers, correctly identify the defining characteristics of my generation - characteristics that I happen to dislike, as I'm in the minority that don't fit the mold that well, but that I have to acknowledge as accurate for the majority. On the other hand, the description of the Silent generation, to which my parents belong, was an eye opener - it explained well why my fathers views of what different stages in a man's life are like seemed so alien to me. The description of Gen X was likewise enlightening, both in terms of explaining some of my previous business interactions with Gen Xers (they always seem so surprised when someone actually gives them a break - turns out it's because they hardly ever get breaks) and helped me understand and interact much better with one particular Gen X who is very important to me - my wife. The description of the Millenials seems to be accurate so far for undergraduates I work with.

Two caveats when reading this book - first, remember it's American history, and the conclusions don't apply to those born overseas; second, the authors seem to emphasize the optimistic view of the future, for example focusing on the possibility that the current cycle will be a triumphant four part cycle, rather than an agonizing three part cycle as the Civil War cycle was.

At any rate, I'm now buying my own copy. I just wish I could find a hardcover, but hopefully it will still be in print when the paperback I'm buying wears out from repeated reference in a few years.

The examination of cyclical shifts in attitude and values within our society is of benefit. If Strauss and Howe are correct about a new Civic-minded generation coming of age who will place societal good ahead of selfishness and moral chaos, then they have offered us hope.

Unfortunately, this book celebrates the chaotic destruction of family, of duty, of responsibility to others and God equally with the building up of virtue. In the authors' eyes, the evil which we have witnessed in the past 35 years is a necessary and acceptable part of cyclical change. The public may well have to witness foul behavior before becoming willing to take action and move in the opposite direction however, I strongly disagree that acceptance of such behavior is appropriate.END

S & H present us with a cyclical view of current history to counteract our culturally biased linear view, which exalts progress over everything. I particularly enjoyed the rich array of material supportive of seeing history as an extension of nature, which generally moves in cycles (spring, summer, autumn, winter, e.g.). As a Silent Generation elder I have seen three of the secular turnings S & H identify and have little doubt that the fourth is coming right on schedule in the next decade Clearly, our culture is headed for a crisis: few of our major institutions are working very well. I am aware of these things intuitively and don't require mountains of data.. And I'm willing to place my bets on their analysis, along with my investments and my future plans. I have been using the S & H generational analysis in my business, with my children, and in my social life for the past 6 years and found it highly useful, entertaining, and insightful. The Fourth Turning enriches their thesis and drives it into a new way of approaching history. I think this book is a "must read" for every thoughtful person. Alan Gilburg

Some people have claimed reading this book is a waste of time and have compared the Strauss and Howe theory to "a very flaky, new-agey" prophecy. But since September 11th, this book has been in a heap of debate over whether it really gives an accurate theory. As a member of the Millennial generation, I have found the book to be the single-most original and insightful commentary on history and society.

Some people think the theory makes false generational characterizations and charge the authors with not providing evidence to make such generalizations. First off, theories are designed to make sense of the world. They are based on historical trends, statistics, and years of intellectual discussion. This theory does not directly dictate how a teenager in Illinois may live her life, but it does provide a much more credible account of things to come in her life than she could have possibly imagined herself.

It is insensitive and politically incorrect to suggest that the events of September 11th were "predictable." I do not think that the theory makes any indication that it was predictable; however, the way people are reacting to those events DOES support the theory. The thing that makes this occasion unique compared to major tragic events of the eighties or nineties is that the mood of the nation has changed. That mood, as the theory suggests, is propelled by the alignment of generations right now. As the generations move closer towards this alignment, more characteristics that Strauss and Howe have established will become more visible, and we will begin to see the impending crisis. What we are seeing right now is that 92% of Americans are in support of war and in support of the Bush administration. Nothing like that would have ever happened during the eighties or nineties.

As far as my generation goes, I'm sure there are trends that have happened that the authors didn't consider or that were unpredictable. But figures such as the media really have made us everything we think we aren't. Even MTV, the network of "individualism," has been our prime influence of conformity in the music scene. Media has, directly or indirectly, encouraged us to be cooperative, dutiful, and optimistic. This form of passive commercialism has been shoved down our throats, and the fact that we don't even notice it demonstrates how conditioned we've become to accept what we are told.

Since 1991, Strauss and Howe have accurately predicted the mood of the nation. Their theory is also supported by 400 years of American history. I would highly suggest this book to anyone, even skeptics, as an invaluable analysis of the American landscape.

Overall, I felt that the book had many positive qualities including the ability to capture the image of the thirteenth generation in a optomistic manner, despite the preconceived, negative notions from our elders. Alot of the cultural aspects aspects that were portrayed in the book still pertain to us, eventhough it was published six years ago. However, I did find that the layout of the book was slightly distracting from the text. The quotes, online conversations, and cartoons were both informative and interesting, but the way in which they were presented didn't seem to correspond with one another.

There is much misunderstanding of the generation which followed the baby boom. This book paints a rich, deep picture of what forces shaped the 13th Generation (aka Generation X) into the reactive generation it is. Taking evidence from census data, sociological statistics and cultural trends, this book shows the 13th Generation as babies when demon-baby movies (Omen, Exorcist, etc.) were popular, as the generation most affected by the 1980's recession (just as it was entering the workforce) and the generation for which social security will be bankrupt by the time it retires. But the book is not apologist. Rather, the book is an in-depth example of the generational paradigm of history put forth by Stauss and Howe in _Generations_ and shows that such a reactive generation is part of a larger historical cycle that has been operating since before the Pilgrims landed on American shores. The book has a great layout for the short attention span audience. The sidebars give great quotes to support the text, there is an ongoing e-mail dialog between the baby boom authors and a gen-x critic, and the mostly black humor cartoons are well chosen to illustrate the text. A must read for anyone who wonders why Gen X folks just don't behave the way they "ought to," or for those Gen X'ers who wonder why the world is so messed up

This book is a must read for anyone who is twentysomething in the 1990's. It rebels against the common misconceptions of today's younger adults. As a 13'er (born in 1974) I adored the quotes the comments and the jokes, and appreciated the points that the authors were trying to make about education and the assumptions that the older generations, ie boomers try to make about where the world is heading with the MTV generation at the helm. The definitive bible of the generation, Generation X by Douglas Copeland should hand over its title to this work by Neil Howe et al. It is far more identifiable and much more entertaining. The cartoons are very well done as well. For example as a political activist I understood the cartoon of MTV's Rock the Vote(with someone attempting to vote via pressing a button on the remote control)altogether too well!! Just read it, you be glad you did.

Strauss and Howe have written a book that is very much in tune with the trends currently occupying today's teens. Oddly enough, much of the criticism on this review page stems from a lack of ability to COMPARE generations. Students who cannot see a contrast between youth ten or twenty years ago and youth today cannot fully comprehend the change that has happened.

Indeed, the people who appreciate the concept of Millennials best are educators. Educators who have been in education for some time have noticed the shift and are the best people to consult on how youth culture has changed. Interestingly, it is these educators who have given the book the most positive reviews.

The change is very real. While I understand concern about not wnating to "label" a large group of people, the trends are undeniable. SAT scores, international test comparisons, teen crime, teen pregnancy, drug usage. With a few exceptions and statistical aberations, and media frenzies around horrific spectacles like Columbine, the trends are wholly positive. All are improving. While still not at the levels that they should be, the TREND is the important aspect of the theory. Unlike Boomers, Millennails a generation of improving trends and youngest members will be "better" than the older ones. Contrast this with Boomers -- who through their entire youth brought about a 17-year slide in SAT scores, worsening crime, and explosive drug use.

But the message of Strauss and Howe is the thing that is most often misunderstood. The authors are not calling for fascist regimentation of today's teens, but rather, a LOOSENING of that regimentation. They merely want pundits, the media, and the culture to appreciate today's youth as wholesome. A generation to be encouraged, not scorned. And certainly not one that should be held down by EXCESSIVE zero tolerance and testing policies. Far from calling for more regimentation, the book is pointing out the excesses of the Millennial's elders.

I highly recommend this book -- an excellent portrayal of what's going on in today's changing youth culture.

I give this book a very high rating, not because I believe everything in it, but because the authors (unlike most 'Gen Y' marketers) recognize a change. And there has been a huge change, which anyone who lived through the 60s and 70s can see. True, lots of kids are irritated with the restrictions placed on them. But, confronted with similar restrictions in the 60s, we bombed buildings. It's the response that's significant.

Some reviewers who identify themselves as Millennials are very angry about this book. To be blunt, 10 years ago no kid would have given a second thought about its contents. If nothing else, Millennials care what people think about them, and that is massive change.

Second: Any young person who thinks they're radical or rebelling should check out a book like David Frum's How We Got Here: The 1970s. Current generations can't begin to match the radical climate of that time.

Third: It's true that the stats in the book are biased, and reflect the upper-middle class. But this is exactly what happened in the 1960s -- the revolt started with wealthy college students at Ivy League schools and spread to the rest of society over the next 20 years.

Fourth: Howe & Strauss do mention the recent rise in drug use, in particular pot. Their actual claim is that if pot use becomes accepted, it will fill the same role that alcohol did for earlier generations -- just check out a film from the 50s and see them getting smashed at every turn. Not a biggie.

Finally, I should note that this book is very well written. Part of the anger in reviews comes from this source. It gets people excited. If it were a dry statistics text it wouldn't arouse such ire.

William Strauss and Neil Howe continue with their theories about history being affected by different generations because of the the way the generations are raised behave a certain way. This time they focus on the youthful Millennial generation which they say will be quite unlike Gen X or the Boomers. They say they will be more conformist and better behaved than these other generations because they have been raised in a heavily monitored environment in which team playing is emphasized. Their weakness may be that they could be become big brother's dream children since they may be unable to think or act independently from the group, even when their peer group may be going in the wrong direction.

Strauss and Howe's theories seem to have justification, but there are other theories that historians and social scientists have come up with and the authors do not address the validity of these theories very much. One being that a civilization rises to its peak with traditional values and then falls apart gradually by rejecting these traditional values for new gods and liberalism. It would have been interesting to have them react to such a theory. I also thought that by not addressing other theories of civilizational history, it made their some of their comments on the increasing multiculturalization of America seem naive at times. Given the previous theory I have mentioned, such multiculturation of America will cause its decline, not improve it.

This book is one of their more entertaining books that I have read by them. They have sidebar comments from millennials and about millennials that are amusing and interesting much of the time. They also have funny cartoons about millennials throughout the book. This makes the book more interesting than other books of social analysis.

Strauss and Howe say that the millennials will be the next hero generation that may be asked to fight another total war. That may be so, but in a way, I hope not. The more I study history, the more I learn that the wars we fight are usually total rackets and unjustified, no matter how much they are glorified afterwards because our soldiers sacrifice themselves in them. True heroic citizens stay informed and skeptical and make sure that the government is not hoodwinking them into another useless war.

That being said this is still a useful book and I use the authors' theories all the time when analyzing events, social institutions, and the arts and entertainment.