I always enjoy reading Hamlet scholarship. Part of my pleasure comes from the new insight always gained into the unbounded mysteries of the play. But, as much, if not more, pleasure often comes in observing the critics efforts to subtly twist the play to fit neatly into his or her own "theory." And this book is enjoyable on both levels. It does provide rich psychological insight into and mythological context for the play. But it also shows some of the wonderful distortions the play seems to invite from all but the most hyper-vigilant critic.

There is especially good reason to link psychoanalysis and Shakespeare. Freud paid clear homage to, and perhaps borrowed/shared much of his insight from/with Shakespeare. This book starts from that connection (Lidz is first a psychoanalyst), and it starts well. Lidz makes a sound case that Hamlet's madness had not been correctly considered in the past. In part, Lidz argues, this occurred because people naturally avoid issues regarding madness. The other distorting factor, Lidz notes, has been the desire of critics to fit Hamlet into a particular school of psychological thought, starting with the desire to label Hamlet a classic melancholic and including Freud's application of the Oedipal complex to Hamlet.

Lidz next reviews the psychological development of Hamlet and his "madness" one act at a time, a sound approach. His analysis of Hamlet through the first three acts is compelling. For example, Lidz properly notes the significance of Hamlet's matricidal attitudes toward Gertrude, and does not let himself be swayed by the "pure" Freudian focus on Hamlet's oedipal conflicts around killing Claudius.

But, starting with his analysis of the fourth act, Lidz really starts to waiver. He spends a lot of energy on describing how Ophelia's madness is a counter theme to Hamlet's madness. It becomes clear this observation is motivated by Lidz' desire to argue the need to extend certain elements of Freud's thinking. So, Lidz's analysis of Ophelia provides a way for Lidz to bring in an analysis of the "female" dynamic in the human psyche. But here, Lidz is committing the mistake he identified at the start - misreading the play to use it to buttress his own "theoretical model." Hamlet is at the center of the play, and Ophelia's madness is simply not as well developed or as central to the play as Lidz argues.

Then Lidz's tendency to wander really becomes a problem. Lidz spends the second third of the book describing some primal myths that may have formed the basis for the Hamlet story. The comparison between Hamlet, Orestes and Oedipus is wonderful, but Lidz's broad conclusions consistently outreach his evidence, and the connection between this part of the book and Hamlet's madness is never made.

The third section is even farther away from the initial topic of Hamlet's madness. In the third section Lidz argues for ways in which Freudian theory should be expanded to included a broader analysis of the family dynamic, that is a dynamic beyond the oedipal relationships. Here, Lidz has to rely on his emphasis on Ophelia and does not use his analysis of Hamlet's madness at all.

Again, the entertainment in Hamlet criticism is often two-fold. In this book we get a psychoanalytic perspective circa 1975 that shows how psychoanalytic theory had attempted to expand beyond Freud's preliminary thinking - including women and the family, and shifting the internal psychic energy that Freud posited to a more existential view of where human behavior comes from. Yet, much of the thinking is still locked into such a Freudian model; for example Lidz continually refers to the constricting role that society plays on the individuals' desires, straight from the thinking Freud proposed in "Society and Its Discontents."

The result is a book that is as much a Hamlet critique as a reflection on psychoanalytic thinking in the 1970's. Two for the price of one?

This is a essays collection in a conference held in US. For a Chinese as me, it is good for me to know how the excellent western scholars to study in Chinese social and political history. However, I think it would be better if one or two papers, written by chinese scholars, were included.

This book was originally presented to me as an example of 19th century anti-Catholic fervor. I own, and have read the 1836 edition of this book. I believe the first edition was quite popular in it's day, and sold thousands of copies. While the Catholic Church, as well as Protestant churches were certainly deserving of some negative sentiments in those days, Monk was later exposed as a fraud. It should not be taken as fact, but can be used to bring about interesting discussions in religious history courses. Presumeably, the current reprint will be used for that purpose. The book is analogous to the Enquirer Magazine of today. It's not the kind of book I would want to be seen purchasing. I bought mine from a rare book store by mail.

This was to Anti-Catholicism was Uncle Tom's Cabin was to Anti-Slavery. Except UTC admitted itself as fiction and yet still more accuratly portrays slavery than "Maria Monk" portrays Catholicism.

Its a propoganda piece that led to the burning of at least 15 convents in the 19th century. "Maria Monk" was really William K. Hoyte, an anti-Catholic minister. Maria Monk gave him the vauge idea for the story and he ran with it. Group Orgies, forced abortions, its like a Catholic Jerry Springer show. The real Maria Monk died in prison after robbing one of her "tricks." The book is good to read if studying the Anti-Catholic fervor of the 19th century. But if you believe as our friend below, that this is a true story, you are sorely mistaken, and as misguided as those of 150 years ago.

While the below reviewers berate this book for containing blatant lies, it is a well-known hoax and of serious historical interest. It's a bit shocking that one reviewer actually believed the hoax -- but then again, perhaps his credulousness is understandable given the very real scandals of the modern Catholic Church.

For an informative contrast, compare this book, entirely fabricated and written in the style of a cheap gothic novel, with the Boston Globe's very factual _Betrayal: The Crises in the Catholic Church_. It seems to me a positive sign that the recent real problems in the Church have resulted in the reviling of only the most likely actual criminals, rather than the wholesale and vicious anti-Catholic sentiment that came from the publication of Maria Monk.

Great material, but MY GOD, this book needed to be gone over by a copy editor! What are publishing houses spending all their money on?

This book was written at a time of great state sponsored attempts to modernize society through the use of agriculutral surpluses. One need only look at the examples of Nyerere's Tanzania or, to lesser degree, India in the 1960s to see the strong statist overtones that such an aproach took. And, how Schultz's writings on agriculture validated these approaches.

What Schultz essentially argues in this book is that agriculture can be broken down into two distinct types. The first is that of "traditional" agriculture whereby peasant producers are seen as inefficient because they are bound by generations of tradition that dictates there is very little in the way of perceptible benefit to re-investing in their farming operations and becoming more efficient producers. As Schultz hypothesizes: "a more profitable set of factors will have to be developed and supplied. To develop and supply such factors and to learn how to use them efficiently is a matter of investment." The continuity of such an approach with an institutional framework is readily apparent. Schultz is tacitly arguing for a strong role in planning for a state's bureaucratic structure. The second type is that of "modern" agriculture whereby a grower responds to economic insentives to improve their production. Hence the "rational peasant".

One of the strongest criticisms against Schultz's theory is its ability to offer satisfactory results when applied to specific regions. Schultz did not adequately take into account cultural factors, believing instead that traditional agricultural can be explained in purely economic terms. In the context of a highly centralized state I would also argue that the "rational peasant" debate necessitated a negation of community level input into policy formation. This was because the "rational peasant" was not perceived to be an actor at the individual level, but rather part of a greater whole. In this way macro-economic stimulus policies were believed to be all that was needed to transform "traditional" agriculture into "modern". A policy prescription that the state, and "high modernists" (see Jim Scott) controlling it, would be ideally suited to undertake.

Very beefy topic, chock full of information about this amazing new technology. Could have gone into scatternets in more detail, but overall a good read