This is quite possibly the poorest exposition of these people ever written- and the rest of the series is the same. His translations of Nietzche are excellent and beautiful but as a philosopher Kaufmann is trying to speak with the mouth of Nietzche, but a rather poor Nietzche at best. The angry style is sad for an academician unless he or she is a genius of Nietzche's calibre.

I read this book in its early years, and the subjects of the book hardly excited me, but it was the first volume of a trilogy, and I was ready to try to prove that figures in a modern America rich with electronic soundtracking of music for every form of public activity (and for more private activities than were written about in his philosophy) was a much richer form of emotional communication than any that Goethe was able to write down on a page. On the topic of sex alone, I could hum more tunes than he knew, maybe. But the funny thing was that he considered "Kant's immense influence has proved catastrophic." Among the recently departed, Isaiah Berlin is quoted on the back of this book praising Kaufmann for making people see that Hegel "was a most audacious, profound and devastating, at times wildly turbulent, thinker." I wish I could ask everybody, aren't we all? Page 288 raised the question "how I would feel if someone sent me an essay of such length in which he tried to show how Nietzsche had been 'a disaster.'" I think he would feel even worse, or possibly more joyous in another's misfortune, if he could read all the web pages that show what people, now, are saying about Martin Heidegger, who is merely accused of "Dogmatic Anthropology" in the Trilogy outline which appeared in this volume.

Derivative and unimaginative this book adds little to the debate about the monarchy. Reading like an extended undergraduate essay, it relies too heavily on secondary material and exposes Hari to the allegation that he has only written it to advance his career in journalism.
There are simply better books to read on the subject and should you feel an urge to explore Hari's opinion on the subject he has repeated it in both The Independent and The New Statesman (both articles were in fact almost verbatim copies of each other).
No wonder that John Pilger referred to him as a "non-journalist"

Derivative and unimaginative this book adds little to the debate about the monarchy. Reading like an extended undergraduate essay, it relies too heavily on secondary material and exposes Hari to the allegation that he has only written it to advance his career in journalism.
There are simply better books to read on the subject and should you feel an urge to explore Hari's opinion about the monarchy it may be worth noting that he has repeated it in both The Independent and The New Statesman (both articles were in fact almost verbatim copies of each other).
When John Pilger referred to Hari as a "non-journalist" he did so with good reason.

If you had any doubts about whether to believe the first reviewer, consider them assuaged. This volume is only useful if you want to return to the ur-text. If you want to actually play the inventions, look elsewhere.

Although it may be interesting to own a copy of Bach's manuscript of these pieces for study, I expected an edited edition when I ordered. Bach doesn't use the treble clef and it's hand-written not type-set. Furthermore, the inventions are printed landscape to the binding making playing from the book almost impossible.

When I first saw this added added to our library, I was very interested. But upon inspection,I discovered that Young has completely ignored the scholarly work on the chronology established by the Alfred Dürr studies on watermarks and Georg Dadlesen on caligraphy. The book is useless, for a reliable good English translations, those of Z. Philip Ambrose are avaiable on line.

The known facts about Gutenberg need no dramatic license. The inventor of modern printing was a fascinating,wide-ranging genius in constant need of lawyers and lenders. His true story is one which deserves to be served without any fictional seasoning.

Unfortuately, Louise Vernon's INK ON HIS FINGERS mixes the author's imagination with history. One cannot tell which is which without prior knowledge of Gutenberg's story. Since no revealing insights or unique interpretations are provided by the author, the reader is left with a historical book in which historical fact is not clearly presented. A child reading it may well enjoy the entertainment of the narrative. However, the chance to gain information while being entertained is lost in the muddle.

I am a college student in history, and this is the second book on U-234 I have read. There has also been an excellent History Channel episode on U-234 and the possible use of enriched uranium captured from the German submarine, by the Manhattan Project.

The information in this book is lacking. It seems that there is a lot left out, and little data to support the authors conclusions.

Who ever postulated that the Japanese might have dropped a bomb on LA or San Francisco is not a historian. It would have been virtually impossible for Japan to deliver a nuclear weapon to the West Coast in 1945. In "Japan's Secret Weapon" it is well documented that if Japan had been able to construct a nuclear weapon, its delivery target would have been invading U.S. forces. That is why the ME-262 was on board the U-234. Anyone who believes that Japan would ever have invaded California during WW II neads to re-read Alfred Thayer Mahan. The lines of communication required to sustain an invasion force on the U.S. West Coast by Japanese Forces would have been impossible to maintain. The same wisdom needs to be used in suggesting a nuclear attack after May of 1945. That dog just ain't gonna hunt.

Looks like we have an historian and a novel writter for authors. Tear away the fiction, beef up more historical data, and you would have a great book.

Also . . . DNA extracts from a skull fragment in Moscow identify it as Hitler . . . . this is old news. Leave the escape of Hitler to South America to the novel writers.

This is apainful review for me to write, as I admire many of Berlins writings. However, this book does little more than to reveal Berlins inability to comprehend Christian mysticism or religous belief. Hamann scholars(and one of my best friends is a Hamann scholar) are almost unanimous in dismissing Berlins book. Hamann was not "stupid" ( such well known intellectual lightweights as Goethe,Kant, Kierkegaard and Hegel regarded him as a genius.)nor was he an 'irrationalist', unless it is "rational' to worship "reason". Yes, Hamann questioned many of the shibboleths of progressive, enlightened "humanism"..they could stand some criticism. To suggest some sort of genealogical linkage between Hamann and the Third Reich is, to say the least,absurd. At least one could hope that some reader might turn from reading Berlins little essay and turn to Hamanns writings, in all their wonderful strangeness, or at even better to hunt down Ronald Gregor Smith fascinating, out of print book, J.G. Hamann,Philosopher of christian Existence, or Gwen Griffith Dickson scholarly, but frightfully expensive, Hamanns Meta-Critique of Reason. Let me just say in closing that Michael Oakeshott had a point when he called Isaiah Berlin "A veritable Pagannini of Ideas."

A landmark work for those charting Sallis' decay from solid Plato commentator to Pope of SPEP/Perugia farce. The introductory section stakes Sallis' claim to be the worst unintentional parodist of Derrida's style. It's so perfectly funny that my friends and I would sometimes read it aloud after inhaling helium or speak it through a fan on high setting. Why did we do it? Try reading the book _without_ these distortions and see if YOU can keep a straight face!

WILHELM MEISTER WAS THE ABSOLUTE WORST BOOK I HAVE EVER READ. ALTHOUGH I NORMALLY LIKE TYPICAL BILDUNGSROMANS, WILHELM MEISTER FAILED TO EXCITE ME ONE BIT WITH ALL OF IT'S CRUDE ANALOGIES AND OTHER MISHAPS THAT GOETHE DECIDED TO ADD TO THIS INFAMOUS WORK OF FAILED ART!...