Re-reading this book, after a 10-year study of Jungian Psychology, made it clear to me that C.G. Jung is a Philosopher's Philosopher. At the back of this book is Jung's public view of GOD and Religion, and he informs us of the psychic error and impertinence of making a "Hypostasis" (as in Plato's 'Ideal'), and he defers to the sacredness of the "Individual Psyche" versus the "Collective Psyche". Jung is clearly "Aristotlean" here. This is opposite many peoples' conception/use of Jung (e.g., my edition of Random House Encyclopedia discounted Jung's ideas as examples of "Idealist" Philosophy with Archetypes, et al)!

Jung believed there is genuine value and meaning in neuroses and even madness; but, now, the credibility of all Philosphers must now be viewed in terms of their respective healthy or unhealthy Psyches! Most importantly, many Western Philosophers [mostly since Descartes] show a severe mind-body thinking-feeling split; and, this is different in Eastern Philosophy and Western Religions. Jung's words have great significance for Eastern and Western Philosopy and World Religions in the coming Millennium! Bennet's contribution serves to protect us from distortions of Jung so commonly found in name-dropping derivative works.

"The White Dominican" shows Gustav Meyrink indulging his talent for arcane abstraction, tracing the mysteries of the soul's interior space.
The story follows Christopher Dovecote on his way to a pre-ordained destiny of final enlightenment. Christopher is rescued as a boy from an orphanage by Baron Bartholomew von Jocher when the Baron learns Christopher is a natural mystic, able to take his body into the country of dreams as he sleeps.
The Baron is a Freemason and a free-thinker. He lets Christopher develop along his own path, offering only the occasional piece of advice voiced as Taoist paradox.
As Christopher matures, he finds and looses love, faces the dark side of himself, and finally learns that his soul has a secret history and a destiny to fulfill which is beyond anything he could ever have imagined.
"The White Dominican", though fairly a short novel, is not an easy read the first time through. It is not at all about linear plot or even about character development. Meyrink said he wrote his novels "according to the laws of magic"--and this one perhaps most of all. The beginning of the novel shows the strong influence of Dickens (whom Meyrink translated into German), but after the first few chapters Meyrink has built the story into something entirely unique.

Although written almost 40 years ago, still strikingly actual. Compared to current day Ghana, the book has lost none of its value for those who want to find out more as to how Ghanaians experience Europeans and moreover: why.

Herling maintains a sombre note throughout the book, but he rarely judges or seeks revenge. Very similar to Primo Levi, Herling decides to portray the horror of a place where very few accounts survive in an almost detached account. He compliments matter-of-fact observation with more metaphysical psycholoically challenging idealism, a style that works well without ever confusing either the reader or the issue. Despite the overall tone, he even manages to inject some scattered humour, illustrating that the human animal is a very accepting species. As long as one has hope, almost anything can be survived. This book is perhaps one of the most valuable insights to an almost ignored horror.

A fairly complex plot line that blends a "reality plot" with one of fantasy. As the plot lines merge, I finally started to piece together the subtle lesson the book had been trying to teach me all along - the value of life and celebrating it in a variety of ways.

As a reader, I don't typically go for the "feel sorry for myself/the Fates are against me" storylines. I do read books that deal with serious, even sad, subject matter, but I seem to react better to those than aren't more of a pity party to which I've (mistakenly) been invited. I don't say this as a good or bad thing, only as an indication of my taste. From that indication, you might better judge my opinion of this book, which is very high, by the way.

The story begins as a reminiscence by a widow of her deceased physician husband and how they both dealt with the loss of their son. While this sounds depressing and, to use one of my strongest condemning phrases, angst-filled, it actually handles both issues in a way that left me . . . shoot, how do you describe a sad topic that doesn't leave you exactly sad? Hopeful?

So, with that in mind, I loved this book. If I can't describe the plot well, maybe I can do better with the book itself . . . it is impressive and at times, fun. It will slow at points, but hang in there. It'll be worth it in the end.

The Chess Garden is simply one of the best books I have ever read. The protagonist deals with many issues confronting every one: spiritual ambiguity and conviction, passionate love, tragic loss, and one's sense of place and community. The novel moves in three timelines: the doctor's growing up in Europe and courtship of his wife, his imaginary tale of Gulliverian wanderings in the mysterious land of Antipodes, and his hometown of Dayton 13 years after the doctor's famous letters from abroad. I wanted to restart it as soon as I finished it!

I've read "The Chess Garden" only once, four years ago. But a week rarely goes by when my heart and mind don't return to it. I don't pretend to grasp all of its themes. But as a parent, I found deep meaning in this book, wherein God's presence is revealed most fully in the love we feel for our children. And our experience of this love then allows us to turn outward to others, more completely and authentically. Mark Helprin's "Memoir from Antproof Case" touches on this theme, but not with the same power. The Doctor's spiritual quest after the death of his young son rang so emotionally true, so heartbreakingly real, that I've been unable to read it again. (Though I'm sure I will eventually) It's a sad and hopeful book. For those of us who struggle with doubt and strain to glimpse a loving, personal God, we should spend a few summer afternoons in The Chess Garden. Of course, it's only fiction. It merely points the way to what we all have access to, every day, in our real lives.

This is a very, very good book. But Stanley Kubrick only filmed the first half. So if you want to know the rest of the story ... Be forewarned however; it's pretty bleak, even by the standards of the movie. This is very nearly the best Vietnam novel I have read, although I think its sequel -- "The Phantom Blooper" -- is actually better. Stunning and revelatory are words that come immediately to mind to describe that one. Certain readers might have trouble with the politics of The Phantom Blooper however. Other books of the same calibre as The Short-Timers would be some of the better items in the Avon paperback series from the early '80's. There are about a dozen books or so. I have not read all of them. The best one I know is Tom Suddick's "A Few Good Men". It comes close to Hasford in quality but not quite. The Short-Timers and the other two mentioned above are all experiential (and presumably autobiographical in large part), told from an infantryma! n's perspective. If you would like a little political background for contrast, try to find a copy of "A Tract of Time" by Smith Hempstone, last reprinted in the Avon series.

This must be the best Vietnam War novel I've read. It's a perfect piece of literature. The writing is incredible. Poetic, sharp, and to the point. I've read great things about Stephen Wright's "Meditations in Green" and O'Brien's "Going After Cacciato." I've read both of those books. They're excellent, but neither of them hold a candle to Gustav Hasford's The Short-Timers. The irony being, of course, that this novel is little-known, and not even in print.

Written from the point of view of combat journalist Corporal Joker, the book reads as if it's narrated by one of the Marines Michael Herr followed around in "Dispatches." That same dark sense of humor is in place, that same tone of voice that one moment is expounding on something profound, the next joking about something mundane. Hasford was a vet, he was a Marine in the middle of it all, and his words drip with realism. But there is a surreal aspect to the book as well, as is expected from any Vietnam novel worth its salt. The fate of Rafter Man, as well as the delusional sequence in which Joker believes he's been killed, are macabre bits of surrealism that leave a lasting impression.

The book is spilt into three connected novellas. The first two, "Spirit of the Bayonet" and "Body Count," were adapted by Stanley Kubrick for his film "Full Metal Jacket." However, the final novella in the book, "Grunts," which details Joker's experiences in the besieged Khe Sahn base, rivals the Do Lung Bridge sequence in "Apocalypse Now," and it's a shame Kubrick didn't include this section in his movie.

To increase the impact of the prose, Hasford writes in present-tense. His sentences are lean and mean, making the book a quick read (it's also very short). All of this just makes me scratch my head. Hasford was obviously a talented writer. The novel reminds me of Golding's "Lord of the Flies," not due to content, but due to the quality of writing, a perfect mixture of modicum and depth. So why did Hasford die in obscurity? There's just no justice.

The only recent author I could compare to Hasford would be Thom Jones, who includes several excellent Vietnam short stories in his three collections (i.e., "The Pugilist at Rest," etc). Jones, though, mostly writes character pieces; with Hasford, you not only get that, but also extremely realistic and bloody action sequences. Simply put, he's a great, forgotten author, and his books need to be put back into print, as soon as possible.

The prose style of this short novel is quite different from that of most Vietnam War novels...that's reason enough for reading it: it's unusual. Also, some of the characters and scenes are a bit outrageous. I was so taken with the book in high school that I actually tried to convince a cheerleader to read it...that poor girl!! The Short-Timers was also the basis for Kubrick's film, Full-Metal Jacket. This film was pretty good, except for the miscast role of Animal-Mother. Inexcusable!

In Man and his Symbols (1961), Jung's last book, Jung and four of his disciples (Von Franz, Henderson, Jaffé, and Jacobi) team up to introduce the world to the collective unconscious and its manifestations in mythology, art, dreams, and even science.

Jung suggests that man's greatest adventure lies in the exploration of the inner world of the psyche. By getting in touch with the unconscious (especially through dreams), one is supposedly able to activate latent guiding powers that will help him become a stronger individual. Jaffé's essay details a case where a Jungian anaylsis is successful, and it convinced me.

For a basic grasp of the collective unconscious and the archetypal symbols and how they relate to you, this book serves. It's very easy to understand, and its simple language and many illustrations make it easy to work through.

The only disappointment is that the book is too simple. Given only a taste of the basic concepts, you are left wanting more depth and a wider discussion of Jung's ideas. As Ms. Von Franz says in the closing essay, "This book sketches only an infinitesimal part of his [Jung's] vast contribution to this new field of psychological discovery."

This is one book everyone should read and be acquainted with. There aren't many books that can make this kind of claim. First, it is written so that the average person can understand it on first reading without intensive study. This isn't a grandiose claim, given that so much of early psychology is now an integral feature of social institutions.

Secondly, it is largely purged of some of Jung's more outrageous and nonsensical ideas, like his "collective unconscious." The scope of the book is limited primarily to the effect and use of symbols in everyday life, particularly as it affects dreams.

Third, everyone dreams, and after reading this book, the reader will have a great tool by which to analyze many of these dreams. Those who try to interpret their dreams literally (like reading the Bible literally) discover they have missed the point. The dreams of the subsconscious are symbolic images that need to be thoroughly interpreted in light of specific symbols and the meaning of these symbols -- and not the dream narrative itself.

Finally, mankind is defined by its being a rational animal with linguistic capacity. Language itself is both audible and visual signs and symbols of the mind. The very words we use to describe life's events are often chosen for their symbolic capacity, which can lead to an imprisonment of the mind or its liberation from man and his symbols.

If you are a layman like myself and feel that Jung may be a bit difficult to read you should start with this. Although this book does not systematically present his theories, it touches on all of Jung's important contributions to psychology. While reading this book, it was easily understood why Jung was so intrigued by mysticism. The illustrations in this book are amazing, and sometimes spellbinding, and to me they had the effect I think the authors intended -- to understand The archetypes. Read this book. It will take you places you never been or thought you could go.

"Titus Andronicus" is the most notorious and least performed play of Shakespeare's. T.S. Eliot once called it the worst play written in the English language and not even the loyalist Shakespeare scholars have stood by it. Not until the movie "Titus" came out, have I heard anyone mention it. All I knew before I finally saw it was that it was extremely over the top violent. In fact, when the rare times it had been performed to modern audiences, many audience members started laughing at how absurd and over the top violent it was. I am a very serious moody theater person but even I couldn't help laugh at some of these scenes. However, I am very curious to suspect, as Harold Bloom did, that Shakespeare might've wrote "Titus Andronicus" as a spoof on his contemporaries. The play's content, plot, and characters are exactly equal to Seneca's plays. Seneca's plays however were never performed and we have no evidence that Shakespeare read Seneca's plays. So perhaps it was a jab at Kyd or Marlowe. The movie "Titus" seemed to use a lot of parody at many times. When I saw it the audience was laughing. I think it is safe to say that that theory may be correct. Although even if it was a parody, the play is still flat and doesn't do much for the audience. There are moments though where we can see Shakespeare developing as a dramatist. I couldn't help but think of "Macbeth" and "King Lear" during parts of Titus' monologues. Actually "Titus Andronicus" at best is a great study on the audience. 'Titus' was well received and performed in Shakespeare's day. Shakespeare was delivering to the audience, giving them a bloody Revenge tragedy that was popular in Elizabethan times. I am very surprise in an age when we make films that can depict a man cutting his face off and feeding it to his dogs("Hannibal"), that 'Titus' wouldn't be more popular. I imagine that Shakespeare was trying to shift from comedian to tragedian and wrote a little experiment called "Titus Andronicus." 'Titus' is worth reading for those who want to read all of Shakespeare but to the average reader, I would say pass and read "KIng Lear" or "Macbeth." To give this play more than three stars would be an insult to Shakespeare's masterpieces.

For my fellow reviewers who choose to simply pass this play over because of the prevelant violence, I must point out the complex, witty character of Aaron the Moor. Shakespeare either intended for this play to be a parody of Marlowe/Kyd, or he wanted to experiment with a character, Aaron, to evoke every possible feeling from his audience. And, in my humble opinion, Shakespeare succeeded at this. Aaron is, at the same time, evil and cunny, witty and horrifying, and compassionate and stoic. His final lines, as he is buried up to his neck, left to starve, are some of the best confessions ever produced by the bard. It takes a truly cruel and uncaring individual to not feel for Aaron, who gives up his life for his child's, and who hopelessly and blindly loves a cruel witch of a woman. This play is worth reading, or seeing if you should be so lucky, simply to indulge yourself in the character of Aaron the Moor.

On a superficial first reading, 'Titus Andronicus' is lesser Shakespeare - the language is generally simple and direct, with few convoluted similes and a lot of cliches. The plot, as with many contemporary plays, is so gruesome and bloody as to be comic - the hero, a Roman general, before the play has started has lost a wife and 21 sons; he kills another at their funeral, having dismembered and burnt the heroine's son as a 'sacrifice'; after her husband is murdered, his daughter is doubly raped and has her tongue and hands lopped off; Titus sacrifices his own hand to bail out two wrongfully accused sons - it is returned along with their heads. Et cetera. The play concludes with a grisly finale Peter Greenaway might have been proud of. The plot is basically a rehash of Kyd, Marlowe, Seneca and Ovid, although there are some striking stage effects.

Jonathan Bate in his exhaustive introduction almost convinces you of the play's greatness, as he discusses it theoretically, its sexual metaphors, obsessive misogyny, analysis of signs and reading etc. His introduction is exemplary and systematic - interpretation of content and staging; history of performance; origin and soures; textual history. Sometimes, as is often the case with Arden, the annotation is frustratingly pedantic, as you get caught in a web of previous editors' fetishistic analysing of punctuation and grammar. Mostly, though, it facilitates a smooth, enjoyable read.

The style of the book is very unscientific. The author uses a lot of words which seem to confuse rather than elucidate. After reading 20 pages, I put the book down. For a thorough, scientific and clear introduction to Jung's life and work, together with a helpful bibliography, refer to Anthony Steven's excellent book "On Jung". No need to waste your money on Singer's book.

I have to give this book 5 stars not just because I found it to be a very thorough explanation of Jung's theories but also because readers much greater than I have given this book rave reviews as noted from the back cover! Admittedly, this book is not easy to get through but worth the bit of struggle; it seems everyone should be interested in psychology since it's how we think, our attitudes and resulting behavior that rules our lives and the lives of all the human beings that we come in contact with!

Interspersed with Jung's theories are real life psychoanalytical scenarios most centered around dream analysis which I thought was way more real and interesting than reality TV! Prior to reading this book, I did not realize how much of Jung's theory has become a part of our lives, such as archetypes, although I think these were originally discussed by Plato, projection and transference, synchronicity and of course the individuation process. The latter is the acceptance of our humanness on a holistic level and the continuing discovery of our potential.

Warning, this book may raise your level of consciousness and force you to realize that the world does not revolve around you! The sooner we all face up to the truth of our existence, that all human beings are untied, regardless of their race, color or creed, the sooner we can achieve internal and therefore external peace.

A thoroughly lucid description of a life philosophy we can all learn from. June Singer provides specific examples from her many years of growth and practice of Jungian psychoanalysis. Very perceptive updating of Jung's theories for the 1990's