It is often said contemporary French philosophy mistakes obscurity for profundity. There is more than a kernel of truth to that statement when applied to Jean-Luc Nancy's writing on Hegel. As far writing goes, Nancy's musings on Hegel are not altogether displeasing when taken as poetry but, philosophically, Nancy has not given us much. This is a shame because Nancy's work on Lacan, _The Title of the Letter_, (with Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe) is a rather ingenious interpretation. This should not surprise us, however, considering the body of Nancy's work, taken as a whole, is not very philosophical but rather really an exercise in aesthetics. (Perhaps this is why American literature departments rave about various French posties while most actual philosophers view French "play" much like Bismark viewed Napolean III's statesmanship: erratic, ill-conceived, and ultimately without the substance necessary to sustain itself.)

Hegel of course was (and still is) considered quite obscure by many, but taken to be philosophically formidable and rigorous. The French philosopher that initiated contemporary interest of Hegel in France, Kojeve, managed to put together a few positive concepts on Hegel's philosophy of negativity. Nancy does not. He is content to remain, despite his own best deconstructive efforts, in the world of Nietzsche's last man--endlessly searching in vain for an answer to the demise of the Enlightenment and taking the search itself to now be the best option available. Such nihilistic gamesmanship is appealing to disaffected lefties because they, like Nancy, will not move beyond the liberal naivetes no longer tenable in a post-Nietzschean world. They wish to promote a Kantian style ethical practice by invoking an unstated catergorical imperative of unconditional equality and toleration. The fact that there is no ground or reason for their political project is taken to be somehow supportive of "radical" equality; their hope being that by supporting epistemic skepticism they can institute a paralysis of the bildung that make the hierarchies of social systems possible. Of course what they have actually done is given themselves a way to advance an extreme version of the Enlightenment project of political emancipation while rhetorically denying the other positive claims of the Enlightenment. Hegel himself did his best to put a good face on the aporias exposed by Kant's reaction to Hume's skepticism but was not, in the end, successful. Herein lies the problem for Nancy and his ilk. They would be better served to strike a more truly Hegelian pose rather than languish in the death throws of a long since faded Enlightenment. Such political tactics are philosophically transparent. If you are looking for an actual philosophic treatment and explanation of Hegel's thought I would suggest Stanley Rosen's book on Hegel.

After the death of both Deleuze and Levinas in 1995, the mantle of "greatest living philosopher" presumably went to Jacques Derrida for a while. But Derrida has always refused to be a philosopher other than in the sense of not being a philosopher (which is also being a philosopher). So his cohort and quasi-follower Jean-Luc Nancy had to take the real philosophy from Derrida back to the question underlying all post-modern thought, namely how to deal with the empty space left behind by Heidegger's deconstruction of the tradition. With this little book, Nancy himself has become "the greatest living philosopher" - that is to say he has done to Hegel what Heidegger did to Nietzsche in the 1930s and 1940s: presented him as the key thinker of the break of modernity, and, unnoticeably perhaps, stepped beyond him. This book is indeed a marvel - one gets slightly dizzy reading it. Its intensity is at times (no: always) well-nigh unbearable. Nancy, like Heidegger with Nietzsche, takes a drill to the concepts of Hegel and allows them to shine in ways hitherto unthought(see the editorial review above, no need to repeat the details). In the end, this is the overturning of the boring old French Hegel of Kojeve and Hyppolite and the most exciting discovery in philosophical reading of another in sixty some years. I had always thought of Hegel as the great synthesizer. But Nancy's Hegel "returns" Hegel to pre-Socratic instability and shaky difference, where the restless thought-in-process constitutes the sense of the world, and philosophy is as alive as it ever was. A friend of mine says that Nancy reminds him of the color of the LED on alarm clocks: well, he's right, 'cause Jean-Luc Nancy is very much a phenomenon of a new morning. The owl is disoriented but it is all a marvel. Yes, I guess that is what you could say.

The Book I read was George Bush's War. The Author of this book is Jean Edward Smith. I think that Smith is a very smart man or he's got some inside connections, because he has information on meetings that happened incognito, if you know what I mean. I also thought this book was exceptionally educational. The reason why I felt this book is educational is because it provided me with a different sense of humor than I am used too, while getting some strong information in-bedded in my head. I felt that the main plot in this book is about one person, George bush, rounding up a group of people to rise against Iraq. I feel that the strength of this book is when the U.S walked up on the Iraqi people. It also talks about how Iraq placed Saddam on a pedestal, as a hero and how he was viewed that way by the entire Arab world. This book included "behind the scenes" interviews, and information that had not been released to the public. It had real life interviews. This book contains many details that are irrelevant to my research, but over all I would say this book is good. I feel that this book is good for writing papers or reports, but if you want to learn a lot about the war I would recommend you to another book. Thanks
By Justin

I read George Bush's War by Smith. I liked most of it. The thesis of the book is that George Bush was the sole figure in rallying opposition against Iraq.

The strengths of the book is that the book contains good material on why Saddam was regarded as a hero in the Arab world. He gives a pretty good history of the Middle East. Also, I like some of the "behind the scenes" information of the campaign against Iraq.

The weaknesses of the book are glaring. First, there are too many quotes. I do not really care what the assistant to the US Ambassador to some country that I never heard of says about something that an equally minute representative said about Saddam Hussien, just to give an example. Keep in mind that not ALL quotes were bad. Another thing is that the book STOPS at the bombing of Baghdad. The questions of why did Jordan support Iraq or Did Iraq and Iran mend fences were never mentioned. The major weaknes is that there was not enough historical distance at that time to justify writing a detailed work. In political terms, the book is above average. In military terms, it is pretty weak.

If someone was writing a paper on the Gulf War, I would recommend this book as a starting point. If someone wanted to know about military concerns, this is not the book for you.

This adventure story from Jean Craighead George, award-winning author of more than eighty critically acclaimed books for young readers, came in 1979, six years after she won the prestigious Newbery Medal for her classic JULIE OF THE WOLVES, and twenty years after she won the silver Newbery Honor for the famous MY SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN. Here again, the story deals with kids struggling to survive in a remote environment--and the result is no less engaging. Joe and Crowbar, two adventurous friends, are sent out by Joe's uncle to do a suspicious task that involves rafting over the dangerous wild rapids of the Colorado River. As they carry out the orders, their raft and most of their supplies are destroyed or lost down the river, and the boys must learn to fend for themselves in the mighty Grand Canyon and the hot, unforgiving desert. There, they find a mute wild child called Lizard Boy, and, while trying to stay alive, make an attempt to teach him language, and learn to respect and admire his strange ways. There are many details similar to those in MY SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN--the way the boys build shelter, prepare food, and spend their time. Other times, there are problems with the realism of the story--for example, the boys are readily able to eat lizards and dead cats, and sometimes the dialogue is not like the way kids would really talk today. When the truth about Joe's uncle's mysterious reason for the deadly task are revealed, the reader may be confused. Otherwise, this is a fine novel of the importance of friendship and an interesting look at the environment of the Grand Canyon. Readers should be captivated by the interesting plot and the good use of strong adjectives and powerful descriptions that the author devotes to the story.

"Signs, Symbols, and Ciphers," by Georges Jean is a beautiful book, and really fun to leaf through.

The book is flawless for what it is: an easily digested picture book introduction to the subject matter, but it is not an especially compelling read. That can be really disappointing, because the illustrations are so wonderful that one really wants to learn something that brings all these fascinating images together and makes inspiring sense of them, through reading the text .

One has the sense that there is something of vast significance here, and one wants to get a hint of it from the text. That just doesn't happen. The text contains some interesting information, but one is left with the feeling that an important, conclusive observation can and should be made about the subject matter, and that it hasn't been.

Like all of the books in the "Discoveries" series, "Signs, Symbols, and Ciphers" is exceptionally enjoyable to look at. The illustrations are beautiful, well-chosen, varied, interesting, and effectively placed. All by themselves, they give a fun, intuitive lesson on the subject matter of "Signs, Symbols, and Ciphers." As a small, easily carried version of a coffee table book the book is perfect.

The second, smaller, section of the book, titled "Documents" is of more interest to those looking for deeper intellectual stimulation. In that section, the author discusses "Sign Theory", and introduces the "science" of the study of the life of signs within society, "Semiology."

Semiology, a sort of marriage of psychology and linguistics (as the author describes it) is, by his own admittance, not generally accepted as a science. It is a fascinating subject, but a difficult one to address without sounding simple-minded.

For example, it is fun to see an illustration of the multitude of ways in which human beings use voice, gesture and facial expression to convey meaning in ordinary conversation but it's a little boring to read paragraphs of text that describing them without drawing interesting parallels.

The author does discuss in some depth a few variations purely gestural languages (primarily sign languages for the deaf or voluntarily silent) and for the blind, but he does not draw parallels between these complete languages and our own use of gestural signs in daily communication.

The section on maps spends several pages telling us what kind of information we can get from maps. The author does make the interesting observation that while we read maps, we do so spatially, not in a linear manner, as we would read a book. However, he fails to bring us to an understanding about what this reveals about the true nature of signs and symbols, and the human need to communicate. Offsetting this is the fact that the many illustrations of maps, both old and new, are revealing and stimulating all by themselves.

I'm certainly glad I bought "Signs, Symbols, and Ciphers." It's a great little picture book, but it's a little disappointing to read.

Eleanor of Aquitane and six others is the first book of a trilogy on women by Georges Duby. It is an interesting approach to the writer who, not many years ago named the Middle Ages "the age of men". Duby brings some light into a still obscure part of medieval history which is the condition of women. The essays are well written and easily understood by all readers, specialized or not. He focuses on the image created of women, and that's the main problem with the text. By insisting on images of women he fails to bring into light the reality of women's lives to emphasize the representation of women and not women themselves.

The Fire Bug Connection wasn't all that interesting to me. There were two parts that I liked; When the bats could tell their batlets apart, and when the fire bugs died, they went 'POP'. I dislike this book because it felt like we were reading a science text book, more then a novel. I think that it was interesting when the bats could tell their batlets apart because I thought that bats were dumb mammals that were creepy, ugly,and their only intenisions are to freak people out. Now I know that they are much smarter then they look. I also thought that when the bugs went 'POP', it was neat. They died because a bug could die from going through metamorphoses. The reason that they died was because the sand paper in their cage had a hormone in it that a fir balsim tree had in it. The book felt like a science book I think because it had all these technical terms and I got confused alot of the time with all the creatures names, and pet names and everytying. Thats another reason why I dislike the novel. I give The Fire Bug Connection only two stars because I only thought that two parts of the book was interesting. I also didnt prefer the book because it seemed like reading a science text book, more then a novel. That's why I only gave it two stars.

Mystery and ecology collide--with varying fascinating, tedious, informative, thrilling, and confusing results--in Jean Craighead George's Eco-Mysteries series. The author of JULIE OF THE WOLVES, MY SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN, and nearly one hundred other distinguished nature stories for young readers, Ms. George also wrote four mysteries--WHO REALLY KILLED COCK ROBIN?, THE CASE OF THE MISSING CUTTHROATS, THE MISSING 'GATOR OF GUMBO LIMBO, and this book, THE FIRE BUG CONNECTION. All include details into our environment and the factors that threaten to destroy parts of it. THE FIRE BUG CONNECTION falls a bit short of the other books in its series for a number of reasons. The story concerns a young entomologist named Maggie, and her enemy-turned-partner Mitch, as they try to solve the mystery of the deaths of Maggie's birthday present, a group of radiant fire bugs from the Czech Republic, at Maggie's home in a Maine Biological Research Station--Bug Camp. Mitch is convinced that global warming committed the crimes; Maggie immediately dismisses this idea (I never quite understood why). Acid rain is a factor, too, as well as chemicals that may exist in the paper in the fire bugs' containers, and, finally, the most unusual culprits, a raven and a balsam fir tree. The ending of the story seems overly complicated, but this may not be so for more scientific mature readers who, like Maggie and Mitch, know about the existence of many kinds of chemicals and where they can be found. I found myself concentrating less on the mystery of the destruction of the fire bugs and more on the amusing details around Bug Camp--Maggie's friends: a clan of bats, a wasp, and a spider--and how Mitch ever figured how to get rid of a computer virus without using a special disinfectant program. Anyone who is interested in the tiny but amazing world of insects and other "creepy" but splendid critters like ravens and bats, or anyone whose favorite things in school include science and reading mysteries, will find this book enjoyable, despite its occasional shortcomings.

The main character in this book is a girl named Maggie. Every summer she goes to bug camp. A boy named Mitch also attends the camp. Maggie doesn't like him and thinks he's a pest.

Her mom, who studies the effect of acid rain on trees also goes to bug camp. Mr. Capek, another graduate scientist, comes to bug camp. It's Maggies birthday when he arrives so he gives her a present: a collection of firebugs.

Maggie loves them because of their colors. She promises to make Mr. capek a pillow, which is stuffed with pine neddles from a balsam fir. Mr. Capek, Maggies mom, and a bunch of others go on a field expedition.

While they are away Maggies firebugs pop and die. She notices that they won't grow up and calls them " peter pans". Maggie suspects that its the ravens in the area that caused the problem since they mean death in Mr. Capek's country.

Mitch does many tests on Maggies animals including Areaneus the spider, Myotis the bat, and a wasp.

Finally, Maggie suspects that the paper in the bug cage is to blame. She wonders if the chlorine in the paper was the culprit. Mitch takes a bug and puts chlorine on it but its not a good test, because chlorine will kill any bug. Then Mitch finds out it was a hormone that wouldn't let the bugs grow. Since it was the hormone the mystery had been solved.

This was not such a good book because of many reasons. It all took place in the same setting without much excitment. I like mysteries but not this kind.

As a teacher, I was very disappointed that a noted author would have such poor writing skills. There are so many sentence fragments in this story, I lost count. I do not know how many times I have to tell students to not start sentences with the word "and". This story has sentences that start with the word "and", and sentences that are just prepositional phrases. It is hard to teach students to write, when authors write poorly.

I am a fan of Jean Fritz, but I was disappointed with this book. It portrays Mrs. Washington in a very bad light, selfish, and greedy. While this may be true, I don't feel it is appropriate for this age level. Children this age should be taught to respect adults. If what Jean Fritz wrote about Mrs. Washington is true then I don't mind my children learning about it...when they are a bit older. Although this book was a disappointment, I do recommend other Fritz books such as George Wahington's Breakfast, and Shh! We're writing the Constitution.

I really appreciated this book. It shows that we are all human and even George Washington had a clingy dependent mother. Whatever flaws he had in his own personality and flaws in his relations, he still found himself being able to cope and acheive. That's a great message to send to readers. It also highlights the dependency women had on men. George Washington's mother was not able to support herself and believed she could not cope.

Account of how the fearless leader hoodwinks yet another pidgeon. Too bad Toomer & the rest of them couldn't honor & respect those who truly deserved it...their wives & mothers.

I suppose the motivation for writing this book in the words of Gurdjieff in Beelzebub's Tales would be: 'to destroy, mercilessly, without any compromises whatsoever, in the mentation and feelings of the reader, the beliefs and views, rooted in him, about Gurdjieff himself".

I always thought that Gurdjieff took care that his own image was not without tarnish; this has been explained as his way of getting his followers not to identify the man with the teaching. Paul Beekman Taylor completes this work and achieves a clear separation, without leaving us any shadow of doubt.

Gurdjieff according to Mr. Taylor was a womanizer, father of his sister Eve and about half a dozen (if not more) of other children, who Gurdjieff left to their mothers to raise shunning all resposibility like plague (at least he did so with Eve). His Gurdjieff wrote appallingly childish letters in bad taste to Mr. Taylor's mother, Edith Annesly Taylor, who said of Gurdjieff: "He is not a nice man", and kept coming back to him like a jojo for about 25 years.

Jean Toomer, one of the many lovers of Edith Taylor, comes out much cleaner. As Gurdjieff would say: "very handy, no children, just handkerchief".

Nobody is a prophet in his own country; only very few of Gurdjieff's relatives, official or unofficial, seem to have learned from him about the things he taught. Mr. Taylor is almost family, but he learned at least one thing. His book has a one page record of the conversation he had with Gurdjieff in 1949, in which he said: "Come see me in New York, you pay me for summer here with story there, at Child's. Story is breath, life. Without story man have no self." Gurdjieff died before Paul Beekman Taylor told his story to him.

Now 50 years later he achieves with his story a good increase of the distance between Gurdjieff the man and his teaching.

Paul Taylor's book has two perspectives. One is that of an insider who grew up within the Gurdjieff movement. His mother was Gurdjieff and Jean Toomer's lover. His own father remains an unsolved mystery. He tells many stories of the rather Bohemian love affairs the various members of the entourage "enjoyed" -- although they mostly sound miserable and crazy.

Taylor, an English professor at the University of Geneva, also manages to put Jean Toomer and Gurdjieff into a larger academic perspective -- commenting on Toomer's race, and Gurdjieff's proximity to other philosophers and writers of his period.

The book is well-written -- maintaining at one time a personal perspective, and a wider, more objective, academic perspective. For Gurdjieffians and Toomer fans alike -- the book is highly readable and informative.

-- Kirby Olson

Spanish mystic poet St John of the Cross captured a deep emotion, and deep sense of the Middle Ages, when he described the 'dark night of the soul.' The notion was mined by many a diarist and poet over the years that followed.

In Night in the Middle Ages, night takes center stage, and while the souls that make their transits there show their personalities at times, its night's dominion over them that is the story.

How dark was it? Very. Night in the Middle Ages is determined. Jean Verdon digs amidst all kinds of documents to tell as well as possible what went on at night back then. If a murder took place, and it was after dark, then it is fodder for the author. Sometimes the feel is of a police blotter, and the perspective may be skewed. The feel is also that of Wisconsin Death Trip, which found a landscape of suicide, vagrancy and general doom in a late 19th Century Wisconsin that most folks' memories had turned into a prarie of little happy homeland houses.

Sometimes Night in the Middle Ages seems unremitting. It becomes like one of those nights, when sleep is a job, the dreams come in series, and morning is always an eternity away. But St John, Francois Villon, Gregory of Tours and others make appearances. Which is a worthwhile. For a person who cant get enough of that medieval stuff, who finds enchantment in those wine cask days in those Scholastic years, may rate a good read.

Professor Verdon's latest book is a splendid extravagance. It serves no practical purpose, but it is lots of fun. Reading this book will not help you to acquire a better job, nor will it improve your performance in your current employment (unless you are an history teacher). It won't help you to become a better person. It will not improve your relationships. It will not deepen your spirituality, or help you to present a more temperate personality to the world. Unless you are an avid player of "Trivial Pursuit," you won't even be able to make use of the facts presented in this book.

Still, Professor Verdon has given us a text that challenges the intellect. He delights his readers with well researched and written prose. In short, he has given us a delightful diversion.

Read this book just for the fun of it.