When reading a text, how much does what the author intended count for, if anything? Is there any way to tell what a text "really" means, or can it be read however you like for whatever purpose you like? Simple as they seem, these are the fundamental questions this book is concerned with, and it is Eco's task to explain why he thinks there should be limits to interpretation - against the prevailing opinions of many modern critics and thinkers.

The book is laid out in eight sections. The first is the Introduction, which is substantial. If you're in the habit of skipping the introduction I would advise against it here, unless you consider yourself thoroughly familiar with the subject - it's helpful.

The next three sections consist of a series of lectures Eco gave on this subject, where he establishes his main points. It's quite accessible to the layman, and in the few places where the terms get a bit obscure you can usually figure out what he's talking about from the context. He uses several historical examples which keep things interesting, and his arguments are interesting whether you find them convincing or not.

Essays by Rorty, Culler and Brooke-Rose in response to these lectures make up the next part. Rorty, a self-described "pragmatist", makes the argument that we shouldn't concern ourselves with what makes a "valid" interpretation, and instead just use texts as they come before us for whatever purpose suits us best. Culler, coming from the side of the deconstructionists, argues that what Eco calls "overinterpretation" has a value of its own and reacts strongly to the implication that there should be any limits whatsoever imposed upon the critic. Brooke-Rose's piece on "palimpsest history" is not uninteresting but somewhat tangential, and you really have to stretch things to relate it to the argument going on between Eco, Rorty and Culler.

The wrap-up section is a response from Eco, mostly addressing Rorty's points though dealing somewhat with Culler's objections. There is no clear "winner", and you may not be swayed to Eco's point of view if you found one of the others more compelling, but there is ample food for thought.

I don't have much background in literary theory, but I still found Eco's writing very accessible and very enjoyable. I think the topic would interest anyone that has ever tried to appreciate literature: up to what point can we take events in a book/play/poem to be significant to the idea the writer is trying to get across?

This book constructs its arguments from the ground up, although at times the approach to interpretation taken by Eco is radically different from how one would be accustumed to reading a book.

I believe that eventually one gets used to the different approaches suggested -- or better, exemplified -- by Eco, and the initial difficulties in understanding his point of view are overcome to open a great new horizon of ideas and literary enjoyment.

Very enjoyable. Fascinating plot line. As a CPA who does governmental audits, it was exciting to read about standards in a murder mystery format. I would recommend it to accountants and certainly to students who are considering going into accounting. It is informative as well as entertaining.

I found this book to be an interesting way to explain some of the governmental accounting issues that auditors face. The story line kept my interest the entire time I was reading. Also, the outrageous plot made the technical material easier to remember. This book made for interesting reading of a not-so-interesting topic. Thank you Dr. and Mrs. Brown.

I am truely amazed at the popularity of Mr. Rose's literary attempts. How sad that he knows nothing of his success, though he is not yet deceased. The person I read about is a stranger to me though I was wife #1(there's a #2 as well) from 1950 thru 1974(a marriage that produced 3 children). I will grant that he was a brilliant & imaginative man, though perhaps a bit psychotic. I caution to beware. You are reading the rantings of a man that lost touch with reality years ago - long before illness ravaged his oh so demented mind.

This is an example of the teaching style of a truely great man. Richard Rose was one of the greatest spiritual advisors of all time. I recommend reading this fine selection of lectures and talks of Mister Rose in his prime. His writings are of great value, but this is a Zen Master, One on One up close and personal. Outstanding!!!

It is interesting to read the author as he interacts with questioners. Rose comes across as sincerely attempting to help people uncover their spiritual blocks. I've read all of Rose's books and find this the easiest to read. It's a good introduction to his work.

Beautiful American Rose Gardens is a good but not a great book because too many of the rose gardens discussed in this book are too large (acres and acres). The pictures are wonderful and descriptions are well written and I recommend that rose lovers read this book. However, the book doesn't give enough detail into how a reader can create their own rose gardens, especially if they are not professional rosarians or wealthy enough to afford professional gardners. Most of the gardens in this book are owned by rose retailers or rich or famous people like Bob Hope.

I was drawn to this book by the stunning pictures of roses and rose gardens. However, it is the wealth of valuable information on EVERY aspect of roses that make this one of my all-time favorite gardening books.

This book would make an excellent present for the neophyte and expert gardener alike. The author's passion is contagious. A great read and highly recommended

Richard Shenkman reviews the facts behind the legends of American History. He researched various books to present a new look at old history. Where could these mistakes come from? Perhaps it comes from the official history books selected by the Boards of Education. Some from entertainments passed off as history. There is always the need to present old history to "prove" the correctness of current politics. If reading opposing viewpoints educates you, read this entertaining book and become a little wiser.

Chapter 1 is on 'Patriotism'. Our national flag was rarely in use until after the War for the Union. Troops used regimental colors or state flags. The Pledge of Allegiance was created in 1892. Shenkman seems to not understand the phrase "our flag was still there" (p.8). The meaning to me is whether Fort McHenry was captured. Using lyrics from a song about drinking and loving would not be objectionable to 19th century military (p.9). Chapter 2 is on 'Religion'. Shenkman corrects the misinformation spread by corporate advertising. The fact that church membership (and the right to vote - p.25) was limited suggests churches operated as a ruling class and limited its membership by choice (p.23). Page 29 tells how Madison and Jefferson refused public prayers. Lincoln was the first president to affirm the usefulness of religion in politics. Lincoln was never baptized and never a member of any church; he used religion as per Machiavelli's advice. Chapter 3 is on 'Work and Play'. Shenkman doesn't note that as workers became wage-earners instead of self-employed in the 19th century, there was a new need for leisure time activities. Almost all entertainment or sports were invented in the Victorian era (p.35). Show business is the true opiate of the people. The work ethic was replaced by the consumer ethic in the 1920s (p.45). Could scrimping and saving ruin the American economy (p.46)?

Chapter 4 is on 'Business'. Business has a long history of getting help from the government: special franchises, bounties, grants, immunities, protective tariffs, and land grants. Originally, corporations could not be created unless it performed a public service: canals, railroads, water supplies (p.53). Page 58 gives an example of censored history which made this book necessary. Shenkman identifies Marriner Eccles as the prophet of deficit spending (p.61). Page 63 notes how military spending supports business. The statistic about cotton production "not until fifteen years after" is misleading; 1860 produced a huge crop. The statistic about railroad trackage is also suspect (p.65). "War is the continuation of [business rivalry] through non-diplomatic means" said Clausewitz. The post war period of "laissez faire" resulted in more economic depressions than any time in history. The output of commodities increased at a slower rate than before the Civil War (p.69)!

The book concludes with Chapter 12 'So Many Myths'. Page 193 tells of praise for Mayes' book; does this result from advertising and pay-offs to sell books? Could it explain the other myths and legends? As long as they can be sold, stories will be created. Look at TV. Just as America devised its own spelling ("jail" for "gaol"), so too they created new national myths (p.197). Are we that different from other peoples? Myths serve as symbols of cultural unity since the days of Remus and Romulus.

I found this to be a pretty good book. It provides fun information about history that you can use to impress your friends. Pick it up.

This short (80 pages), very pictorial guidebook to rose growing manages to convey to the reader the rich, exciting history of rose growing and the vastness of the industry in present days. It tells about how rose groweres manipulated and expanded the species, but also provides the novice back yard gardener with an easy to follow guide to buying and caring for roses. Many of the accompanying pictures are gorgeous. Of course they are - they ARE roses, after all.

I read this book on a plane trip from Ft Lauderdale to California. It was easy to read, and had some great ideas to do IMMEDIATELY. I couldn't wait to come back to the office and start writing a new marketing plan and putting that plan to action. Great job. I look forward to more books by Heidi Richards!

The book is great. It moves with random pace. Some stories will keep you hanging like a vampire sucking away your life blood, other stories can bore to death, but you get over it. The poems are also good with some twist. This comes as a highly recommended book for that fanged fan out there. Trust me, you'll love it...

I read this book for a college human nature class and found it highly enlightening. I have long been an opponent to the rigid structure of the nature v. nurture argument, and have thus far found few (if any) serious intellectual scientific works to clearly articulate other possible explanations for why we are the way we are. Kudos to the authors of Not in our Genes for presenting a possible alternative to the norm. Read it and see whatcha think.

A breath of fresh air in a fetid miasma of assumption and association, anecdotes and lies. The politics of the radical left are obviously clear, yet this is an honest response to the radical right who have claimed for years to be neutral. This finally lays to rest the false dichotomy of the nature vs nurture debate. The attack on the cultural determinism which for many years has given ammunition to the "common sense" view of the world, is attacked with equal venom as that of the genetic determinists of Richard Dawkins and other chauvinists. Deserves to be printed more times than lira.

I hadn't read much at all dealing with this subject matter but am glad I read the book. It points out the flawed nature of (some) science research in this area. In this the authors did a good job. However they didn't really influence me that much as to what extent our genes are responsible for what we become. I may reread the book

As I see it Rose puts four main arguments. 1 German antisemitism in the 19th century is substantially different from other European strands of antisemitism. I'm not qualified to comment on that, except that Rose doesn't bring out much evidence.

2 German political culture of the 19th century is inherently and ineluctably antisemitic. I'd accept "largely" antisemitic; but Rose wants to make an essentialist case, that you couldn't be a 19th century German radical without being antisemitic, and he fails to support that. Instead we get rhetoric, some of it as heated as Wagner's own.

3 Wagner was always antisemitic, even before 1850, when antisemitic references started to appear in his letters and articles. There it's safe to say that the evidence disproves Rose's case; see, for example, Jacob Katz's "Wagner: The Dark Side of Genius", a book which condemns Wagner's antisemitism on the basis of better research and less tenditiousness. Not only does Rose not actually make his case here, but he couldn't.

4 There is coded antisemitism in Wagner's operas. Here Rose abandons all pretence to academic standards and writes some very silly things. For example he argues that "Die Walku:re" is antisemitic because it depicts incest and adultery sympathetically; but adultery is against the Ten Commandments, and the Ten Commandments is a Jewish document. Wagner's, and "Die Walku:re"'s rejection of the 10 Commandments is therefore antisemitic. Where this leaves Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, and every other opera librettist, poet and dramatist in human history is not clear. By reasoning like this they must all be antisemites. In "Der Fliegende Hollander", Rose argues, Senta's entire village is an antisemitic depiction, because they value money over other values; therefore they must be meant as Jewish. When someone starts looking for antisemitic depictions, and comes up with the idea of a Jewish fishing village in the middle of the Norwegian fiords... when arguments like that are seriously put forward, we know two things. First, that the writer has lost the plot. Second, that the people who should have read the book before publication and got rid of embarrassing silliness like that, weren't doing their job.

I don't know much about the history of 19th century antisemitism in Europe; but Rose's material on Wagner is so hopelessly unreliable and ill-thought-out that it calls into question the reliability of his other material.

There's another comment on this book, apparently written by a believing Marxist, that claims that Wagner made a mistake in making his gods and Nibelungs, in the "Ring", morally equivalent. No, that wasn't a mistake; that was Wagner's _point_. Both the Nibelungs and the gods are involved in a struggle between the values of love and the desire for power. Both the gods and Nibelungs choose power, not love. Wagner was on the side of love, and that is why he makes both sides fall.

Even though Wagner was a flawed human being (but a human being, not a monster; he had a kind and considerate side as well as a selfish and manipulative side), the "Ring" is one of the greatest works of art ever created. And its message is pacifist, pro-love and anti-power, and (ironically, given Wagner's own racism) anti-racist, in showing the moral equivalence of all the different struggling peoples in the "Ring".

The writer of the other comment is right to say that Wagner was a shallow and inconsistent political thinker. But that means that not all of his ideas are bad. His antisemitism shames Wagner's memory as much as the antisemitism of Marx, Bakunin, Proudhon, Schubert, JS Bach, Schumann, Chopin, Mussorgsky, Dostoevsky, TS Eliot and so on and so on, shames theirs. But Wagner's defence of love over power, in the "Ring", strikes me as politically, as well as artistically, not without merit.

Rose makes a mistake in reading antisemitism into works that don't contain it, and another mistake in not recognising that Wagner's works have some moral merit which should not be thrown away.

Laon

I think this is an excellent book, contrary to the other reviews listed. It helped me understand several new concepts related to anti-semitism, particularly how Jews were thought of as being responsible for commercializing the German art world and bringing the bourgeois capitalist element to European culture. The book sheds much light on the development of anti-semitism relative to the increasing nationalist and revolutionary spirit in Germany during the first part of the 20th century. Wagner's general psychology and racist attitudes are conveyed very effectively, and his influence on future national socialist ideology is more than apparent. This book added a great deal to my understanding of the roots of European anti-semitism, and I thank the author for this.

Rose uncovers things we've always known about Richard Wagner, his virulent antisemiticism. He situates Wagner usefully in the philosophic mileau of the 19th Century and revolutionary thinking.However writers like Proudhon,Bauer,The Young Hegelians,and Fichte were relatively insignificant compared to Marx and the impact his thinking had of the ideologies of the 19th Century. Rose should have compared Wagner to Marx to define consummately what the term "revolution" really means. Also all these thinkers save Marx,were reactionary, which is why they appealed to Wagner. Rose's discussion of anarchist Bakunin, Wagner's Dresden Rebellion Days friend is even more problematic since Bakunin was ultimately a political opportunist, who would sell-out to save himself as he did countless times.Wagner was first and foremost a composer of music dramas,operas and his creative philosophic thinking remained energized toward that pursuit,which is why his fascination with 19th Century philosophic thought changed over his life. It actually became more conservative. Despite his early Dresden Days, Wagner was a political imbecile. He couldn't distinguish parties,nor collective wills. Given Wagner's unquestionable dominance in the world of Opera today, the crux of Rose's argument, Wagner's antisemiticism, is indeed a profoundly important one. But I doubt if this discussion will lead toward the banning of his music. The problem of racism in art is perhaps the most important issue facing all those who involve themselves in art. For art deals with communication, one human being speaking to another. One emotion projected outward to humanity. And if this expression emanates from a diseased mind, a racist one, well how can art reflect the highest thought man/woman is capable. Rose's discussion of Wagner's "Ring" was not thorough enough,for Wagner contradicts himself. Wotan is ever bit as self-serving as Alberich, the dwarf who Wagner had earmarked as the representational Jew. Brunhilde as well for all her humanity in saving Siegmund and Sieglinde,plots with the evil Hagen to kill Siegfried, her beloved. No character in the "Ring" is beyond redemption ,all are self-serving opportunists. Rose seems to focus on Alberich as Other, as representative of the lower class, the "lumpen" in contrast to the gods and immortals, when such reference is not important. Instead a discussion of how Wagner projects characterization, or doesn't. That his inhumanity prevented him from projecting a convincing character would have served Rose's argument.