Susan Solomon has tried very hard in this well-written and documented new book to exonerate Captain Robert Falcon Scott, the leader of the ill-fated Terra Nova expedition to the South Pole in 1911-1912. In recent years Scott has been accused of everything from simple incompetence to real stupidity by critics of his leadership and organization, which Solomon, an NOAA scientist with a distinguished career and Antarctic experience, clearly finds unjustified. By extensively researching not only the original documentation - diaries of Scott and his men, the expedition's meteorological records, information from other Antarctic expeditions of the day such as Shackleton's 1908-1909 try for the pole and Amundsen's successful polar bid of 1911-1912 - but also modern meteorological data, now available for some years along the entirety of Scott's route to the pole (now the course for aircraft bound for the Amundsen-Scott Station), she has tried her level best to suggest that abnormally cold weather was the deciding factor in the loss of the five-man polar party. And indeed cold weather must have been a factor. The poor weather conditions not only would have debilitated the men and caused severe frostbite, the friction of cold snow would have made it almost impossible for the men to pull their sledges more than a few miles a day. Indeed Solomon has charted the progress of the polar party, comparing it with the two supporting parties that turned back short of the pole, and her information does demonstrate how badly slowed up Scott and his four companions were.

The trouble remains, however, that while poor weather clearly contributed to the loss of Captain Scott and his men, Scott's own mistakes and poor planning were also a factor, and to her great credit Solomon does not conceal them, just as Scott, an undeniably courageous and honest man, did not conceal them in his own writings. Scott's assiduous copying of Shackleton's mistakes in 1908-09 (the use of ponies, reliance on unproven motor transport), his own short cuts (spending time testing his motor sledges but not clothing, tents, or other gear), and his failures in leadership (taking five men instead of the planned four to the pole) were instrumental, I believe, in his failure to survive the trek. One also must question why, after the blizzard that trapped the men in their tent 11 miles from a depot of food and fuel, the two well men, Dr. Wilson and the redoubtable Lt. Bowers, did not leave Scott, who was crippled by frostbite, and go to the depot for supplies or even, in the finale extremity, leave Scott to die and save themselves, something Solomon herself seems to find as mysterious as others who have pondered the question, although she advances a possible explanation.

Overall this is a very good book, the first to take into account modern knowledge of Antarctic weather and apply it to Scott's tragic expedition. Although I don't feel that the author has entirely proved her thesis, it is a valuable and useful contribution to the controversy over Captain Scott's expedition.

This is a really thoughtful, well-researched assessment of Scott's fatal Polar expedition. It is insightful and gives the reader a clear explanation of many issues that affected the outcome of one of the most interesting expeditions of all times. It is full of information that brings to life what these MEN did almost a hundred years ago. Exploration is on a different level these days. Nothing like it was for Scott's party and those of his era experienced. Brave and daring like nothing we can imagine.I think anyone interested in Polar exploration will be thoroughly satisfied with the subject matter covered in this well written book. It covers survival issues like no other book on the subject I have seen to date.It is a subject that I find fascinating and this book brings out the horrific circumstances that they had to contend with and is a more fair appraisal of Scott's effort to reach the South Pole. Well worth your time and consideration.

I've always been more interested in Arctic exploration than the Antarctic -- it seems less two-dimensional, and far more colorful in terms of history. But this book really got my attention. Solomon isn't some armchair theorist, she is an Antarctic professional, and an expert on weather conditions there. Taking a close look at what happened to Scott's 1911-12 expedition, and contrasting it with his earlier journey (with Shackleton) plus Shackleton's 1908 attempt, and the rival Amundsen polar bid, she shakes out a lot of rumors, innuendos and plain nonsense about what Scott 'knew' versus what he 'ought to have known.'

Scott has always seemed a stiff-upper-lip bumbler to me, and to some extent he was, but what happened is not as simple as it appears. He made some educated guesses, and he also made some mistakes. Using motor sleds was a waste of time, considering the poor engine technology of the time. He allowed someone else to select some unsuitable Manchurian ponies. He didn't trust dogs, based on prior experiences. He didn't pay enough attention to suitable clothing and sleeping bags. But he did set up a workable logistical system for his polar attempt, that should have worked.

So what went wrong? The factors above, plus too great a level of fatigue for his team. Poor Bowers ended up walking 400 miles in snow, instead of skiing. They didn't know, as we do, what a menace dehydration at high altitudes would be. Scurvy was poorly understood, and they probably suffered marginally from this, too. And finally, they set out for the Pole a month too late, and got caught in an extremely cold spell that made sledding by manhauling almost impossible. Solomon proves every contention with solid data from the expedition's copious records and from modern survey work. In the end, Scott died -- with Wilson and Bowers keeping him company, in all probability -- because he contracted severe frostbite in -40 degree weather. The idea that he was trapped by a '10 day blizzard' just eleven miles short of a supply depot is disproved by Solomon: the katabatic winds don't blow from the south for more than two or three days, it now seems.

This is a well-written, highly documented piece of work, and is not in any sense an attempt to 'whitewash' Scott. Starting late, and hitting some extremely bad weather was all it took to kill him and his four brave companions.

Expectations that arise from our cultural backgrounds may cause us to be disappointed that this book is not a 'How To' manual, nor does it provide a blueprint for building or skillfully posessing some 'thing' called trust. Instead, the authors offer a philosophical discourse aimed at: exploring the cultural backgrounds that produce our (mis)understanding of trust; observing trusting in ourselves and others; developing a more powerful understanding of the meaning of trust; and developing practices and other competencies that will increase our capacity to trust, allowing us to enter into more powerful and satisfying relationships.

Those who have read Dr. Flores et al's Disclosing New Worlds, in which three specific historical narratives offer examples of particular political skills in action, may be disappointed that there are no similar in-depth narratives here. I think the ubiquity trust acts -- we are in situations of trust/mistrust in almost every moment of our lives -- precludes those kinds of narratives.

I have been studying both these authors over the last 15 years and. I find that the way in which Dr. Flores & Solomon have been able to speak about Building Trust allows myself and my buisness clients to begin resolving a nagging issue; "how do I trust others in my organization who I must rely on to get my work done?"

As Flores and Solomon say; it is a matter first and foremost of 'giving trust'. Many people approach their relationships, either professional or personal, such that trust becomes a matter of bartering. If you do this, I will do that and if we do this enough times we will begin to trust each other..but if you make any mistakes then we have to go back to ground zero and in actuality it is a negative ground, it can never be zero again..or, as in many cases we don't even try to go back we just say adios.

The practice of building 'Authentic Trust' is not a opaque and hidden conversation. Flores and Solomon understand this challange and the courage required when they refer to the 'cordial hypocrisy' that must be overcome within ourselves and our communities to build this 'authentic trust.'

For years, Vietnam Vets or others like us, lived in a country that could not talk about the 'dark side' or evilness of the war. This breakdown in trust, the 'cordial hypocrisy' which worked to cover this up, has been one of the causes of so much pain and loss of life even after the war. We did not see the importance of 'talking about trust' as a moment of building trust.

It is no different in organizations. The well being and livelihoods of our colleagues, our communities and our customers depend on each one of us. Sure, we can talk about the 'common sense' position of it is 'only a job' but in the end it is an excuse for not being involved enough, not having enough courage to be real about our distrust and for this we all pay the price.

Some of us who have been in those places in life, as Dr. Flores, know they 'have been betrayed or how they have betrayed others' but we had to learn about 'authentic trust' in order to go on. Maybe we can learn from them and the voices of our own relationships. We need to be honest, open and willing to give and build trust at the very moment we are 'betrayed.' This is a matter of virtue and not convenience. It is a self determined act of giving trust.

I applaud Dr.'s Flores and Solomon for their commitment to bring these matters forward as central for all of us.

Dr. Flores has written much on the subject of trust, and I have been reading his words for many years. This book is his MOST readable. And so for that reason, it is probably his most important to date. The readability may or may not be a result of teaming up with Dr. Solomon, but irregardless, buy this book. Everyone of us has had setbacks we could call trust issues. So why is it we don't read more on the topic? Is it so sensitive an issue it can not even be approached? I hope not. Even the approaching will illuminate troubled areas of our lives. And there is plenty more to be discovered here. We can not avoid trust, so here are some practical ways to help the common person think about trust philosophically. A whole new concept: a philosophy book you can read and discuss with your children!

I am a fellowship-trained interventional pain management physician, and I purchased this book with high hopes after reading the first review and the editorial summary. I received it, and promptly returned it. It really falls short in my opinion. The positioning pictures uses three pictures that really add very little to the basic knowledge of positioning the fluoroscopy unit. It does not make the effort to explain nuances of using the C-arm to open up the facet joints, etc. The pictures of the blocks performed show only the final placement of the needle, without any guidance on how to get it there, which is what is really needed in a text such as this. Furthermore, the image quality is remarkably poor in some of the shots. I think anyone interested in a guide on using fluoroscopy for pain management is better off waiting for Prithvi Raj's book, which is due in fall, 2002. His book on Pain Management is excellent and I expect nothing less with his upcoming book, which I have pre-ordered.

We have been using this amazing, comprehensive manual in our pain practice for 4 months. The time that is saved by ustilizing the author's concise explainations of correct patient and flouroscope positioning has cut out time per procedure down and increased the quality of images 3-fold.

Included, are flouro images of each simple and complex procedure performed.

I highly recommend this manual to any radiologic technologist, interventional pain management physician, orthopedist, neurosurgeon and physical medicine and rehabilitation physician.

Radiology departments everywhere should have at least one copy for those technologists who are asked to participate in any injection or implantation procedure.

The cost of this easy-to-use book is paid for in a few days of using it!

While I found this book to be repetitive in nature, its points were well-argued (passionately, no less) in favour of the intrinsic goodness of people. It is possible to reiterate what the book offers mostly by quoting the book directly, as Solomon phrased things in the best way. Thematically, the point that is pounded into the reader's head again and again is, "That theme is, again, that justice is not a utopian plan for the perfect society but a personal sense of individual and collective fellow-feeling and responsibility. It is not an abstract theoretical ideal but a constellation of feelings and a perfectly ordinary virtue of character, " (Solomon, 3.) This point is made again in several places, thereby making it difficult to miss the point! What Solomon might have been able to say in simply the introduction he expounds upon over the course of an entire book. Granted, many details are revealed that weave a web about the history and processes of justice, but the introduction would suffice. He states the theme of the book directly and explicitly, "Thus the theme of this book is that justice is and must be first of all a matter of personal concern and an individual virtue, not just a quality of anonymous institutions, systems and governments," (Solomon, 15.) Solomon goes on to embellish his theme, "Accordingly, the idea to be defended here is that justice is basically not an ideal state or a scheme for the way of the world or a perfect government system, but rather the way that one lives, the way that one feels, the way that one acts and responds and seeks out situations in everyday life," (Solomon, 15.) Solomon uses the phrase "the idea to be defended." It does not seem that there is something that substantive to defend. Perhaps I take his assertions for granted as being "true" because I lean toward more liberal, humanistic perceptions of justice and the elements that make up "justice." Perhaps it is indeed an issue to be defended; somehow, it seems it might have been defended more succinctly. Solomon is more the expert of issues of justice than I am. He writes, "Justice claims are always contextual and presuppose a local set of conditions and considerations. Where there are no clear criteria, which is often the case when contexts collide or overlap, the language of justice is not (as the philosophers hope) a vehicle for rational calculation but a medium of persuasion," (Solomon, 18.) A disclaimer, it seems, to conceptualising justice. There are subtle differences and nuances to the way the theme is presented. This approach reiterates the theme incessantly but at the same time provides a thought provoking vehicle. For example, "But the most striking and immediate result of any such conception of justice is that it is always at a distance, something other, a state to be hoped for, prayed for, or perhaps desperately worked for, but not as such something already "in us," something very much our own...;... Justice will be done, we hope, but not by us," (Solomon, 6.) Here Solomon urges thought of the fact that a sense of justice is intrinsic but is perceived otherwise by most people. The overall theme also captures this idea but expands it and generalizes it to encompass a more proactive approach. The general theme has more "the way things should be" overtones than do the ideas that build the theme. A prime example of this is Solomon's own question, "But why? Why don't we have even a vocabulary of goodness, honour, and virtue for ordinary life?" (25.) Solomon also demonstrates how perceptions of justice are somehow confused... and how these perceptions have changed over time. He writes, "One of the more controversial aspects of my argument is the idea that "negative" emotions such as vengefulness, outrage and resentment have an essential place in the cultivation of justice," (34.) It seems self-evident: how could it be otherwise? Why would people seek justice/retribution unless they somehow felt that unjust acts had been committed against them? (Or against their particular group? Or humanity for that matter?) Why would the development of the justice system have become so sophisticated and more or less inflated as it has today unless there were a great deal of emphasis placed on the feelings (often "negative" and conflict-filled feelings) of the "victim?" After all, "It is widely known that Friedrich Nietzsche argued at length that resentment is the main ingredient in much of what we call morality," (Solomon, 35.) Resentment, it seems, often leads the human heart to seek justice (at least by contemporary societal standards.) In the past, as the book points out, standards of justice differed. Particularly illuminating was the description of how atrocious it seems by today's standards is this concept of "an eye for an eye," when in fact this was quite just, urging equality rather than all out vengeance. "Vengeance is an inescapable part of our psychology, perhaps it is even an instinct," (Solomon, 40.) As humans we desire revenge, but we couple our negative feelings, often with more positive ones. For instance, "It is our hardheartedness, not our compassion, that is unnatural. The sameness of the homeless stirs our sympathies, but it also stimulates our defences," (Solomon, 49.) Another key point I found compelling was that of "reciprocal altruism" in chapter 3. "What is natural about us? To be sure, we are not born with a sense of natural rights or universal equality or conceptions of reward and punishment. These we learn, in various ways, as we grow up in one society or another. Nor are virtually any of our passions "born into" us in the strong sense advocated by traditional theorists of human nature...; What is natural in us, I want to argue, is neither, self-interest nor global benevolence but reciprocity," (Solomon, 104.) Actually, upon reflecting on this book (while I write) I am finding that there was a lot more valuable information than I originally thought. Certainly the information and ideas might have been condensed somewhat, but overall, this book provides highly effective arguments for its points.

I was a philosophy student for five semesters, sincerely (and naively) searching for truth and wisdom. I nearly completed the major before I just got tired of its irrelevance. Solomon nicely summed up my experience, "What had originally been conceived as the love of wisdom had become a tedious technical enterprise, appealing more to students with affective disorders than to those who were seeking the meaning of life." With such disappointment in the background, I looked forward to recovering a bit of enthusiasm for Western philosophy, to receiving a bit of its wisdom for my life, for my skeptical spirituality.

After reading the preface and introduction to this book on Amazon, I ordered it. I had high expectations. I wanted to see a professional, thoughtful philosopher apply insights from the Western philosophical tradition to the problems of spirituality for skeptics: the meaning of life in light of evolutionary psychology and physical cosmology, ethics without authorities, ritual and worship and wholeness in the emerging skeptical traditions, belonging and identity and coalition formation in a world of deadly technology.

I am sorry to say that's not what I got, and if that's what you want you'll be as disappointed as I was. He seems to have satisfied himself on such questions long before he encountered spirituality. He is not addressing them in any depth here.

Instead, this book is an apology for spirituality in academia, specifically in the discipline of philosophy. Solomon's project is to address the typical moderately liberal concerns of academia and academic philosophy in terms of spirituality. Essentially he's preoccupied with a terminological (cultural) problem: How can a self-respecting academic discuss spirituality. Isn't it just too trite?

In retrospect, I suppose this is a worthy mission, but it's not one that means much to me. If it's your concern, this book is probably good for you. But if you are interested in the kinds of questions I was interested in, then this book is either irrelevant or superficial.

(I am not sure what Solomon thought his purpose was. He never actually comes out and says, and he seems to think he's discussing deep, meaningful questions throughout the book. And, to be fair, I did pause for thought a few times while reading it. But it's not going to have a lasting impact on me, and he didn't seem concerned that it might. He did seem concerned that he might be misconstrued by a reviewer, so he filled his paragraphs with caveats; obviously he's accustomed to writing for academic journals rather than for a "serious" audience--I mean that literally. Meanwhile, comments throughout the book reveal that his projected audience is familiar with the social scene in Anglo-American academia.)

Let me add two more criticisms. Solomon seeks spirituality in partnership with science, but he really appears unfamiliar with science. Perhaps that's a faulty impression; since he's not really thinking about the meaning of life perhaps he doesn't have to address the problems suggested by science.

Secondly, he appears unfamiliar with anthropology; although he cites and refers to classical philosophers, modern and contemporary Western philosophers, ancient East Asian philosophers, ancient Indian philosophers, and religious traditions from Pacific islands (he wasn't more specific)--he doesn't take any notice of the contexts of all those philosophers. Once again, a charitable reader could imagine that they are beyond the scope of Solomon's project. So they may be. However, he makes a startling claim on the last page, "For most people, the transformation of self may be nothing more than total immersion in a group and a tradition. But for those of us who enjoy the mixed blessing of seeing beyond all traditions and thus finding ourselves without an anchor in the world, spirituality is rather an arduous process, filled with doubts and misgivings, skeptical of glib formulations and platitudes, ...."

Oh my! I submit that Solomon is not seeing beyond all traditions, that actually he is deeply immersed in one, that in fact spirituality in many traditions is an arduous process filled with doubts and misgivings, and that while he is skeptical of certain glib formulations and platitudes, he is swallowing others hook, line and sinker--and spitting them back up in print. In short, he really ought to read some anthropology.

His other books are probably much better. To be fair, he admits that spirituality is new to him. Perhaps when he is more familiar with the topic, and more comfortable with his right to address it, he can bring his familiarity with philosophy to it in greater depth. If he tries, I would be happy to read his book.

On the bright side, reading the book did inspire me to revisit Sartre, Camus and Heidegger after all this time. Solomon reminded me that they did wrestle with the grand questions I mentioned, and that once upon a time I enjoyed reading their work and thinking about their thoughts and learning from them. I guess that's a meager version of what I wanted after all.

Few philosophers have been so widely read and yet so incredibly misunderstood as Friedrich Nietzsche. Many people have used Nietzsche's words to advance their own agendas. Hitler was supposedly a fan even though the philosopher was a staunch opponent of anti-Semitism and would have found the Third Reich abhorrent. Many atheists twist Nietzsche's remark that "God is dead" into an endorsement of nihilism when in truth, the German's writings are full of joy and spirit. Clearly, the misinterpretation of Nietzsche's words over the past century makes a book that synthesizes his ideas an absolute necessity. This is that book. The authors have much enthusiasm for Nietzsche's writings and their feelings spill over into the reader. They begin by refuting "thirty rumors" that swirl around the postmodernist. These include accusations that Nietzsche was a misogynist, an alcoholic, and drove students to murder. They are all dismissed. Mr. Solomon and Ms. Higgins go on to explore Nietzsche's critique of other philosophers and include a list of his heroes and villains. The strongest section of the book illuminates "Nietzsche's virtues." Here, the German's "life-affirming" philosophy is explained in detail. If ever there was a man ahead of his times, it was Nietzsche. Over a century ago, he anticipated a profound crisis in morality. He recognized that the old religious institutions were losing their credibility and influence. With their decline would come the ascent of scientific materialism. This new system, however, is a poor instrument for creating morality and virtue. Nietzsche offers his students an alternative: a morality from "within;" a perspective that sees life as worth living for its own sake and cultivating a character written with "style." Nietzsche is a living voice that sees life as a joy, encouraging us to treat every moment as such. That is what Nietzsche really said.

Robert Solomon has always been my favorite secondary source on philosophy. His works such as From Rationalism to Existentialism and Continental Philosophy since 1750: The Rise and Fall of the Self are excellent and helped me gain a solid understanding of many concepts and relations between philosophical movements. What Nietzsche Really Said is not on par with these works, but is still engaging as a lighter read. Many Nietzschean scholars will despise Solomon for taking the danger out of Nietzsche, but I think that is necessary for this work. I view this work as an attempt to clarify and make Nietzsche accessible to the uninitiated and I think it succeeds nicely. I would not recommend simply adhering to this book alone as a source of Nietzschean knowledge, but would recommend it as a tool to the new student of philosophy especially; as well as anyone else who likes Nietzsche's optimism.

What Nietzsche Really Said Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins Schocken Books 201 East 50th Street, New York, NY 10022 ISBN: 0-8052-4157-4 $23.00 Hardcover, 263 pages,

"To be great," wrote the great Ralph Waldo Emerson, "is to be misunderstood." Excepting Sigmund Freud, no thinker in recent history has been more talked about and less understood than Friedrich Nietzsche. How can we -- soft-living members of the herd, untrained in the linguistic labyrinth of contemporary philosophy -- understand this complex author who wants to revolutionize our lives? We might begin with three seminal books. The third would be a reliable anthology of Nietzsche's writings, such as The Portable Nietzsche, edited by Walter Kaufmann. Second on my list is Neils Lyhne, by the Danish novelist Jens Peter Jacobsen (1847-1885), which dramatizes the continual conflicts of any 19th-Century man who dares to embrace atheism and shout that God is no longer with us. And firstly, we might begin with this new work by Solomon and Higgins, which may be -- for the student and general reader -- the most readable and interesting introduction to Nietzsche currently in print.

The book begins by blasting away thirty common rumors and misunderstandings about Nietzsche's life and work. With the air cleared, the authors provide guidelines for approaching a book by Nietzsche, then summarize the major books, then explore the quintessential Nietzschean themes. Nietzsche is better-known as a destroyer of values, but thankfully, Solomon and Higgins correct the picture by highlighting the affirmative values and ideas imbued in Nietzsche's work. Nietzsche newbies as well as more advanced users will appreciate the book's clarity and liveliness, which brings us all the benefits of good scholarship without the stuffiness and cobwebs which clog the pages of too-many modern academic tomes.

Most valuable of all is the way the book illuminates the many connections from Nietzsche to writers and ideas, present and past. Guided by the authors, we explore Nietzsche's love-hate relationships with Socrates, Wagner, Schopenhauer, Kant. We begin to grasp Nietzsche's vast influence upon modern writers in many diverse intellectual and artistic fields. We see the German philosopher in light of his philosophic stance called 'perspectivism,' and learn the difference between this view and the jello-like school of 'relativism' which prevents us from declaring that any one value is better or worse than any other one.

During Nietzsche's lifetime, the two great forces that squeezed, shaped and molded his world were Christianity and scientific materialism, the philosophy that powered the industrial revolution into high gear. Today, it is generally acknowledged that religion is losing its grip; and recently --thanks to a confessional essay by Bill Joy -- we are admitting our collective fears about a world where Technology sits on the throne of God. For those of us wondering if there might be more to life than staring at computer screens, then coming home to a study of philosophy -- and especially Nietzsche -- is one way to search for deeper meanings in our lives. What Nietzsche Really Said is an engaging study, completely faithful to the philosopher's passionate ideas. Readers of this work will be not only inspired, but be thoroughly equipped to tackle the challenge of opening (or reopening) even the most complex of Nietzsche's books.

Michael Pastore Reviewer