No comments about The Anatomy of Bereavement (Master Work).

1 comments about Mundane Astrology: The Astrology of Nations and States.

1. It could be argued that the three books combined in this volume stands as the 'Old Testament' of moderne mundane astrology. Quite indespensable for the serious student.

No comments about Raphael and the Beautiful Banker: The Story of the Bindo Altoviti Portrait.

No comments about Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: Between a Rock and a Hard Place.

No comments about The Esoteric Meaning in Raphael's Paintings: The Philosophy of Composition in the Disputa,the School of Athens, The Transfiguration.

No comments about Auriculotherapy.

5 comments about Stan Lee and the Rise and Fall of the American Comic Book.

1. Stan Lee has been the center of debate in the comic book world for years as to his being an innovative genius or a credit-stealing hack. As this book ably demonstrates the truth is closer to the middle. The authors use extensive research and in-depth interviews to make their case that despite Lee's grabbing of other credit that belonged to other artists, Lee's legitimate contributions to comic books should establish him as true innovator. The book asserts that Lee was able to create unique personalities and dialogue for his characters that distinguished them from other comic books as well as each other. This approach made Marvel's characters different from the cookie cutter personalities that DC had to offer at this time. However, Lee failed to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of other artists to his "Marvel Method," and this has hurt his reputation significantly. This book is balanced in its treatment of both Lee and his critics.



2. This book gives an excellent overview of Stan Lee and his contribution to Marvel and the history of comics. It came across as a balanced view, praising Lee's strengths as well as showing his weaknesses (and we all have them.)
   
   As I read, though, I wanted more detailed information on the 1960s glory years of Marvel; instead, this decade had the same amount of information as the rest and sometimes not as specific. I would've liked some interviews with others as to what they thought of Lee's working relationship with Kirby and Ditko, for example. Overall, though, highly recommended!



3. An awful lot of fun to read. Moves quickly without leaving major gaps. It's a balanced telling of Lee's growth and influence within the comic book industry while addressing the changes the industry also went through. The book doesn't lay the story down in black and white. We hear of wise choices and poor choices made by most parties involved through Stan's years. If you have grievances with the man, you may feel it falls a little short; if you are a fan, you'll feel twinges of regret when some thoughts, actions, and motives are revealed. In either case, it's hard to dismiss the infectious spirit and nature Stan Lee carries with his work and you have to admit his influence continues to be felt in the comicbook/storytelling world.



4. This book has some pluses and minuses. It DOES desperately need illustrations; however it's well-written and a fascinating read. Raphael and Spurgeon do a great job of overviewing the history of comic books, describing the business side of the industry, and explaining the importance of Stan Lee's contribution. However the authors' finale is, IMHO, unfairly negative. Lee gets needled here, not I think out of bias, but as a bit of fudging the truth for entertainment purposes...
   
   Comic books were invented in 1934 and the first superhero, Superman, debuted in 1938. Stan Lee entered the field shortly afterwards as a go-fer at the publishing house of his cousin, Martin Goodman. Lee soldiered on for Goodman as the boom times gave way to bust, and essentially single-handedly kept Marvel going during the mediums' '50s decline. If Lee hadn't been Goodman's cousin, or if Lee had just given up on the medium and looked for other work, the history of comic books would have been VERY different. Instead Lee created the environment in which superheroes were reinvented in the '60s, reinvigorating the mainstream. He then became essentially a PR person for Marvel in Hollywood.
   
   Lee is an engaging and relentless promoter of the medium in general and Marvel in particular, and in the cynical '80s he was castigated for taking too much credit for his role in creating characters produced by the collaborative model he invented for comic-book production. Raphael and Spurgeon give a qualified defense of Lee against these charges but are not, IMHO, entirely fair in evaluating Lee, particularly in the terms of the complex circumstances surrounding Jack Kirby's claims on the "Marvel Universe." Ultimately the authors condemn Lee as a phoney and almost a hack, a conclusion I think is very unfair.
   
   As someone who was reading comics from the late '60s into the '70s, I don't remember fans of the MEDIUM under-appreciating the contributions of Kirby or Ditko. On the contrary, those interested in comics as an art form tended to give FAR more credit to the artists of the mainstream than to Lee and his fellow editor-writers at DC etc. Fans of the Marvel LINE undoubtedly did worship Lee - and therefore bought the comix, which was really the whole point of the Lee persona! As for Lee not giving credit to his collaborators, Marvel was THE comix publisher that trumpeted who the artists were: try reading a '60s Dell, Gold Key, Tower, or even DC comic and try to figure out who the penciller, inker, writer, or colorist were!!! Lee, editor, writer, office manager, chief-cook-and-bottle-washer, put that info on page one, in BIG letters: step one to getting the artists the credit and remuneration that even Bill Gaines never gave away. Kudos to Stan Lee!



5. This is an intruiging narrative of Stan Lee's career & his influence on the American comic book industry. The title is a bit of an oversimplification, the industry went through many business cycles of highs & lows over the twentieth century. Marvel went from an IPO, bankruptcy, & than an unexpected resurgence in the past decade or two.
   
   The author gives you a not so surprisingly "Marvel centric view," which is fine up to a point. I did find his describing the creation of Spiderman & the X-men very good. The former remains my favorite character. Had there been more on DC Comics Superman, European, & Japanese influences I might have given it 5 stars? But, Stan Lee & his cocreators at Marvel provides the reader with a deep & vivid life at the prolific & hectic early years with Lee presiding as editor & writer over many artists who worked slavishly for low pay.
   
   I can see why so much bitterness & controversy erupted over the decades about Mr. Lee's putting his name on most Marvel productions was certainly shameless self promotion. On the whole, the writing is fairly measured to impart a balanced account. Noting that in the old system where work-for-hire was not well defined & comic book artists had little profile in the limelight. Tod McFarlane & Frank Miller appear to be the exceptions. as you get deeper into the book, you get the sense that Sstan Lee sided with the corporate side over the petitions by the artists out of necessity rather than malice on his part. Perhaps, Mr. Lee's convivial nature hid his own insecurities about his own talents?
   
   I got the feeling that some points were discarded & the book is only a half history. Nonetheless, it fills the void in an industry that never got the respect it deserved & I give it four stars. Perhaps, someday someone will write a complete history of this fascinating topic?

3 comments about Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.

1. It's no Brown-Driver-Briggs, but it does its job. This dictionary treats the Hebrew language as the Holy Tongue, and therefore etymologically treats it in and of itself, and how the precise meaning of every one of these Holy words must be determined in order to truly understand the Bible.
   It talks about how words that sound similar can have similar meanings, how they are connected to one another, and how substituting and/or rearranging letters gives rise to new roots.
   The dictionary is arranged by roots. According to the dictionary, words cannot have identical roots with different meanings, as they can in the BDB. Underneath the heading of each root is the various meanings of the root, noun and verb. It even considers many words such as "but" and "also" to come from a root, which the BDB does not (only nouns and verbs), I believe. For each meaning it cites a Biblical verse with that word in it. However, the dictionary's most serious shortcoming is that it is not grammatical enough and does not specifically state the different constructions of the verb (However, this can be determined, if one knows Hebrew grammar, by the Biblical quote cited).
   It also has internal contradictions, assigning (by accident? I hope so) one word three different roots ("Nabhelah," "we shall confound," is listed under the roots NBL, BLH, and BLL. Brown-Driver-Briggs, among most others, lists it under BLL).
   All in all a useful book for determining the exact meaning of a word if one knows Hebrew grammar. Another plus is it is possibly the most interesting dictionary I have. If I were forced to sit and read a dictionary I would choose this one.



2. I have found this book to be a very good supplement to use side by side with my Hebrew Lexicon. Where my lexicon points me to a a shoresh I reference this dictionary for further study. This book is perfect for someone who knows Hebrew (for the most part) and is simply trying to supplement their understanding. It is a dictionary that I can actually have fun sitting down and reading through the various shoreshim. It may be a bit rough around the edges in terms of grammar, and the novice in Hebrew may find some elements of it hard to understand. I would recommend this highly for the study of the Tanakh.



3. Rabbi Shimshon Repahel Hirsch is a giant of Hebrew Bible commentary, and a crucial revolutionary in seeing how Hebrew is uniquely structured along the energy of sound -- not merely similar spelling.
   
   He inspired Edenics ([...]), yet Edenics is far more conservative in selecting which words are engineered sound-alike synonyms and antonyms. While SRH has way too many illogical, unconnected synonyms (which are beyond Grimms Laws/Rashi's Laws), he does not suggest enough profound, scientific antonyms.
   
   For example, SRH does not link NiQaMaH (revenge) with NiK[H]aMaH (consolation). Revenge is the harsher form of consolation.
   
   Years hence, when linguists agree that the Sacred Language of Pre-Hebrew was the premier and once-universal human language, let it be remembered that Edenics could not have been launched without Rabbi S.R. Hirsch.
   Isaac Mozeson [...]

5 comments about Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past.

1. This book is phenomenal. I read this while finishing up my degree in History. It is an amazing book that goes through commonly held ideas about the Founding Fathers and the events surrounding the Revolution. This book is not for everyone. Raphael is an actual Historian and cites other well-known historians who focus on the Revolution, like Pauline Maier and Alfred Young. Unlike McCullough, Raphael is a real historian with a doctorate to prove it. He will go from source to source proving his point, like any historian. And like any historian, he fills up the back of the book with pages and pages of sources. This book may seem to agaisnt the grain, but it in fact does not. It is the first truly popular book that gets the point across that has been held by most historians in the field of the Revolution. The point is that it was not a Revolution led by a few great men, but by the People. The People in fact drove the Revolution and the Founders caught on at the end.
   The ideas in this book may seem far-fetched, but this is nothing new for people who have studied history in college and so on. This is not a book for people who read about US history for fun. This reads more like a historical monograph than something on the bestsellers list. It is, though, a very worthy read and something, in my opinion, that all people should read.
   Anothe



2. Ray Raphael has written a well documented, episodic guide to introduce the casual reader to the America Revolution as some of it actually happened as well as a simple primer on historiography. Thank goodness this work is being done and finding an audience beyond the professional journals. The whiny and critical reviewers obviously already have their minds made up about Raphael. Nobody wants anyone to feel guilty about America, just proud and knowledgeable!



3. The author dislikes heroes, indeed, all heroic individual effort. For Raphael, heroism leads to hero-worship, which in turn can be used as propaganda and lead to militarism and ethnocentrism. True enough, but heroic individuals do populate history, and we have a very human need for them which can be life-affirming. But Raphael's disdain for heroic individual effort, and his obsessive belief that only "communitarian" effort has value, comes off as heavy-handed propaganda itself. Take the first chapter. Paul Revere did make that memorable ride to warn the patriots the British were coming. That it wasn't all that renowned until Longfellow later wrote a poem about it, and romanticized the episode, doesn't take away from Revere's heroism. But for the author, Revere's individual effort is an affront to the nameless patriots who also acted heroically. So it goes, in every chapter, the author peppers us with the embroidery that has accrued to historical figures, in an attempt to pull them off their pedestals, and then warn us that our American heroes had warts. As if a multitude of contemporary historians hadn't already pointed that out.



4. Often it takes time for history to prevail over mythology, but it can happen, as this author proves. The book is well documented, and the references check out. The one-star reviews speak for themselves - neither really addresses any of the issues raised in any substantive manner.
   Yes, Americans have generated their own mythology surrounding what Americans consider to be key events or key instruction points in their history. No surprise there - every nation does that. (The Serbs still celebrate a massive defeat on the plains of Kosovo in 1389, almost 620 years ago!)
   The author's point is that the truth actually reveals more about what is most laudable in the American character than do the myths. He argues quite convincingly that the truth is both more interesting and more worthy of remembrance than are the myths. His arguments are thoroughly footnoted and his sources are well documented.
   I will not spoil the book for those who have not yet read it, but I do highly recommend it to any and all who are more interested in truth than in mythology.



5. Some of the reviewers critical of this book are missing the point. The author does indeed debunk some of the mythic events of our revolutionary past. However, his purpose is NOT to prove that the founders were somehow evil, or to argue that the US is not a great nation, or to make young Americans cynical, or even to show off by attacking other historians.
   
   Rather, he's arguing that the founding myths-- the amazing (and often fictional) achievements of people like Paul Revere, Molly Pitcher, Patrick Henry, etc.-- obscure an important reality: The American Revolution was one of the broadest-based political movements in human history, and all of the patriots who participated deserve credit, not just the "heroes."
   
   Why does this matter at all? Because the genius of the American idea is that we are both a nation of "the people" and a nation of individuals. Focusing on individual accomplishments obscures the truly amazing nature of the accomplishments of the founding generation as a collective whole.
   
   Further, some of the myths Raphael debunks actually distort our history in important ways. For example, the myth that the Revolution essentially ended with the British surrender at Yorktown denies the important reality that the fighting continued for more than a year afterward, and the outcome was very much in doubt for that whole time. The myth that all of the fighting in the Revolution was British vs. American patriots ignores the reality that in the southern colonies, the Revolution was a vicious civil war between American loyalists and American patriots, a struggle that was to have consequences for the next hundred years.
   
   Those who see this book as the explication of some sort of egalitarian bias are welcome to their views. However, the simple fact is that Raphael is correct. All of his analyses and assertions are supported by ample documentation, and I'd be interested in seeing the sources that the reviewers who are attacking him are relying on.
   
   This book is well worth reading and thinking about. I recommend it highly.

No comments about Circus Fun (Beginning to Read).