Publications and Media Books

I was disappointed in this because I thought it would be a complete reference for sculpting. All it really is, is a reference of textures and materials. No real meat with regard to sculpting. I would recommend this only as a reference and only after many other books are purchased that are more through on sculpting.

This is far from being a "Bible" of anything.

If you are starved for information on daguerreotypes--like I was--get this book; otherwise pass it by. The reproductions are not great and you will not learn about the dagueereotype process--just a very vague description is given. The descriptions that accompany the photographs are very surperficial.

I wrote a review of the score of the 9th which is also printed by Dover. The gist is that the score is too small to read easily, especially with a score as thick as the 3rd of Mahler. I found another score of this symphony in my collection and it is much larger. I think it cost me $20 and is worth every cent; study scores are fine if you HAVE to save money, but I will always believe that a score you can read easily is one that will untimately serve you best.

David McQueen's "Television - A Media Student's Guide" provides a good introduction to the study af television. I discovered the book while researching for a paper on sitcoms and the book has a chapter on this as well as soap operas, game shows, documentaries and so on. McQueen also covers topics such as public service broadcasting, new technology and even a little semiotics. It's a well-written all-round book on television.
Sadly, the book focuses mainly on British television. The chapter on sitcoms for example only focuses on British sitcoms and this somewhat limits the book's usefulness, especially if you're writing about sitcoms in general (as I was). Of course, if you're British you might not agree with this.
Still, I can recommend the book to all fellow media students.

Reviewed by Stephanie Rollins for Reader Views (8/2006)

"Ten Questions Your Sponsor Should Ask About Your Project Plan" by Dave Paradi describes methods of keeping your project within budgetary and time parameters. Paradi stresses the importance of using benchmark data in determining the realistic parameters of the project.

The presentation of this material was rather dry. I typically enjoy business-related CD's, but this one could not keep my interest. Paradi kept referring to Microsoft Project. I do not use that software, so my attention dwindled further during these references.

Paradi did tell of ten points project managers need to have specific goals for; however, I had to take notes to fully comprehend the specific points. This is not convenient when listening to the CD during a commute, as many will do. Perhaps this CD needs to come with a list of the 10 points.

A few of the points made were: account for resource costs, account for time needed (including holidays and weekends), measure progress. Many of the points mentioned were common sense, yet it is the simple things that are so often forgotten.

This CD is specifically for project managers who use Microsoft Project. I do not think that many other individuals will find it meaningful. I did appreciate the fact that Paradi mentioned benchmarking. So often previous experiences are forgotten and not learned from. That only leads to the reinvention of the wheel.

So, should everyone listen to this CD? No. Should every manager listen to this CD? No, not necessarily. Every project manager that uses Microsoft Project could benefit from this CD; however, get out your pen and paper, because you will have to take notes. This is not a CD to multi-task with.

While much of this book is overly academic in its most negative definition (tedious minutae), Merryman's chapter on women, sports and cinema shines through. This chapter should be included in film anthologies, because it develops a female sports archetype utilized in cinema that is extremely useful for reconceptualizing the active female subject of male gaze.

I found this book to be an interesting review of all sorts of monster magazines. The title of the book says "monster" magazines, not "monster movie" magazines, and I think it gave a good general review of movie and comic magazines. Anything going in-depth of either monster movie or monster comic mags would have to be much, much larger. Marvel's comic magazines are heavily represented because they made so many titles, especially if you count 'Conan' (who fought a monster in virtually every issue)and the other sword and sorcery comics. So if you are looking for a nice overview of all types of the monster mags this is it; if you are looking for exclusively monster movie magazines or a scholarly treatment of the subject then look elsewhere.

If you didn't grow up in the 60s or 70s you probably don't have a sense for just how big monster magazines were back then. The kids who grew up on these magazines were part of the culture who watched Shock Theater films hosted by those great horror movie hosts like Zacherley, Ghoulardi, Chilly Billy Cardille, and The Ghoul. This was the era of those great Aurora monster model hits as well and the monster mags of that time were like a gathering place for fans.

Robert Michael Cotters book promises a critical look at monster magazines. Yes! The same magazines that our mothers hated is now getting a critical look! In a lengthy introduction, Cotter gives a history of magazine and that era that fostered them. The Shock Theater package of films and the horror hosts were really the seeds of monster magazines. Films that previously were only seen in theaters were now showing up on late night TV and kids ate them up.

The grandfather of monster magazines was Warren Publishing's "Famous Monsters of Filmland" which began publishing in 1958, edited by legendary historian and collector, Forrest Ackerman. Famous Monsters, or FM as it is referred to, spawned numerous imitators. Heck, Warren Publishing even put out a few imitators of its own such as the short-lived Monster World. Cotter's book provides a history of these magazines providing the years they were published and giving details about select issues.

Knowing a good thing when he saw it, Marvel Comics' Stan Lee decided to start up his own line of monster mags first with humor magazines Monsters to Laugh With and Monster Unlimited. These were no more than black & white photos from horror films with funny world balloons added. They didn't prove to be all that funny and quickly folded. Monsters of the Movies. A virtual FM clone, proved to be a bit more successful lasting 8 issues and an annual.

Cotter does a nice job of covering these magazines, hitting on some of the very insignificant magazines like Mad Monsters, Movie Monsters, and Monster Mania, as well as some of the unique publications like The Monster Times, which was a newspaper format mag, England's Halls of Horror, and the mercurial Castle of Frankenstein.

Cotter however greatly veers off course. He does mention in the introduction that he includes comic magazines as well and Marvel put out some great B&W horror comic magazines like Monsters Unleashed and Tales of the Zombie, but Cotter lingers far too long on Marvel's magazines. More space is afforded to the above-mentioned magazines than those that were infinitely superior, namely Warren's Creepy and Eerie, who featured some of the most talented artists of the time. Even worse, Cotter goes on to devote a great deal of space to magazines that were decidedly NOT monster mags like The Savage Sword of Conan, Heavy Metal, Planet of the Apes, Epic illustrated, and The Deadly Hands of Kung-Fu. Cotter gives an insufficient explanation for including these publications. The entire book ends up being way too Marvel-themed, especially considering their contribution to monster magazines pales next to Warren Publishing's offerings.

Monster magazines are stronger than they've been in thirty years today yet Cotter manages a mere ten pages to mention the new breed likes of the long-running Midnight Marquee, the gorgeous Monsters From the Vault, or the zany Scary Monsters Magazine.

The Great Monster Magazines doesn't quite provide the critical study that it claims. Truly wonderful mags are dismissed in favor of magazines that are not even true horror mags. It's a nice book for reference but falls woefully short of a true critical analysis.

If you are a fan of comics, you might find this very superficial overview interesting, but fans of monster MOVIE mags will be disappointed. Though he warns in the product description that he covers both film and comic magazines, it is not evenly divided, but very heavily weighted towards comics. When Castle of Frankenstein gets 2 and a half pages, but a Marvel monster comic mag called Monsters Unleashed gets 7, you can see the slant. Much of text taken up by lengthy lists of table-of-contents of sample issues, which is a shame because the author can write, but seems to have just padded the book with many of these table-of-content lists, with short paragraphs of actual text after each.

I hope this is a joke because marriage issues are sometimes not as trivial as this book makes it seem. Don't ever follow this book as guidelines for a successful marriage. Clearly that is not the point of this book but I have a feeling people may get the wrong idea about it if someone gives this to them as an engagement present.
Please, if you buy this book as a gift, put a warning on it that this is about as informative and helpful as the Top 100 Things You Never Tell your Boyfriend listed in Cosmopolitan magazine.
I don't often suggest burning books but for the sake of your marriage, get cozy around a fireplace tonight with this as fuel to your fire.

Reviewed by Vicki Landes for Reader Views (3/08)

For authors Peter and Nancy Garber, their over-30-year marriage has provided them with more than just love and companionship - it's also given them 101 reasons to write a book. By combining common sense and good-natured humor, their new release "101 Things You Should Never Say To Your Spouse" lists some of the `don'ts' with regard to communicating with your loved one.

"101 Things You Should Never Say To Your Spouse" is an entertaining look at some potentially serious issues that can come up during the course of a marriage. From more minor infractions such as an unhealthy attachment to the television control to ultimate romance killers like "you look fat in that," the Garbers list each tabooed comment with a short reason why it should be avoided. Sayings are also organized into `feelings,' `opinions,' `tastes,' `communication,' `schedules,' `time off,' `roles,' `compatibility,' `lifestyles,' and `romance' for easy reference.

Super quick to read and fun to share with your significant other, "101 Things You Should Never Say To Your Spouse" is a great gift idea for engagement or wedding parties. With advice based on good common sense and a level of respect for the other person, the information given is extremely brief before moving on to the next item - not adequate for those couples in need of more professional marital assistance. However, those in healthy relationships will probably find the book very enjoyable and affable to peruse together...while maybe even learning they are guilty of using a few of the offensive statements themselves. Straightforward and honest, the Garbers present some good advice on how to love another person while ensuring they see that love in action. Further, "learning to be more aware of what you say and more sensitive to your spouse's feelings can only serve to strengthen your marriage." And that's the most important thing.

Peter and Nancy Garber have learned a thing or two about how to make a marriage work but just as important, they've learned what not to do! Avoid 101 different `open mouth, insert foot' scenarios with their helpful book, "101 Things You Should Never Say To Your Spouse." You just might end up with an entirely new way of looking at your communication!

Finally, the Communication Studies field is addressing the important topic of interracial communication. Mark Orbe's book is an excellent introduction to this subject, particularly for undergraduate college courses. It includes a brief but comprehensive chapter on the history and construction of race as well as chapters on language, racial identities, interracial friendships, romantic relationships, interracial communication at the workplace and the impact of media. What's missing? I would like to see interracial conflicts and conflict resolution addressed in more detail. Otherwise, I highly recommend this book.

At first I thought this book was okay. Well, now I'm on chapter 5 and feel like setting fire to it. First and foremost, there are typos in this book. The typos range from semantic errors to capitalization errors. I spent how much on this thing and they can't bother to properly proof read it?

Moreover, the authors talk in circles and make relatively simple concepts more complex than they need to be. One thing in particular that bugs me to no end is the authors' use of "In other words..." For example, an excerpt from page 72:

"Like Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau (1993), we believe the most productive way to approach identity formation is to avoid accepting the false dichotomy that sees the location of identity within the self or the interaction. In other words, we argue that identity development simultaneously involves personal and individual characteristics..._and_ cultural identities associated with particular roles, reference groups, and cultural categories."

The authors could have easily left out the first sentence in the excerpt and still conveyed the same message! The book has many more instances of obfuscation, which you're sure to come across if you read it.

While this may be a communication book, it does not effectively communicate to the reader.

Mosco is one of the leading authorities on the academic body of knowledge that gives this book its title. It's qualified for the expansive title because Mosco has created a convenient and authoritative text on the theoretical side of the field. An informative introduction describes the field of political economy in communications, and its place in theoretical history. This is followed by a useful and probably groundbreaking deconstruction of the field into the sub-theories of commodification, spatialization, and structuration, while the book ends with useful tie-ins connecting the theories to associated fields like cultural studies. These theoretical concepts are fascinating for those learning about the structure of mass communications, and its effects on politics and the economy.

The problem with this book is that the field of political economy (and not just as applied to communications) is meant to lead to real world activism and results, which can develop from an understanding of base theories. Such potential is mostly missing from this book. Other more worldly authors in this field such as Ben Bagdikian and Robert McChesney (dealing with the loss of localism due to media ownership patterns, and the affects on popular democracy from media power structures, respectively) are recommended as examples of the powerful real-world possibilities of the political economy of communications. Instead Mosco sticks with windy and obtusely written theoretical contortions that are unlikely to have much usefulness outside of academia. An example of this can be seen early in the book: "The specification of mutual constitution grows out of the relationship between one's theoretical formulation and empirical investigation." This sentence is actually in the (relatively) straightforward introduction, and is a portent of the writing style to come, in which obtuse theory clouds the powerful possibilities of the field. [~doomsdayer520~]

Vincent Mosco's book is a fair introduction to political economy, yet the author fails to state that he comes from a very particular approach of political economy, namely the Marxist (some would call it neo-Marxist). As regards Mosco's boundary work towards cultural studies, I agree that the divide between political economy and cultural studies can be seen as `labour analysis' versus `cultural analysis', and further in terms of structural versus interactionist methodologies. However, I wish to reject Mosco's description of political economy as the theoretical `middle way'. Political economy does not stand out as the reconciling discipline between cultural studies and other disciplines (notably policy studies) for a number of reasons. On the most fundamental level, political economy continues to suffer from the tendency to induct all analysis to class alone, despite political economists' claim that their discipline no longer is aquainted with economism and reductionism. This is in my opinion the greatest weakness of Mosco's text. Also, there is little new to the book, although the author claims to be doing rethinking and renewal.