Voltaire Books

What more can I say, I love Deady! I am always looking forward to new issues, even when I just bought the latest. He is cleverly written, funny, and very cute in a drak, gothy kind of way. Voltaire, you are a genius!

Jane

I've never been one for reading comic books. But when I saw this one I just had to buy it. I have personally met the man who wrote it. He is a very funny guy. I've seen him perform live twice and he will have your ribs aching by the end of the show. If you're still one of those people who believe that it's a sin to smile or laugh while you're at a Goth club, if Voltaire is there you just can't help it. This is one sin that you will be guilty of.

This is a very good graphic novel. He has a new Deady graphic novel coming out soon and I plan on getting that one too.

Voltaire isn't just creator of comic Oh My Goth!, author of books such as Paint it Black: A Guide to Gothic Homemaking, and a musician with black hair who happens to be the wet dream of goths all over the world.

He's also the creator of Deady the Evil Teddy; a cute little teddy bear that has become possessed by the greatest evil this galaxy of ours has to offer: Urkor Malravenus from planet Necronus, who stranded on Earth in the disguise of this cute little teddy decides to wreak havoc on mankind.

The Book of Deady consists of the three first Deady comics, and I guess the best way to describe it is to name it an orgy of laughter. But it's not just funny, it's satirical too, and things such as Hellraiser, Star Wars, The Crow, and more are all featured in one way or another in the adventures of Deady. The satire is uncompromising yet never disrespectful, and Voltaire sure knows how to twist and turn things.

For example, every fan of the Hellraiser mythology will laugh him or herself stupid at "Deady in Hellrazor", a story that itself justifies the purchase of this volume, about Deady and his meeting with the Stenobites, led by Paperclip Head and his colleagues Keyboard Mouth and Post-It Face, at a sci-fi convention. If you know your Hellraiser you'll probably pass out from laughter - as I almost did - when you discover Post-It Face trying to be menacing by saying: "We have such power-point presentations to show you..."

Clive Barker, the creator of the Hellraiser saga, obviously don't mind the whole thing, since he's one of the contributors to the volume. But Barker isn't the only contributor though, and the long list of other contributors will hopefully give The Book of Deady all the attention it deserves.

But as with most other comic anthologies, not every single part of it is equally good, but the great majority of the content turns out to be masterpieces of comedy and satire.

So what are you waiting for? Go get it immediately or Deady might show up in your home, barbequing your kitten and seducing your sister...

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. A great story and important historical work in literature. Voltaire was a Renaissance Christian humanist who played a role in the development of the Enlightenment.

On the one hand, the structure of his novel Candide is Homeric, it is the journey narrative, the hero with a thousand faces, but it is a satirical restructuring of that classical motif of the hero on a quest. What is the importance of the quest in Candide? What is the quest about in the classical sense? The quest is about learning. In the classical sense the hero leaves, has to acquire some sort of knowledge, learn a set of skills that is going to help him or her enact the quest surmount the obstacles that they encounter at one point or another, and the finally what does the hero have to accomplish? What is out there the "Holy Grail" The prize, the whole quest is about attaining some sort of ultimate end or some sort of ultimate knowledge. Does it end there? No, you got to go back with that knowledge, because the quest is never just about attaining the goal, it's about bringing it home to make everybody better, to restore the community. The individual quest, the heroic quest in the classical sense always has a larger social corrective end. The purpose of the individual, the function of the individual all depends on his ability to return to the collective, whatever it is that he has found that he has acquired that is going to change the way things are. Now how does that compare to the journey or quest narrative in Candide? Contrary to the notion of what prepares us for the world, OK here is the important structure of the journey or the quest, and the critique of knowledge by Voltaire. It is contrary to the idea of the knowledge that we acquire prepares us for the world. That each new bit of knowledge that we acquire, prepares us for the next step, and prepares us for the next stage. Contrary to the idea that life is somehow to be understood or that human history is somehow to be understood as a journey organized around progress, around betterment advancement acquiring new knowledge more knowledge more science more learning, we're getting better again, Candide tells the story that goes in the opposite direction. So, then you acquire knowledge and then you spend the rest of the journey finding out that the knowledge is useless, bit by bit, and every lesson you've acquired has to be cast aside, everything you learn you have to abandon. Instead of gaining and getting better, it is throwing off, letting go, and getting worse. Where does Voltaire want us in the end to think of the notion and narrative of progress?


Of course, you know that Candide is steeped in so many of the political and philosophical controversies of the 1750's. One of his big critiques is of the philosopher Leibnitz who said that `this is the best of all possible worlds," the idea championed by Leibnitz was a simple version of the philosophy espoused by enlightenment philosophers that the existence of any evil in the world was a sign that god was not entirely good or very powerful. The idea of an imperfect god would be nonsensical. So if you are a philosopher who takes for granted that god exists, you would have to conclude logically; and here is where humanities and Christianity really start messing with each other in all kinds of obvious ways, that god is perfect if you logically conclude that god exists. Therefore, his creation, the world, and man must also be perfect. According to many enlightenment philosophers, people perceived imperfections of the world only because they do not get the plan. This is a teleological idea of the world. Now obviously Voltaire does not accept this theory, or that god or any god has to exist. Therefore, he makes fun of the idea that the world is completely good. Much of the novel is a satire addressed to the notion that the optimists who witness countless horrors and unbelievable injustice such as floggings, robberies, and earthquakes will always find a way to write it off. They will say, `oh well there must be part of a plan, even though none of these calamities seem to serve any good at all it must point to human cruelty ignorance and barbarism and points to the indifference of the natural world. Pangloss the philosopher in the book throughout the story is always trying to find some justification for the terrible things that he sees and the arguments that he makes seem increasingly to be absurd, like his quote that "Syphilis needed to be transmitted from the new world to Europe so that Europeans could taste new world delicacies. What other things is Voltaire criticizing here that connects to some of the debates that define the enlightenment period of the 1750's Religion? Religion- He criticizes the whole hypocrisy of religion. In the book, Voltaire has a parade of corrupt hypocritical religious leaders who are like the Pope that has a daughter (should have been celibate). Hard line Catholic inquisitors, a Franciscan monk who should have vow of poverty but is a jewel thief. Here Voltaire provides countless examples of the immorality and hypocrisy of religious leaders, he does not really condemn believers per say, he is really out to attack church leadership and church hierarchy. For example Jacques, who is an Anabaptist is arguably one of the most generous and humane characters.

What else does Voltaire criticize or satirize? Wealth- money corrupts; Candide seems to have more problems when he has lots of money. Things get worse he gets unhappy. An interesting point, Voltaire was deeply involved in a debate with the many deep thinkers of his time, most notably was Rousseau, who lambasted the aristocracy. Voltaire himself really moved very comfortably among aristocratic circles and interestingly the French enlightenment philosophy really took off among the French aristocracy. Since they had the leisure time to contemplate so many of the new ideas in reason, science and rationalism and his notions of progress and advancement were ideas that were principally championed and discussed by members of the French aristocracy. Therefore, it was among some of the idle members of the French aristocrats that these enlightenment philosophers were able to find their most ardent followers. Despite the fact that the church and the state were not more often that not completely allied with each other, kings could be attracted on occasion to arguments that seemed to undermine the authority of the church. The fact that the aristocrats were very much unaware of the precariousness of their position tended to make them overconfident. Dabbling in some new ideas that were part of the enlightenment movement caused them not to take seriously the kind of jeopardy they were in or what the enlightenment would lead to in the championing of the common man and the overthrow of the French aristocracy. Because they found these ideas somewhat new, interesting, and exciting and they did not really see this as at all leading inexorably to the demise of the aristocratic class. Now of course it was thinkers like Rousseau not at all like Voltaire on this particular point that made his chief adversary. Rousseau distrusted the aristocrats out of a hunger to overthrow the class but because he believed that people of wealth betrayed decent traditional values. Rousseau opposed the theatre, which is Voltaire's lifeblood; he shunned the aristocracy, which Voltaire very much courted. He courted their attention he courted their interests. Rousseau argued for something dangerous like democratic revolution, and Voltaire argued that equality was impossible it would never come about. Rousseau argued that inequality was not only natural but that if it were taken too far it would make any decent government a total impossibility. Voltaire was very charming and witty, which led largely to his success in moving about aristocratic and social circles. Rousseau insisted on his own correctness and was not a charming person to be around; he was very intense and very serious about his ideas. Voltaire endlessly repeated the same handful of core enlightenment notions, where as Rousseau was a deeply original thinker. Who was always challenging his own way of thinking contradicting himself, coming up with ideas on the equality of education, the family, the government, and the arts in a matter that was much more radical than Voltaire was ever willing to go along with. They were both skeptics, and Voltaire is nothing if not a skeptic.

What does Voltaire do with the idea of philosophy in Candide? Philosophy- What is the value of philosophical speculation? It is useless for Voltaire; it is one of Pangloss' biggest flaws. Abstract philosophical argument is not based on any real world evidence. In the chaotic world of this novel, philosophical speculation repeatedly proves to be useless, and at times even dangerous. Time and again it prevents the characters from making any useful assessment of the world around them, it prevents them from bringing about any kind of change, it prevent them from thinking that they might try to bring about some social change. Pangloss is the character most susceptible to this kind of foolishness. Example, while Jacques is drowning, Pangloss stops Candide from saving him by proving that the bay was formed for Jacques to drown in. Therefore, at the end of course at the novels conclusion Candide rejects Pangloss' philosophies. If philosophical speculation is useless, what does Voltaire suggest you put in its place? Hard practical work in general. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising in that sense that this judgment against philosophy that is portrayed in the book becomes very dramatic when we think about Voltaire's own status as a philosopher.

What about the garden at the end of the novel? At the end of the novel Candide defines happiness in raising vegetables. On the one hand it is indicative of the turning away from the following of philosophy, from the abstract speculative nature of philosophy towards something hands on something pragmatic. Does the garden have a symbolic resonance to it? Is it related to the Garden of Eden? For Adam and Eve the garden is the beginning of their troubles, here it is the end of their troubles. It is the end of the narrative the end of their quest, their journey, and the end of their travails. This is where they wind up this is where they retreat. In the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve do not have to work to have fruits of the garden; this garden requires work, and constant tending. In that I think the garden here represents much, more in a very different way than the biblical garden represents. An embrace of life, but an embrace of life of what? For all the horror, hardships, and nightmares that these characters experience throughout the entire course of the text, at the end, they embrace life; they take it they say yes.

The status of knowledge in Voltaire, what do we know? The garden is a final retreat from activism, or social engagement in the world. Finally, what Voltaire is saying is look go back to the basics. Do not try to change, analyze the world, or try to speculate about the nature of our existence. Retreat into your own sphere and do not mess with the world around you, because ultimately you are powerless, to do anything in this world. I think Voltaire is commenting on in a sense the Utopian impulse and imagination. Specifically as it influenced enlightenment philosophers of the period with respect to the notion of progress and advancement.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and literature.

First off, this new edition of "Candide" has numerous virtues, not the least of which is the amazing erudition invested in the explanatory footnotes that run the length of Voltaire's text. Wootton puts his (and others') knowledge of this masterpiece to good use, and his clarifications are invaluable, helping both to situate Voltaire's thought in the context of his own life and culture, and to resurrect some of the more historically specific humor that has, sadly, been bled away by the last two and a half centuries. Why is it funny, for example, that Voltaire sends his naive protagonist first to the Bulgars? Wootton tells you.

Second, the wealth of contextual material is great for enlarging the reader's understanding of the intellectual climate that Voltaire is critiquing. The Leibniz summary chosen is a bit opaque (small bits of the "Theodicee" would have worked better towards explaining the basics of Leibniz, or at least Voltaire's merciless version of Leibniz), but the portions of Pope and the excerpts of Voltaire's correspondence are enlightening.

The translation is, by and large, very good. We lose a little humor (which always happens in translation), as when the baron's wife is said, due to her weight, to be "regarded as a person of substance" (2); Voltaire here says that, due to her weight, she "s'attirait par là une très grande considération [attracted great consideration]," a wee comical nod to Newtonian physics that must be seen as the first scientific pun of many to come.

This is minor, but another moment of the translation gives me great pause, and, judging from Wootton's impassioned introductory defense of his decision, it must have given him greater pause. Most translations of "Candide" have reliably rendered the famous final lines as "we must cultivate our garden," or something to that effect. Very few have dared omit the word "garden." Wootton delivers it as "we must work our land," and he defends his choice with a well-reasoned appeal to Voltaire's cultural context and correspondence, and claims further that the great symbolic appeal of the "Garden of Eden" image was largely behind the traditional rendering of the line as "we must cultivate our garden." The problem with his defense is not just that Voltaire's line bluntly (and literally) reads "il faut cultiver notre jardin [we must cultivate our garden]," but that the Garden of Eden resonance of which Wootton is so wary is not imported by the reader but rather quite present in "Candide," and even in Wootton's translation of "Candide." When, on page 3 of this translation, Candide is "driven out of the Garden of Eden," he begins a motion that will eventually cycle him back, older and wiser, to a different garden, one drained of religious specificity but not resonance. By tampering with Voltaire's last line, Wootton's translation robs the narrative of its aggressive insistence on this return.

This is fairly nit-picky stuff, though, and any reader can keep the translation difficulties squarely in mind, since Wootton makes--to his credit--no attempt to conceal them. So what you have, in the end, then, is a largely faithful and superbly readable rendition of a work that does not fail, to this day, to make us think, laugh, and feel ashamed. Unpalatable social insitutions like slavery fall under Voltaire's sharp attack, as does the particular cruelty of which organized religion has shown itself capable. The guileless protagonist is back in vogue (see the tributes to Candide in Boyle's "Tortilla Curtain" and Groom's "Forrest Gump"), as candid as ever. For [the price], that's a lot of bang for your buck.

I'm starting to think that there is a certain clique of authors, to wit, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Swift, and Voltaire, who have developed a popular perception that tragically limits or constrains their legacy in the world of to-day. For Voltaire's part, when he is spoken of, it is generally in regard to "Candide," certainly a great work, but not the be-all or end-all of his particular genius. "Letters on England," a series of musings on his exile in England from 1726-1729, is a work which gives a much different perspective on Voltaire from the cynical, suspected atheist we've all come to know and love.

The primary focal points of the "Letters" are comparsions of England and France in the realms of religion, politics, and the arts and sciences. While Voltaire clearly criticizes the French institutions of his day, he does not intend us to look at England as the ideal society. In religious matters, Voltaire derides the monolith of French Catholicism, acknowledging the relative harmlessness of English sectarianism - saying "if there were only one relgion in England, there would be danger of despotism...but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness". Politically, Voltaire admires the progress England has made since the Magna Carta, even though it means limited enfranchisement, and division of legislative power. In the arts and sciences, Voltaire examines the ingenuity of philosophers like Bacon, Newton, and Locke, and the ability of authors like Shakespeare, Pope, Swift, Wycherley, and others, to make their reputations and livings largely independent of a feudal patronage system.

Throughout the "Letters," Voltaire privileges common sense, forward thinking, and right reasoning. As I understand it, the main purpose of satire is as a social corrective. Voltaire points out the flaws in both the French and English nations, not to be simply critical, but to encourage progress in thought, in science, and the institutions that govern civilized countries. Voltaire was no revolutionary, mind you, but it is obvious throughout the text that he cares deeply about France and its international relations. Voltaire looks so far ahead in his writing to anticipate our own current debates over health care (the availability of infant innoculation, and euthanasia), equal opportunity regardless of faith or race, and so on.

For such a brief work, Voltaire covers a lot of intellectual ground in "Letters on England". His style, enthusiasm, sense of wonder, and incisive commentary makes this a non-fiction counterpart to Montesquieu's fictional "Persian Letters". While Voltaire himself dislikes and distrusts translations, I've always thought that if you can read a translation, react strongly to the material, and get the basic points, then the translation must be counted as successful. Leonard Tancock's translation in this Penguin Classic edition must be counted by me, at least, as successful. My admiration of Voltaire has been enhanced, and I feel just a little bit more enlightened. "Letters on England" is an excellent work in any language.

Letters on England is enlightening on several levels and a very interesting description of the society politics and science of England in the mid 18th century from a French point of view. Voltaire being profoundly interested in all aspects of life and all types of knowledge provides an astounding account of sundry aspects of England from his patently Voltaire style. He makes the book interesting by including his take on some of the peculiarities of English life. Many of the letters are rather short and they need not be read in any particular sequence. The style is strait forward and they are relatively objective for Voltaire's work. I think these letters are indicative of Voltaire's style and provide a unique glimpse of many often overlooked aspects of English culture in the 18th century.

He is particularly interested in the Quakers and devotes several of his letters entirely to their customs and beliefs. Yes these letters are certainly interesting. For anyone studying religious toleration (or intolerance) in England these letters may be of certain value.

My favorite and possibly the most endearing letters is the one devoted to Francis Bacon. He alludes to the fact that Bacon was involved in an embezzlement scandal for which he was removed from office. Of course this is certainly true but he, as many others have, forgives him for this since he has provided so much for mankind. I feel that Voltaire saw much of the same in Bacon that he saw in himself. We must remember that Voltaire too was a fantastic speculator (investor) and many accused him of possibly crossing into the realm of less than legal activities.

Voltaire's Letters on England are wonderful to read and after breezing through this book you will probably wish, as I have, that there were more to read. That being said I will note that I believe that had anyone else written these letters (except for maybe Montaigne) they would be in some academic library but not published widely. We can thank Voltaire for achieving the fame he did because having such immediate access to these letters is great for students historians and curious readers alike.

-- Ted Murena

This is a fascinating book that follows in the footsteps of Allan Bloom's Closing Of The American Mind. For an update see Susan Jacoby's Age Of American Unreason (Pantheon, 2008).

I bought this book in 1997, 10 years ago, and it was already 5 years old. It was enjoyable but a slog to get through and not all was retained in my head at the end of the read. I was left tired and I moved on. The true value of the book, however, became apparent as the years passed - every re-read of portions gave pleasure through forgotten information freshly revealed, or insights put forth in the book that have finally sunk in, or new color/nuance to previously remembered arguments. I also bought one other, more recent, book of his, "On Equilibrium", and it complements "Voltaire's Bastards" nicely. The intervening years continue to demonstrate the validity of many arguments in the book, thus getting closer to the definition of a 'classic'. One of my best book purchases.

John Saul makes the argument that when the world swung away from the faith-based beliefs of the Middle Ages to the rational thinking of the Age of Reason, it over-reacted in equating rational thinking with truth. In other words, rational arguments may lead to false conclusions.

He then argues that the modern world has become so committed to rational thinking that the entire structure of Western culture is predicated on the belief that rational solutions are always best and that since rationality and efficiency go hand in hand, we downgrade anything that is deemed not efficient or less efficient. Because we do this, we denigrate intuition and common sense in the way we run the world.

Saul makes powerful arguments and draws surprising conclusions about a vast array of issues, beliefs, and practices. Unfortunately, some of his generalizations are too sweeping, and he tends to imply universality in his examples, when modifiers like many, sometimes, and occasionally might have been more appropriate. Nevertheless, there is no denying his basic thesis is compelling.

It is important when reading this book to keep an open mind. No book of such vast scope will find many in complete agreement. There is a tendency to shout "Nonsense!" after some of his assertions and conclusions, and then reject his entire argument, but that is a mistake.

Saul seems like a "Liberal" (that despised word) social philosopher, but his critique of society is not merely of the Right, but rather of what he calls "elites" (many of whom are Liberals) who are those highly trained "technocrats" and professionals who run the modern world. Their training is to operate by the principal that there are answers to all problems, which require only the right questions to sort out, and that solutions rationally arrived at will be efficient and therefore optimal, even when they violate common sense and are sometimes even amoral.

My favorite examples that he uses are of the law, where justice is no longer the objective, but the correct playing of the "game" according to the rules, which are only properly understood by lawyers. The most "efficient" lawyers win, regardless of the often nonsensical nature of the outcome. Thus it is seen as a proper outcome when an obviously guilty individual escapes punishment due to a legal technicality, while it is perfectly OK for a battered woman who kills her abusing husband to be incarcerated as a murderer.

Similarly, as long as all the rational laws are observed, it is OK for a corporate raider to buy a company with borrowed money, load it down with the debt taken on to make the acquisition, and then either gut the company to raise cash or fire large number of employees in "cost cutting" moves, even though the company and its employees were profitable and productive participants in the economy prior to takeover. The impact on real people's lives is seen as immaterial because rational procedures were followed.

Naturally, anyone taking on "everyone" (as Saul does) will slaughter some of any reader's "sacred cows" and raise howls of protest that he goes too far (which he does in spots). Nevertheless, the book is an intellectual tour de force of breathtaking sweep that provides real savoring for readers who like to be mentally challenged. It is not a quick read, but also not a difficult one. Rather, it is one best enjoyed in small doses at times when you have the luxury to reflect. Although written in 1992, virtually all of the arguments are valid today, and his descriptions of how the world works sound like they were written in 2008. This is a marvelously enjoyable book to read.
Ken Veit, January, 2008

Few books that are truly worth reading make for an easy read, and this is certainly the case with Voltaire's Bastards. Other reviewers have complained of Saul's density and have even accused him of dull, poor writing. Don't be fooled by such baseless nonsense. Saul is actually an excellent writer. He beautifully elucidates the finer, invariably ignored philosophical points of our modern political culture (which seeps through into every stratum of our lives) with grace and ease. The "density" arises when he undertakes historical narratives which lend credence to the points he makes. I'll agree that this can often make for slow, dry reading. However, his astute commentary on the modern "theology" of reason, power, secrecy, language and bureacracy more than compensate for such shortcomings. If you've ever felt inexplicably frustrated by what seems to be an amputated, purely rationalist, beady-eyed approach to politics, culture and knowledge in general, then the ideas presented within this book will likely excite you as much as they excited me.

Much has been said amongst the other reviews about the seemingly incoherent, diatribal and drawn-out nature of Saul's book. And I agree. It's far from being a masterpiece in the larger sense of the world. What's brilliant about this book is not how right the author is but how wrong (often infuratingly so!) he is. Because I found that I've learnt more from this book, including the wrong parts than I have from many books that were more coherent or right. Unfortunately this does not seem to be Saul's aim.

He begins with section 1 called "Argument". However it read like a bunch of generalisations and sweeping statements without much argument. What he seems to be saying is this: that the concept of reason has been hijacked in the last century of public life in the west. That it has come to mean a bureaucratic, elitist, undemocratic, secretive, closed approach that also refuses to take into account the realities of life. That this style of reason is fanatical in that insisting that it is always right as a dogma. And finally, that it has been the result of untold amounts of suffering because it proclaims itself as a moral system, whereas it's only a system of management. Because of this, it can and is used to inhuman ends because it is itself devoid of any values.

All this I largely agree with. Especially in terms of the last point about reason being amoral you only need to read some Hume. However this exposition of his argument comes only from his second section, where he actually gives some concrete examples. The second section is largely a diatribe that attempts to apply these arguments to concrete historical examples. I think this is the strongest section of the book in that it is actually about something. The third section is some musings on art, individualism etc. much of which was entirely disagreeable.

What then are the strengths of the book? It is a hodge-podge that speaks of everything under the sun and often misses as a result. But by speaking about everything Saul successfully expresses the extent to which things are a problem. If he were more methodical one could claim that such-and-such and such-and-such institution is broken. However this book has convinced me that the world is much more broken than even I previously thought. He just could have done it in a third of the word count. I would definitely recommend the book but not as some incredible analysis but rather as something that will provoke and engage almost every reader. It seems paradoxical but in the chaos that is criticised by so many, Saul makes some surprising observations that would have been missed if he was more careful.

If you are a physical science teacher, you absolutely must devour this extraordinary work. Not only is the work perfect for people who wish to read about the relevant historical figures, and the time of the enlightenment, but there were a few, very simple experimental aspects explored, which I have successfully used in the High School Physics classroom. Students certainly take to the historical background, and of course blending in the very human nature of Voltaire, and Emilie du Chatelet, and how exceptionally close they came to cracking some serious scientific nuts is beyond intriguing.

If you have only a mild interest in science, I would heartily recommend the reading of this work - even if it sits on your nightstand, and is read 10 minutes an evening.

CAVEAT !! You might become so enthralled, that you do NOT put down the book, and continue to read through the night. This might not be good for your next day efficiency at work, and so I have a solution. I suggest that you purchase the book on a Friday evening, and give yourself this two additional evening cushion.

Bodanis is an excellent writer, and while I might sound like I am simply choosing words from my own lexicon of hyperbole, it simply read well. I believe that I have gained from this experience both as a teacher of Physics, but as well Philosophy.

This experience has had me look up his previous work, E = mc^2 and I hope to write a favourable review on that work later this month too.

This reader did not venture upon Passionate Minds with unreasonable expectations: a good yarn featuring an enlightened cast was all. Sadly, the effort was not worth the result. A middling tale, a tabloid history, and that most hideous of affectations, aspirations to wit on the part of the author. Claims to be liberating du Chatelet from the chauvinist past revealed less about her intellectual work than the descriptions of her appearance did of her [...]. Voltaire may well have been a hypochondriacal social climber, but he deserves better than lit crit 101 reviews of his work. The author seems extremely uncomfortable with the period: kings must be stupid & useless, aristocrats are not much better, merchants are hard working, peasants are earthy. When claiming that Voltaire's relationship with his niece was fine, because those things were more acceptable in such debauched times, Bodanis overlooks that minor inconvenience known as canon law. He also, presumably for reasons of humour, refers to Madame de Pompadour as Ms Poisson, combining historical innacuracy with silliness - this is not feminism, it is just plain wrong. The period and people covered by this book are fascinating in so many ways, yet the end result is shallow and dull.

This book gave me a fascinating piece of history that I was completly uninformed on. It is fascinating learning the details regarding life in a period that is completly foreign to our culture. It is also fascinating to find out the contributions that women made in science at a time when it was believed that women were completly ignorant, and every effort was made to keep them so.

In writing history for the masses, the author can take a major or a minor role. In the former, the history is more important than entertaining and the author has to pull the narrative along with great effort and undergo great travails to make the story interesting to the reader. In the latter, the history is so compelling and so entertaining that it defies logic, all the author has to do is tell the tale without much ornamentation nor effort.

David Bodanis, much to his credit, combined the best of both situations. The history is remarkbable to begin with, AND he put forth a valiant effort in research and sheer completeness. The story of Emilie Du Chatelet is so amazing and so very interesting that I wondered why I had not heard about her before this book. I think that it is because the story lay so deep and domant within the history of the French revolution and Voltaire's biographical details that no one lese had bothered to look it up and comprehend the importance and fun of her story.

Since the history involves two people who were lovers and partners, it is inevitable that we compare the two in terms of intellect, temperament, achievement, and personality. In my humble opinion, Voltaire came out the worse for wear on that account. Perhaps this was Bodanis' intent, perhaps it is just the charm of Emilie Du Chatelet. If I had my wish, I would much rather have an audience with her than with him, but not by much. Her achievements were astounding, she was, a natural philosopher in the finest sense of the phrase. Given the discriminatory stance of the scientific establishment at the time, her achievements were remarkable.

Far beyond that, it seems she was also the better diplomat, realist, politician, and intellect of the pair. This is not to denigrate Voltiare's prowess as playwright or provocateur extraordinaire, but his intellect seem less impressive by comparison.

The added incentive to read the book comes from the swashbuckling episodes in their lives together that was worthy of a cinematic presentation. Bodanis does an excellent job of building the suspense while also keeping the story line flowing through his fine skills. I guess the best compliment I can pay him is to say that I had to check the book cover numeorus times to ascertain that I was, indeed, reading non-fiction rather than fiction.

I must thoroughly agree with the Publisher's Weekly reviewer of this book. Although it promises to deliver sensational events such as hot love affairs and outrageous behavior in addition to enlightening us about the brilliance of Voltaire and the genius of Emilie du Chatelet, this writer cannot live up to his own book's expectations or his clear attempt to pen a bestseller. What I felt I was getting was the diary entries of a peeping Tom who was busy sticking his nose into the sordid soap opera that was the "great love affair of the Enlightenment." I never had a sense that I was in the presence of a brilliant woman. Rather, Emilie comes off as a hedonistic and conflicted female, fatally insecure, and overshadowed by the even more insecure and narcissistic Voltaire. Although lots of information is imparted between the covers of this book, it never seems to gel into a cohesive or gripping whole, and I was left feeling flat, not only about the featured on-again, off-again eighteenth-century rock-star couple, but about eighteenth-century France altogether. No one seemed worth reading about. The lot of these folks apparently were stuck in their petty, class conscious, foolish ways, fawning over the court, slapping around the general population who weren't upper class, and generally being idiots. Perhaps the best I can say about this work is that it redeems science and rational thinking as well as the integrity of the individual, but only in a backhanded way. I'm afraid most readers will give up on this endless recounting of flaming passions and pettifoggery before getting halfway through. Lucky would they be too because they would happily miss the glaring and unforgivable fragment on p. 163: "But not only was the water cleaner in Cirey. There was also something more to Emilie's innovation." Editor please!

From the moment I saw the mail man pull up my drive way I knew my comic was finally here! And after running full speed to him ( and tripping on a few bushes...that by the way did jump out at me) I grabbed from him the most genious, humourous thing I had ever had the pleasure of beholding. I sat down on a the closet thing I could find ( which might have been a cat ) and read that book until the very last page...and then I read it agian..It took me on a marvolous jouney to Hell and back...literally...going through a handful or maybe a silver semi truck painted black ful of funny events and happenings...If you have any sense of humor what so ever even f your not a goth....you should order it today...it's phantasmagorical!

This "book" is terrible. It's not funny, "goths" are lame, and he stole the name of the greatest satirist of the eighteenth century. Lame. I recommend this book to retards and "goths", although they really are the same thing.
P.S. Goths are (well, were) actually an East Germanic tribe that conquered parts of the Roman Empire. God, do "goths" steal everything?

First thing you should know about me, the lowly reviewer, is i'm a comic geek and a (somewhat former, I just don't have the energy anymore) goth. But even though I've essentailly cast off my gothic ways I still adore this book.
Our dear boy Voltaire isn't afraid of poking fun at many aspects of the overly serious goth lifestyle that really do need a poking.
It's hilarious, obsured and overall just a very good read. It's printed on high quality paper and my copy has held up very well the past three or four that it's been in my proud possesion. Though I do seem to have, tragically, misplaced it during a recent move *i'm weeping inside* It's good enough that I would consider buying it again.
The only thing I could say against it (and it's a slight one at that) is that he tends to ramble a bit in the last issue, though he makes a joke about just making the last issue up as he went along so that very well might be what happend.
A fine read, good laughs all around and very entertaining, even if you're not a goth.

Oh, and I'd recomend checking out Voltaires music aswell, very funny, my personal favs are "No one loves you when you're evil", "My future ex-girlfriend" and "Dead girls".
Happy reading :)

This book is by far the best Gothic comic i have ever read. I think that even if you do not read this you should check out Voltaire's Music or Stop-motion animation. Visit his web site, www.voltaire.net

I picked this book up as soon as it came out a few years back. I have left my Gothness since then but I still enjoy Voltaire's work. It has a sense of humor and isn't afraid to make fun of everything. And I mean everything. It is an enjoyable diversion from reality and it won't make you dumb. Hmm, something uncommon.

I am so glad they are printing this again! What a wonderful read. Sweet romantic short letters that warm the heart.

Like most I bought this book because I assumed is was the one from the Sex and the City movie. I don't think it is, but it's an amazing book all the same. The authors' writing is so beautiful, and the choice of letters reveal so much about the historical figures that wrote them.
I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys romance and artful writing. I'm sure this will be a book I read over and over.

This edition includes all of the letters from the Sex and the City movie plus a lot more. Great collection.

This is not the book from Sex and the City. The letters are not the same. It's not bad, but is mostly just letters from women and 19th century poets no one has ever heard of. If you buy this thinking it's really love letters from great men, as portrayed in the movie, you'll be disappointed.

It's a great collection of love letters, but it was also the only version on the market for a while following the movie. Now, there are several versions of the same exact love letters at a fraction of the price. $23 for a digital book is a disgrace and a deliberate and unnecessary ripoff of customers who are fans of the new sex movie.

I'd recommend any of these as they contain the same love letters from the movie: Love Letters of Great Men and Women : From The Eighteenth Century To The Present Day Love Letters of Great Men Love Letters of Great Men

Beccaria offers great insights into what has become modern thinking about crime and its prevention. It can be a little dense for such a small book.

Originally published in 1764 anonymously,this essay is a lucid sprit of laws by a young enlightened Italian.His rational argument is based on humanism with anti-clerical and anti-despotic tendencies,which is so convincing and has been proved influential on the reformist movements. Before reading this work, I was nearly ignorant of the ancien regime realities.Thanks to it,the situations and struggles of people in those days have been more clearly revealed to me.

This is an excellent translation of Beccaria's masterwork. The phrasing is clear and unaffected; and the format is pleasant and well-disposed. An Essay on Crimes and Punishments is one of the greatest treatises in the democratic tradition, a testament to human freedom and social justice. For students of law or political theory (of which I am one) this is an excellent account of some of the fundamental principles of democratic society and jurisprudence. Anyone who holds public office should be forced to read this book at gunpoint.

Reading Beccaria's masterpiece was truly comforting, in a sense in which more recent works are not. In a world where increasing numbers of people are in favor of the death penalty, and where the rights of the person under trial sometimes don't seem to matter, this rational, lucid and yet quietly compassionate book was a worthwhile read. Its enlightened, ingenious and sometimes colloquial way of presenting arguments is even more satisfying when you place the book in its historical context (Beccaria's ideas were truly revolutionary by the time's standards) and learn that, after it was published, many works were written in reply to it, defending and trying to morally justify the use of torture in judicial proceedings. You should read this essay in order to fully grasp this great leap in the history of juridical thought and philosophy.

Especially those we respect. Like the lives of members of our favorite bands. But what if we find there's nothing to learn?

Cabaret Voltaire made good, interesting music. This is an "inside" view of their history, but there's little to be found in here. Sorry.

Anyone hoping this book would delve deeply into the music of Cabaret Voltaire will be sorely disappointed. Yes, you will learn about what sort of alcohol Mal and Richard pickled themselves with every chance they got, but not much else.

The author himself seemed in a drug and alcohol induced coma for most of the time he was hanging out with the band, so maybe he doesn't remember as much about his association with them as he'd like to admit. It seemed for every revelation about the band (they were few and far between) there were a hundred references to getting pissed.

The comments by another reader that the demise of the band had anything to do with corporate greed and the rise of Thatcherism are baseless. Mr. Fish himself concluded that the Cabs simply weren't musicians who could actually write songs. Yes, they were musical pioneers. Yes, they influenced a whole generation of musicians. But could they write, play or sing? No, not really.

I did enjoy reading about Mick's early days at the Council rubbish depot. There were lots of interesting characters populating his workday, which oddly enough didn't seem to consist of any work. Reading about employees whose only job seemed to be making tea and socializing didn't do much to make me feel sympathetic when the move to make local government more efficient started to unfold. I know Thatcher and her mates weren't saints, but the need for change was clearly evident.

I suppose I had different expectations for this book and thus feel disappointed having read it. I grew up with the Cabs and was looking for more insight than this glossed over account managed to serve up.

Books about Cabaret Voltaire, the pioneering Sheffield (UK) industrial/indie/electronic group, are rare enough. But this book has an extra appeal. The writer Mick Fish takes you on a journey through some of the darkest times in English life and politics and combines this with the tale of Cabaret Voltaire.

The writer will tell you all about the music scene in Sheffield in the 1980's, from the Human League to ABC. Aligned to this will be the story of the grip the Margaret Thatcher government took hold on Britain, and in particular run down areas like Sheffield in the 80's.

You will read all about the decay, the dark nights, the valiant refusal of a city to be undermined by government, the vicious internal wrangling in the local council and political scene. You may ask is this relevant to the story of Cabaret Voltaire? Well yes it is. The writer worked at the local council and also as a Cabaret Voltaire fan he could see the similarities between the two. The rise of CV in the early 80's which was brutally stamped out by the greedy, stubborn nature of the big money record labels which in essence ruined their career. Mick Fish worked at the council and at the same time he watched as Thatcher took hold of power and left Sheffield to rot and decay. A perfect comparison to what the major record labels did with CV, squeezed the life out of them.

At first glance maybe it won't grab your attention, but get over that, if you're a Cabaret Voltaire fan you should have this already! For others if you were into the music scene of Sheffield in the 80's, this book is a must have. For those of you with an interest in the political side of things, this book may be a worthy read, showing how Thatcher's government tried to squeeze northern cities like Sheffield off the map, through her ignorance of the area and through actions in the local political scene.

What should be clear from the title is that no devotee of industrial music should pass this book by. CV should need no introduction to anyone even loosely acquainted with the genre, and their home city of Sheffield must undoubtedly be flagged as one of the most important cities in the proliferation of industrial music during the early eighties.

The author (Mr. Fish) was there. Unlike so much music biz writing that is based on the self-righteous posturing of a critic-turned-ducumentarian, who's only ties to their subject matter are hand-me-downs and afterimages, this is a first-hand account from a true storyteller. Knew the band, drank with the band, traveled with the band, drank with the band some more...

However, Mr. Fish's greatest achievement here was to NOT rewrite the agonizing rock-star biography we've already suffered through time and again. His achievement foremost was to effortlessly, poignantly and humorously carry us through the days and long nights of industrial music's enigmatic reign. 1980's Sheffield becomes our backdrop, Mr. Fish's own life experiences our satiric companion, and Cabaret Voltaire our cryptic guide.

If you are interested in the music or the bands that lifted the mantle of defiance and DIY from Punk's exploited corpse, you will enjoy this. Better yet, even if you don't care about that tumultuous "industrial" racket that some long-lost roommate used to blare to drown out your Journey records -- if you enjoy a very well told story, it's a can't miss. A pleasure to read, difficult to put down, too quick to finish. Isn't that what brought us to the bookstore in the first place?

A bunch of tired old goth jokes and cliches thrown together with some average looking artwork. In other words, this (is bad)!

Voltaire has done the best harpoon or lampoon of the New York Gothic culture (and by extension the rest of gothic culture). The art work is top rate, all of the Top 13 lists are included as well as just some wonderful looks at the Gothic Culture and things to do as well as things not to do. I would recommend this book to ANYONE in the Gothic Set, but if you're a real Goth, you already have this book...:[

I have followed Voltaire's work for several years, and this compilation of his comics is absolutely wonderful. Dark and cynical, he can puncture all the goofy and ridiculous aspects to the gothic subculture. Just a warning to others, if you can not laugh at yourself and those around you, turn away now. However, if your humor is sick and twisted, order this right now! You will not regret it.

I laughed so hard I was crying. Voltaire puts down anyone and everything: Marilyn Manson, Bjork and even himself! It comes with a warning: "Caution: Do Not Read This Book In Public, You Will Laugh Out Loud!" and it is so true. I would recommend this book to anyone. This isn't an expensive book, and it's worth the amount it's priced at.