Nebraska Books

I cannot praise this novel highly enough. It taught me how to love without regret and savor the moments that make life worth living. Though originally written in German, the translation is flawless. Every single sentence is a well-crafted masterpiece worthy of quotation. Maron is able to do what so few authors can: create a story that is inexplicably human -- one to which almost anybody who has experienced love can relate.

The relationship between significant others and the construction of identity is central to the narrator's characterization. After an enthralling love affair with a married man, the narrator develops a hopeless fixation with him and is incapable of fully living life in his absence. The unreliable first-person narration gives the reader insight into the many layers of this obsession -- from selective rememberance of their time spent together to her need to preserve the most inane remnants of their relationship long after its demise. Through the use of her lover in shaping her existence, the weakness of her personality is revealed piece-by-piece as a jumbled collection of haunting memories.

Conclusion: read this book. I promise you will not regret it. (Und besser auf Deutsch! Ich las und liebte das Buch auf beiden Sprachen.)

Joette Pelster really showed the state of Nebraska something with her annual review of energy related concerns. Very strong material, indeed. It was a real wake up call for the state. Very impactful. A lively read.
Note: after she published this report, she got into a great deal of trouble. Apparently, shortly after this, she turned to the "theatre".

Written in 1895,by a very respected jewish-french socialist writer this books vividly details the history of antisemitism from ancient times to the 19th century. It's narrative and descripton are essential for any serious interpretation of the eternal question of why the world has hated the jews so much. A question that sometimes has taken different form of unspoken prejudice and direct manifestation like the mass killing in the holocust.
The strenght of the book lies in it's conclusions -that the jews are hated because they are always viewed as strangers- wich have outlasted the life of the auhtor to serve as a permanent remainder of how human beings can be guided by the wrong principles in their relationships with other human beings that may seem to be different because of their values and religion.

I was fortunate enough to snag a copy of the University of Nebraska Bison printing of this classic book back in 1987. But, must admit to some surprise the University doesn't have this classic yet in print.

This "crackling, swift moving narrative" not only offers chronicle of the pursuit of the Apache marauders "across southern Arizona (Territory) and New Mexico to the Sierra Madre in Mexico in 1883", but will offer also historical reading enjoyment to any interested reader opening its pages. The book was written by General George Crook's aide-de-camp, staff officer of 16 years, John Gregory Bourke. Both this book and ON THE BORDER WITH CROOK, also penned by Captain Bourke are to be considered classics of both the frontier and Indian Wars era in the 19th century.

Captain Bourke was very much an empathetic ethnologist, having interest and great understanding of the native Americans of that time, and his writings offer great insight into the Chiricahua Apaches and others caught up in this conflict of U.S. Army cavalry and the various Apache tribes.

The towns, landscapes, people, and activities of this 1883 campaign are all written about in these pages by one who observed them first-hand. No better factual reading exits of this time, especially coming as it does from a primary source, one who both viewed and lived it. Several histories on this campaign exist but Captain Bourke's is second to none.

Semper Fi.

To read The Apache Diaries by Grenville (1907-40) and son Neil Goodwin is to enter a portal to another dimension. Through a dialogue of contemporary and historic diaries and related photographs, a vivid landscape haunted by blood, pain, fear, suffering, passion, and ancient enmities emerges. In this world all tales are entwined by tones of sorrow, loss, and a relentless quest for the understanding and peace of the dead. There is also fascination, pride, and great heroism. The plight of the Sierra Madre Apaches intrigues the youthful Grennie, destined to become a singular if short-lived ethnographer who partially chronicles their ambiguous fate. That unfinished life task is taken up by his son Neil in the research and writing of The Apache Diaries. In an effort to reach out and perhaps even touch the father who died when he was only two months old, the author recreates the journeys made by his father when he wrote the original diary entries in the 1930's. The Apache Diaries is, as intended, a dialogue built between Neil and Grennie in an exploration of the dual enigmas of the nature of the man himself and the mysterious fate of the Sierra Madre Apaches he studied. It is as though Neil, the son, hopes to uncover a mirror experience of both the true life essence of his father and the inconclusive, mysterious fate of the "wild" Sierra Madre Apaches. It is fitting that he is joined in his quest by his wife, son and his son's future wife. The Apache Diaries is a classic quest riddle, filled with real unquenchable anguish and courage mixed with evil and cowardice. It is bitterly poignant. True to life, it never resolves completely; but there is a partial lifting of the veil. The key to experiencing this strangely compelling, haunted world of the blood- feuding Mexicans' and Apaches' history is, perhaps, acceptance of the pain and wrong, the incredible wrenching anguish that is called forth again and again. But there is a second step that is as yet unfinished. One quickly learns to guess at an outline of forgiveness, perhaps ? a future resolution that still may loom yet several generations away. The deaths and the kidnappings are so brutal and vivid. Though Grenville Goodwin was a respected ethnographer and Neil Goodwin is an accomplished film-maker of Native American documentaries, the reader does not need to be fluent in either medium to appreciate the depth and complexity of The Apache Diaries. It resonates in the heart. It breaks the heart. Perhaps it remakes the heart, or the heart's vision. This is a profoundly moving book. Perhaps the book reflects the spirit of the crown dance of the Chiricahua, a holy ritual Neil witnesses in 1987 when he accompanies two grandsons of one of Geronimo's warriors on a commemorative visit to the location of Geronimo's near surrender to General Crook:

Later during that trip the Chiricahuas conducted their holiest of rituals, the spellbinding crown dance. It begins with an immense leaping bonfire. There is a line of drummers and chanters. Shockingly, out of the darkness, come the dancers. They circle the fire wearing masks with high, antlerlike crowns, short kilts, painted bodies, a thousand tiny bells, a sword in each hand - they reel, hover, sway, and as they do, they become the mountain gods. The assembled Apaches are witnessing the first crown dance held in these mountains for a very long time. It is at long last a dance for the peaceless dead, and it is overdue by a hundred years or more. (page 236)

Nancy Lorraine Reviewer

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.

PHYSICS--Aristotle addresses the "why" questions. Aetia= causes, there are 4 causes. Only 1 cause actually sounds what like we call a cause today. A better translation is "explanation." 4 ways to explanations. Arche=origins/principles, something that is 1st, or rule, or, commanding, or beginning. Thus 1st thought that leads us to understand something and how we proceed. Begin how we think and rule or govern how we think. Phusis= "nature," like physics. He understands nature differently than we do today. For Aristotle the planets orbits never change so not part of nature. Everything below the moon, "lunar," is nature. Thus everything below lunar is not perfect and goes through change. Phusis root= to grow or bloom. Thus, emerging like birth. This term has to do with movement and change. Also connected to "coming to light." Also, connected to "being."

Physics (nature) is an arche (rule) of motion and change. Concept of physics (nature) has to do with motion and change. Paramedes denies change. Aristotle takes umbrage with this. Plato says change is a deficient condition; Aristotle is against both men's notion of change.
IMPORTANT--Aristotle talks about how we talk about how we talk about change all the time. Aristotle says no such things as "being" itself. For Aristotle there is change we always talk about it.

Potentiality and actuality- 2 terms that dominate Aristotle's thinking. Change is potentiality to actuality. Potentiality is a "not yet." He criticizes premises of philosophers for denying or denigrating change. His physics is his thought to explain change. Ousia can't mean something unchanging, it is always a changing phenomena. For Aristotle and the Greeks the "world" has no beginning or end it is always here. No God or creator. Big and small are opposites, but are only conceptual. Small things become big Aristotle sees this. Our language is the guide here. The fact that there is change doesn't mean it is chaotic, you plant a seed, and it grows from small to big, this is normal change.

3 senses Aristotle uses phusis or nature. IMPORTANT- 1. "Always or for the most part." 2. Telos-end, purposes. 3. Movement is self-generated toward something. When a seed falls to the ground it grows and moves towards growing. Contrast Phusis with techne="produce something by humans." Both have to do with change and movement. 1 is self-moving, 1 is moved by us. Trees are not brought into being by themselves; beds out of trees are made by us. What is a bed? For Aristotle it has no nature or physics, it can have an essence. Everything other than Techne "things of production" are physics, nature. It is natural that humans have productive capacity and skills. Techne and physics are distinguished to understand change. Aristotle is important in philosophy and science because he uses language of science. He sees that change is internal within phusis in their own nature, not from myth or storytelling.

His phenomenology says our primary access to things is the "whole" like a dog, once we analyze them we can break them down. This is different from the premises of philosophers who believed in "inarticulate wholes." This is a dramatic difference from Platonists and atomists ideas. Atomist says all things made up of individual stuff like atoms. Aristotle is against atomist doesn't accept describing atoms as real. Like atomist the "whole" or dog is real for him. He isn't a Darwinist because the earth is always the way it was, is and will be. He talks about elements earth, fire, water, air.

IMPORTANT- For Aristotle, "being" of a thing comes 1st, knowledge 2nd. He says knowledge comes to rest in the soul. The soul is calmed by knowledge. When the soul or the mind comes to rest this is out of a natural turbulence of the mind. When he says "by nature" it is intrinsic in us we are by nature turbulent like children, this is part of us. Knowledge achieves calming it emerges out of the turbulence like "wonder."

Techne and physics are not opposites they are distinct different ways to explain movement. Both parts of our world can illuminate each other. He doesn't have idea of a creator God but understands if their were nature it would come by way of god. He says nature is self-manifesting. Techne completes nature (physics) Art doesn't quite imitate nature but talking about shapes like a bed or cave like a house. More like impersonates nature. Craft or Techne our natural capacity to make things, we are elated by being able to craft we do have to be taught to produce things. When we build houses, we are completing something nature can't do. Today, modern science rejects idea "nature" has a purpose. Thus, Aristotle doesn't see physics, nature and techne craft as that different.

Aitia=Causes better definition is "explanation."

1. Material Cause, answers question "out of what"
2. Formal Cause, answers question "into what"
3. Efficient Cause, answers question "from what"
4. Final Cause, answers question "for what, or toward what"

Qua= Latin for "as." We understand something by questions we ask. He uses ordinary language. This arms us with information to look at whatever phenomena by deduction. Fill in the 4 causes and categories and then you have knowledge.

IMPORTANT- Most important is #2 the Formal cause. Efficient and Final cause fall under it. Usually he uses artifacts crafted by man to explain this. Example of a house:

1.Material Cause, answers question "out of what" Wood
2.Formal Cause, answers question "into what" A certain shape of house
3.Efficient Cause, answers question "from what" the builder
4.Final Cause, answers question "for what, or toward what" to provide shelter

Things of phusis can be explained by 4 causes a little tricky. Form isn't just shape for Aristotle.
He uses different works for form, like logos = ordering, or pattern, or structure, in this case, organization in living things it is richer our bodies are our being cause. A corpse is no longer organized for a functioning body. Same with material cause. Aristotle distinguishes between wood or real matter and less tangible, he uses idea of material cause thus doesn't just mean stuff like matter. Thus, in his book Politics, what is the material of the polis? The citizens. Material is just a way to explain it. The word matter works like "What subject matter are you taking"? Thus, Aristotle uses matter in the rich and varied linguistic way. Thus, he provides guides and 4 categories and causes to gain knowledge. He thinks his approach is an improvement over Plato and pre-Socratics like materialists.

IMPORTANT- Everything is what it is in combination of matter and form in the world except God. There is a difference between dogs and beds, thus he is against the atomists. If you don't know what a cake is ahead of time you don't ever get to the molecular structure to get you there. To talk about matter without form is to miss something. Any 4 causes alone doesn't work, all together give an apt account of how things are. Modern science breaks with him on #4 the Final cause; scientists say this doesn't exist in nature.

For Aristotle, if it is evident and real in nature it must be real. The Telos shouldn't be understood as "push pull." Understanding can shift based on different issues and topics so Aristotle is a "pluralist." Never think of telos, or end, or purpose as "design." Not all forms of telos are "conscious design" for Aristotle. There is no intelligent design of nature for Aristotle. (No God). He rejects it, no beginning, or end of nature. However, he believes nature has purposeful elements to it, so it is mind like. Therefore, when we think purposefully we are not violating nature. We are rational animals. There is no mind before or behind nature. For Aristotle idea of telos is built into nature. Aristotle's idea of an unmoved, mover is archaic. He believes that movement in nature must ultimately come to stop, can't go to infinity, thus unmoved mover. This is his idea of God. Doesn't mean first cause or creator but more a "draw" not a "push" like draw of a lover. Thus, he doesn't believe in universal laws of motion. This is a limitation in his philosophy.

IMPORTANT-Basic distinction between matter and form, form has efficient and final cause as subsets. Matter and form are separable in analysis but not in reality. Two sides of the same coin, always present together. You can't have a sculpture without matter like clay. Aristotle criticizes Plato and others for delinking form and matter. Form isn't just shape, form is structure and organization. Corpse has same shape as a human but Aristotle says, "The form is gone in the corpse" so form is more than shape. Matter is unknowable; form gives us something that we can gain knowledge with, example a hunk of clay vs. a bowl.

Bottom line of modern physics and science is math, Newton, Kant, etc. said this. Thus, H2O is proportions of elements. A "towards which" is not a phenomena to examine. Here he is saying math is legitimate form of knowledge but it is not primary way or status of understanding how things are. Natural motion has nothing to do with line and math, etc. for Aristotle. One can't explain natural motion with math. We never come across geometric shapes in nature. Form is natural phenomena but different from mathematical form. Thus, you can't understand nature by math, as primary knowledge only secondary. For Plato, math is real for Aristotle they only help explain nature.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

There is no other text that even comes close to this book. It is the definitive book on Arkansas politics.

What a man to admire. We should all make a pilgrimage to Beyreuth to pay our lifetime respects to this great man.

Anyone advertising this privately-published government grant report is probably trying to sell a copy stolen from a library.
- James A. Thorson

Frontier historians have long been appreciative of the path-breaking establishment of Astoria as a fur-trading post on the Columbia River in 1811 and its short history as a pawn in international rivalries. James P. Ronda, well respected for his work on the Lewis and Clark Expedition, presents in this book the first full-length study of Astoria to appear since Washington Irving's "Astoria" in 1836. The result is a fine work that is more significant than just a story of adventure in the Pacific Northwest or just one more account of a single aspect of the fur trade. It moves with a sweep and a dimension that places the little post on the banks of the Columbia River in the vortex of world events, a pawn in games of international rivalry and chance.

Ronda describes carefully the efforts of John Jacob Astor, head of the Pacific Fur Company and several other business enterprises, to establish Astoria as the capital of his far western trading empire during the first decade of the nineteenth century. That effort moved from New York to Washington to St. Petersburg to Montreal to Canton as he manipulated international politics and appealed to personal desires. Astor, motivated by a quest for wealth but fortified by a sense of national prominence, appealed to the expansionist-minded politicians of the United States to gain support for Astoria's creation. He was finally successful and in 1811 the site was settled by representatives of the Pacific Fur Company traveling in two contingents, one overland and the other by sea. For the next three years Astor and his lieutenants battled bureaucracy in several nations, international ambitions on the part of several countries, rival fur trading companies, and the economics of the business to keep Astoria in operation. They failed, and it succumbed during the War of 1812 only to become one of the British North West Company's posts for the next twenty years.

But "Astoria & Emoire" is more than a recitation of the life and death of the American settlement. Although it is little more than a footnote in most history texts, if Ronda had limited his book to the Astoria's history irrespective of other events that affected it I would have questioned the necessity of its publication. Instead, Ronda provides an excellent study in the history of international relations at several levels of governments and between private citizens. Astoria is, essentially, a case study in business and politics in an international setting. Ronda's work, moreover, is a social history. He uses some untapped historical materials to reconstruct life on the trips to and from Astoria as well as activities at the post. In so doing, he presents a very useful portrait of activities in an early fur trading establishment. He describes something of the interrelationships of cultures and allegiances between the Americans, the Indians, the French and British Canadians, the Russians, and the Hawaiians. This social portrait is especially welcome also as a glimpse of the diversity present on the early fur trading frontier.

"Astoria & Emoire" is one of several refreshing books to appear on the development of the American West. It is a commendable work, and because of the skill of its author its 344 pages of narrative make interesting reading. One word of caution, however, this is not just western or frontier history, it is sophisticated analysis of several historical trends focused through the lens of Astoria; present in it also is social history and business history and diplomatic history and probably some other types of history yet unnamed. Those seeking staid fur trade literature with the emphasis on minutiae will be disappointed. Those readers pondering broader vistas, however, will be rewarded by considering Ronda's work.