Benn Books

Had there been no Shakespeare, John Ford's play "'Tis Pity She's a Whore" would never have been written--but Shakespeare's tremendous example not only provided part of context of this play, but also obscures it. "'Tis Pity" is not as good as Shakespeare's very best works (the great tragedies and romances). Ford struggles to match Shakespeare's second-best works (e.g., the great comedies such as "As You Like It").

But judging Ford in comparison with Shakespeare is unfair. Perhaps a few score of writers really match Shakespeare: Homer, Sappho, Ovid, Virgil, perhaps Dante. I wouldn't give Shakespeare a five-star rating and give, say, Pope, Keats, or Austen a four-star rating. Nor would I give Ford a three-star rating next to Shakespeare's five-star and Keats' and Austen's four-star ratings.

In the bell curve of literature, Shakespeare and Homer (in my opinion) occupy the vanishingly small right side of the curve. Very few writers match Ford's achievement in "'Tis Pity." The play is powerful, cleanly plotted, and brilliantly written. In particular, Ford does a great job in creating sympathy for all of his major characters, and in particular for the incestuous lovers at the heart of the play. The play suffers only by comparison with Shakespeare and perhaps a handful of other great dramatists.

More important, the New Mermaids edition is very useful. The introduction is thoughtful and thorough; the page layout is clear (especially important with drama); and the footnotes are generally useful. The editor, Wiggins, sometimes elucidates matters that are perfectly clear--but I would rather the editor take that approach than leave me in the dark.

In short, serious students of literature will want to read this play, and the New Mermaids edition provides a well-annotated text using modern English spelling.

Incest and dirty double hearted deeds that led all to this tragedy!
In cattle and horses siblings are breed that good genes double and bad ones die out.
In humans it engenders a madness of the superego
that leads to downfall and disgrace for all.
" Get thee to a nunnery " is the other side of "Tis Pity She's A Whore".
There is no wrong save "they" said it were so.
For men are but animals and their empty morals
all useless inventions?
We would better in these latter days trust
to DNA science than outmoded conventions.

This is a highly emotional and well-written work that explores a very taboo subject matter. The play revolves a case of forbidden love, in this case, Giovanni's incestuous love for his sister Annabella. It's pretty easy to figure out after the first few pages that the play will have a tragic ending, but there are several major surprises that happen along the way, and the final scene is unbelievably violent. I'd love the chance to stage a production of "Tis Pity" one of these days...from a directorial standpoint, the script is filled with many interesting possibilities.

This play is an excellent example of incest in the Renaissance. It's also fairly short and very readable. Bergetto is an interesting character and provides much needed comic relief in this play which is ultimately quite tragic. The title is misleading in many ways, but female sexuality is problematic throughout.

I chose to read this play because firstly, Anthony Burgess mentioned it in his book "English Literature" (1857) and secondly, because it was a short play. Or maybe even thirdly - the central theme [incest] it deals with is treated in an entirely different manner from other literary works. The nature of the incest is frank and horrifying. The intensity of the unlawful relationship is compromised by the coarsening of Giovanni's love for Annabella; their ethereal relationship gradually loses its innocence in the course of the play, culminating in Annabella's pregnancy and finally her death in Giovanni's hands.

While we certainly cannot put Ford in the ranks of Shakespeare, he deserves credit for a play whose themes of sexual jealousy, revenge, violence and incent intertwine in a most heartrending way.

The Cold War ended more than a decade ago, crowning the US as the world's sole superpower. Nowhere is this raw reality more apparent than at the United Nations, dominated by a single country since the decline and fall of the Soviet Union. Who call the shots at the UN? And how is it done? Phyllis Bennis has written a readable, gripping and masterful, if ultimately flawed account of the world body's domination by the US. Carefully tracing how American power dressed as principle strategically hobbled the UN from its inception, she reveals concrete instances of how the US coerces or subdues countries into toeing its line, and how it quashes dissent. Whether she is examining US manipulation of the UN Security Council to secure multilateral cover for conducting a unilateral campaign against Iraq, or its conscious policy of apathy in the Security Council in the face of the Rwanda genocide, Bennis is excellent at teasing out US double-standards and hypocrisy. However, her judgements are perhaps too broad and sweeping, failing to take into account the realities of power. No country operates on assumptions of altruism. Any freshman realist will tell you this is the way the world works, has worked, and will always work. Can any country afford to suspend its national interest for the sake of fuzzy moral principles, even if these principles lie at the heart of international law, the UN Charter? Bennis believes that the US has a moral duty to do so, and must provide responsible and enlightened leadership to revitalise the UN. In unveiling the contradictions, ambiguities and doublespeak in US policy at the UN, Bennis compels the reader to confront a hard question: can the US get away with mobilising the world's most important international organisation for its own interests? Is it answerable to no-one but itself? Embedded in her book is a lesson in ethics - calling the shots entails responsibility and accountability. But any freshman ethical philosopher may tell you that. Some readers may expect such a lucid, well-written account of US domination at the UN to deliver more, instead of serving as a jeremiad on unbridled US power. And in concluding her book, what piques Bennis most is what she terms the "self-righteous know it all ism" of US officials and politicians. Here I felt that Bennis has taken it all a bit too personally, and the book loses its punch. Arrogance and pride is a prerogative of unchallenged supremacy. Can we draw any hard lessons from such an attitude? Can we construct a programme for change from what Bennis herself admits has been the agenda of the US and its allies all along - strategically hobbling the UN to serve its interests? In the final analysis, realists may conclude that Bennis has paradoxically legitimated the crude prerogatives of raw power, while idealists may declare that by unveiling, naming and shaming, she has contributed some hard punches in a crucial international debate on reforming the US attitude towards the UN. But can power be shamed or reconstructed by disclosure? Here Bennis harbours the hope of the investigative journalist, except her scoop is well-known and widely-accepted. It may have been better if Bennis had provided stronger arguments on how US hubris and hamartia leads to unfavourable outcomes, and how its tyranny of consensus at the UN could have unforeseen blowback for the world. That would provide a more solid argument to convince the unenlightened majority of US public opinion that a strong UN can and will help protect US, and by extension, global interests. And that's why I give the book 4 stars and not 5, along with the fact that it contains too many glaring typos, which subtract from the hard effort and deep research that must have gone into its explosive content.

Bennis paints a picture of the U.N. that recreates the classic "Victimization" paradigm. Reading her book one is to believe that the U.S. has "swayed" and "cajolled" the U.N. into its lax standards of rule and "fuzzy" moral concepts. Sorry, not when the U.N. has steadily allowed corrupt governments of every ilk to hold sway in its councils. Not when the very fabric of the charter of the U.N. is ignored to allow governments hostile to peaceful and democratic rule to be part of the decision making process. Bennis neglects the history of "anti-american" and anti-democratic activities that have taken roost in the vaunted halls of the U.N. since the 70's in favor of making this an all America's fault diatribe. Nevermind the fact that Americans pay more than any other nation to support the U.N. Nevermind the fact that the U.N. members live better in the U.S. than they might in their own homelands. Were supposed to believe that the U.S. controls the U.N. when nations like Syria are allowed on the security council? When Tiawan is illegally voted of the concil in favor of Communist China. Sorry. Ayn Rand was more visionary in regards to the U.N. than Bennis, and at a time of when the U.N. is about to be investigated for corruption under the food for oil program, little Miss Bennis needs to stop making excuses and really explore this bastion of international law she reveres. Once done she will see that Washington has very little to do with the politics of how the U.N. is run and how the Secretary General can either make or brake the power structure within. Answer this Miss Bennis. If the U.s. manipulates the U.N. so well then how is it that the agency never listens to the U.S.? Out of all the wars the U.N. has never stopped a single one and I doubt that is the U.S.' fault and I am happy the world is not ignoring the U.N.s' failures, we need to stop allowing this organization full of false alliances to speak for those truely dedicated to peace. Down with the "peacekeepers" who rape and steal from those they are to protect. Down with the support of terrorist nations within its councils for money. And to hell with the waste this organization dumps on civilized nations when it looses control of its unstable politics.

The Cold War ended more than a decade ago, crowning the US as the world's sole superpower. Nowhere is this raw reality more apparent than at the United Nations, dominated by a single country since the decline and fall of the Soviet Union.

Who call the shots at the UN? And how is it done? Phyllis Bennis has written a readable, gripping and masterful, if ultimately flawed account of the world body's domination by the US.

Carefully tracing how American power dressed as principle strategically hobbled the UN from its inception, she reveals concrete instances of how the US coerces or subdues countries into toeing its line, and how it quashes dissent.

Whether she is examining US manipulation of the UN Security Council to secure multilateral cover for conducting a unilateral campaign against Iraq, or its conscious policy of apathy in the Security Council in the face of the Rwanda genocide, Bennis is excellent at teasing out US double-standards and hypocrisy. However, her judgements are perhaps too broad and sweeping, failing to take into account the realities of power. No country operates on assumptions of altruism. Any freshman realist will tell you this is the way the world works, has worked, and will always work. Can any country afford to suspend its national interest for the sake of fuzzy moral principles, even if these principles lie at the heart of international law, the UN Charter? Bennis believes that the US has a moral duty to do so, and must provide responsible and enlightened leadership to revitalise the UN. In unveiling the contradictions, ambiguities and doublespeak in US policy at the UN, Bennis compels the reader to confront a hard question: can the US get away with mobilising the world's most important international organisation for its own interests? Is it answerable to no-one but itself?

Embedded in her book is a lesson in ethics - calling the shots entails responsibility and accountability. But any freshman ethical philosopher may tell you that. Some readers may expect such a lucid, well-written account of US domination at the UN to deliver more, instead of serving as a jeremiad on unbridled US power.

In concluding her book, what appears to pique Bennis most is what she terms the "self-righteous know it all ism" of US officials and politicians. Here one feels that Bennis has taken it all a bit too personally, and the book loses its punch. Arrogance and pride is a prerogative of unchallenged supremacy. Can we draw any hard lessons from such an attitude? Can we construct a programme for change from what Bennis herself admits has been the agenda of the US and its allies all along - strategically hobbling the UN to serve its interests? In the final analysis, realists may conclude that Bennis has paradoxically legitimated the crude prerogatives of raw power, while idealists may declare that by unveiling, naming and shaming, she has contributed some hard punches in a crucial international debate on reforming the US attitude towards the UN.

But can power be shamed or reconstructed by disclosure? Here Bennis harbours the hope of the investigative journalist, except her scoop is well-known and widely-accepted. It may have been better if Bennis had provided stronger arguments on how US hubris and hamartia leads to unfavourable outcomes, and how its tyranny of consensus at the UN could have unforeseen blowback for the world. That could have provided a more solid argument to convince the unenlightened majority of US public opinion that a strong UN can and will help protect US, and by extension, global interests. And that's why I give the book 4 stars and not 5, along with the fact that it contains too many glaring typos, which subtract from the hard effort and deep research that went into crafting its explosive content.

The Cold War ended more than a decade ago, crowning the US as the world's sole superpower. Nowhere is this raw reality more apparent than at the United Nations, dominated by a single country since the decline and fall of the Soviet Union.

Who call the shots at the UN? And how is it done? Phyllis Bennis has written a readable, gripping and masterful, if ultimately flawed account of the world body's domination by the US.

Carefully tracing how American power dressed as principle strategically hobbled the UN from its inception, she reveals concrete instances of how the US coerces or subdues countries into toeing its line, and how it quashes dissent.

Whether she is examining US manipulation of the UN Security Council to secure multilateral cover for conducting a unilateral campaign against Iraq, or its conscious policy of apathy in the Security Council in the face of the Rwanda genocide, Bennis is excellent at teasing out US double-standards and hypocrisy. However, her judgements are perhaps too broad and sweeping, failing to take into account the realities of power. No country operates on assumptions of altruism. Any freshman realist will tell you this is the way the world works, has worked, and will always work. Can any country afford to suspend its national interest for the sake of fuzzy moral principles, even if these principles lie at the heart of international law, the UN Charter? Bennis believes that the US has a moral duty to do so, and must provide responsible and enlightened leadership to revitalise the UN. In unveiling the contradictions, ambiguities and doublespeak in US policy at the UN, Bennis compels the reader to confront a hard question: can the US get away with mobilising the world's most important international organisation for its own interests? Is it answerable to no-one but itself?

Embedded in her book is a lesson in ethics - calling the shots entails responsibility and accountability. But any freshman ethical philosopher may tell you that. Some readers may expect such a lucid, well-written account of US domination at the UN to deliver more, instead of serving as a jeremiad on unbridled US power.

In concluding her book, what appears to pique Bennis most is what she terms the "self-righteous know it all ism" of US officials and politicians. Here one feels that Bennis has taken it all a bit too personally, and the book loses its punch. Arrogance and pride is a prerogative of unchallenged supremacy. Can we draw any hard lessons from such an attitude? Can we construct a programme for change from what Bennis herself admits has been the agenda of the US and its allies all along - strategically hobbling the UN to serve its interests? In the final analysis, realists may conclude that Bennis has paradoxically legitimated the crude prerogatives of raw power, while idealists may declare that by unveiling, naming and shaming, she has contributed some hard punches in a crucial international debate on reforming the US attitude towards the UN.

But can power be shamed or reconstructed by disclosure? Here Bennis harbours the hope of the investigative journalist, except her scoop is well-known and widely-accepted. It may have been better if Bennis had provided stronger arguments on how US hubris and hamartia leads to unfavourable outcomes, and how its tyranny of consensus at the UN could have unforeseen blowback for the world. That could have provided a more solid argument to convince the unenlightened majority of US public opinion that a strong UN can and will help protect US, and by extension, global interests. And that's why I give the book 4 stars and not 5, along with the fact that it contains too many glaring typos, which subtract from the hard effort and deep research that went into crafting its explosive content.

This book is a good, even-handed introduction to the War of 1812. The causes of the war, the major campaigns and battles, some of the major personalities, and the concluding Treaty of Ghent are all covered in varying levels of detail. American readers, who learned in school (as I did) that the War of 1812 was a "second war of independence", will find that not everyone shares this point of view.

In some sections it would have been nice to have a little more detail, but the author did a good job to cover so much within the limitations of the Essential History series. The book is a good overview and provides many references for further reading. I recommend it.

I agree with the other reviewer. Osprey books are designed for quick overviews of influential battles in world history. This is not meant as the 'be all end all of war of 1812' books. I suggest you read J. Mackay Hitman's 'The Great War of 1812' perhaps you will find that your liking.
Now for this book, its a great mini-intro to an often forgotten conflict that is-for the most part-overlooked. So take it from me, Ive built up my osprey collection and this one is one of the better volumes.

I have given this book four stars to try and even up the previous reviewer's harsh judgement. The book, like all Ospreys, is only designed to be a brief overview in which it is quite adequate; there are other publications for those who want more in-depth accounts.

As for the accusation by the previous reviewer that it makes the Americans look like 'aggressors', he appears unaware that the US started the war with the express aim of conquering Upper Canada (Ontario), something it repeatedly tried to do; or of Jefferson's claim that the capture of Quebec was 'a mere matter of marching'. If an account is 'unbiased' only when it is uncritical of US policy and actions, he is going to be doubly disappointed, and will find little solace in serious American accounts such as those by John K. Mahon or Donald R. Hickey - American's leading expert on the War. Instead, he will find Carl Benn's view, far from being 'disappointing for a historian', is the generally accepted outlook by serious students of the subject, both Canadian and American.

Unless you are looking for a very general study of the War of 1812, pass this book by. I was looking for an unbiased account to brush up on the facts of the conflict. However, the account is very biased towards the British and Canadians in particular. The US is made to look like aggressors and "imperialistic" in the eyes of this Canadian author. Very Disapointing for a historian.

Even the illustrations are sub-par. Maps are OK.

I waited with great expectation for "Great Moments in Architecture" to arrive, hoping it would be in the style of the other highly successful books by David MacCaulay on Pyramids, ships, etc. These other books provide something for all ages: detailed drawings on how things work for children and sophisticated studies of engineering and architecture for adults. Unfortunately, Great Moments is a satirical look at great objects of aechitecture. The cover shows L'Arc de Triumph upside down and called Arc de Defeat. The remainder of the book only gets worse. The problem is the work is totally confusing for children who are trying to learn the true nature of the world while being boringly crude for adults. However, I suppose if you would like an expensive and not funny Architectural Far Side, maybe this would provide some brief enjoyment

This is an excellent book for lazy afternoons devoted to daydreaming. Every illustration is a wonderful "what if...?" scenario depicting an architectural acievement gone awry. Macaulay also has a particular love for dreaming up very peculiar applications of vinyl siding- that part does get a little tedious, but this book is definitely worth a look. When I first looked at this book several years ago, I was too young to get many of the jokes, but I just pulled it out again today- what a great surprise!

I came upon this book in my search for history of architecture in general. Though I expected something entirely different, I was immediately caught in the book's charm. The illustrations are clever and their sarcasm unbeatable. A book to look at, time and time again.

I always find the author's work entertaining and informative. True, while Great Moments in Architecture is not as factual as some of his works, the sketches are beguiling, and the humor strikes a particularly concordant note with individuals involved in architectural careers.

Buy it and get a good chuckle out of it!

My husband started to read this in a doctor's office. The book is out of print, so we were happy to find it on Amazon.

Certain foods have always had the reputation of being good for us and there are some that heal. This book is about foods that prevent or ease ailments from arthritis and high blood pressure to allergies and diabetes, to angina and even cancer.

A good book to start with, when learning about nutrition.

This book not only provides a few good recipes but also tells what the foods are good for. This book tells you what health issues a certain food can help with. For example, grapefruit is good for cholesterol.

Walter Benn Micheals is one of the most brilliant, gifted literary critics in the world. His prose is extremely clear, and his thought is equally challenging.

This book is really boring. It's language is confusing, its references to other obscure pieces of literature are too complex, and it just really stinks.

Walter Benn Michaels has really interesting and unusual ideas. He reads texts in ways that nobody else does. If you are well versed in books like The Great Gatsby, The Sun Also Rises, The Sound and the Fury, and An American Tragedy, you will enjoy reading Michael's take on these texts.

In light of recent events (9/11) this book is more valuable than it has ever been in its 20 years of print. As the Bush administration declares war on terrorism (a term they refuse to define)the military industrial complex stands to develope beyond its already ridiculous proportions, and human rights stand to be squandered to the back of our national conscience. Already the U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia has claimed that any type of civil protest in Bolivia is to be considered terrorism, as such protest stands to cripple the U.S. drug war effort in said country. The war on terrorism will inevitably become the excuse to continue U.S. imperialism, and restrain civil liberties and human rights worldwide.
This book explains how many people have refused to support such violence and military action, by refusing to pay their taxes, and redistributing them to peaceful and humanitarian organizations. This book offers an in depth look at the history of war tax resistance as a form of political protest, its values and its accomplishments. It explains the reasons why someone might choose to pursue such action, and what one might expect from the government in response.
I encourage everyone to pick up this book, if not to use it, to at least be familiar with the options of political protest described within, and the reasons that drive U.S. citizens to resist war taxes.

Most Tax protesters have ended up paying high penalties or worse, in jail.
Left-wingers are buying this book like crazy to show their support for "peace". But I thought they were in favor of taxes. I guess when someone takes their money and spends it on a program they don't like, its wrong. But when someone with a different political view wants taxes to stop funding left-wing causes they call it selfishness. Real hypocrites. Pay your taxes, stay out of jail. If you're really upset, try voting sometime...

It's published by the War Resisters League.

This is more in a Jonsonian vein than Shakespearean. I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in Jacobian theater and culture. Because the characters are stock figures, the whole machinery of the debt and marriage systems is made transparent, provided you can see through the jokes. And speaking of jokes, I laughed out loud several times and enjoyed the parodies of some of Shakespeare's famous speeches. Sir Giles Overreach is a great villain and the naifish hero Welborne really does find a clever 'new way to pay old debts.' The introduction calls this a proto-typical debt comedy. Not having read every debt comedy, I'm willing to take Craik's word.

New Mermaids does good work in terms of modernizing spelling and providing notes for those of us who aren't PhD's. People wanting an original-spelling text should go to their university's library or take a valium. Craik's introduction is brief but effective. It should be read after the play, since the play is easy enough to follow on first read with only a few recourses to the Cast List. Enjoy!

"A New Way to Pay Old Debts" is a typical Renaissance comedy. The young hero, tellingly named Welborne, has lost his fortune thanks in part to an evil old uncle. Machinations, engagements, and quarrels follow. This is supposedly Massinger's masterpiece, but it has never been a special favorite of mine. I think that Ben Jonson and others pull off similar stories in a more amusing way.

I am a fan of the New Mermaid series. I like the commentary and introductions provided. However, the language is more modernized than it is in most editions os such literature, and if you insist on reading the original spelling, another edition is better for you.

An excellent account of debates within the Left and of Ralph Miliband's role within them. It is also a good portrait of his personality. If in a few places it is hard going, that is not the fault of Newman, but of the complexity of the issues (e.g. in Miliband's controversy with Nicos Poulantzas.)

Miliband was insistent that genuine Marxist socialism must be combined with genuine democracy, and he relentlessly tested both capitalism and Soviet-style dictatorship against this criterion. This often left him isolated on the Left, at times even among his closest friends and collaborators, and the book brings out his occasional depressions and self-questioning. Newman, though obviously an admirer of Miliband, also here and there expresses reservations about aspects of Miliband's intellectual positions and practical strategy. But if, from time to time, there are suggestions of Miliband's limitations, the final chapter is a magnificent exposition of his strengths.

This book on Ralph Miliband, one of the key figures of the New Left, gives us useful insights into why that movement failed.

Newman (like Miliband a Professor of Politics) tells us that Miliband was happy `to speak, debate and write political statements' but `found meetings and organisational work very tiresome' and found `organisation and discipline unacceptable'. Newman reveals the earth-shaking insignificance of the New Left's disputes at dinner-parties and seminars.

Not surprisingly, a New Left composed of egos like Miliband, E. P. Thompson and Tony Benn (who wrote in his 1985 Diary, "I'm always thrusting myself forward for publicity") could never work together. These `critical' intellectuals only agreed in seeing themselves as superior to the `ignorant' workers.

Newman tells us that by the mid-1960s Miliband had `come to the belief that a new Socialist Party would eventually need to be established ..." And he did as much as helping in `preparing the ground for the coming into being of a new party'! But did the New Left ever manage to found this new party?

In fact the New Left, just like the old left, adopted the tried and failed Fabian tactic of permeating the Labour party. The famed `independent Marxism' ended up as a marginal colony of social democracy.

At history's turning points, the New Left always supported the US government: it was for the CIA-backed counter-revolution in Hungary in 1956, against Vietnam's liberation of Cambodia from Pol Pot, and against the Soviet assistance to Afghanistan's only progressive government ever, which gave women equal rights and land to the peasants. At these crucial times, the New Left took the enemy's side, then moaned that the `left' was divided. It was always divorced from the working class, from the trade unions, from reality.

The New Left constantly whinged about the `left's disarray'. But what did its fragments all have in common? They rejected Leninist democratic centralism, by dishonestly caricaturing it as oppressive! In democratic centralist parties, the minority carries out the decisions of the majority, whereas the New Left always wanted minority rights, its rights, to trump the majority. Marxism without Leninism is playing without winning.

The New Left's endless projects for renewal, unification, realignment, and saving the Labour party, are all part of the confusion of thought that alone has held back the British working class for so long.

Brillant and acute, if not somewhat idiosyncratic, close-readings of U.S. literary naturalistic texts. Michaels's buoyant prose and the oblique angles he takes in historicizing the texts make for a provoking, worthwhile read. His arguments concerning the masochistic contract (revision of the more conventional deleuzean understanding) and his exploration of the question 'why does the miser save?' are among the most compelling and thrilling close-reads--rather than 'applying theory' to the texts at hand, he offers ways in which the texts themselves produce critical theory. Fabulous work.

This book, by far, goes on my list of one of the worst books I have ever had the displeasure of reading. Pseudo-clever theoretical jumps about texts that oversimplify and completely decontextualize what the texts say. For example, "The Yellow Wallpaper," commonly thought to present a woman who is confined by her husband/doctor in the attic to lead to her eventual madness. According to Michaels, the short story is not about confinement and restriction, but about over-production of hysteria that the unnamed narrator is forced to engage in because of the ideology of her society. Interesting? maybe. Insightful about the Yellow Wallpaper? Not at all. If you are into post-structural theory masturbating over itself 244 pages, please buy this book.