Benn Books

This book is a delight! Told by a little girl, describing her life when she was 6 years old and living in Rome in the 1930s, it is one of the rare examples of a child's view of the world which is neither artificial nor contrived but throughout fresh, honest and very amusing - and worth all of the 5 stars.

The case of the Roman lion just goes to show what gems you can pick up if you stop at second-hand bookshops and jumble sales at school fairs. First published in Sweden in 1971, the book ran into 4 editions and was translated into English in 1975. I picked it up at some sale of remaindered stock, had never heard of the book or the writer, went home and read it at one go, laughing and snivelling, sometimes even at the same time. Then I read it again... This story and the way Renata tells it immediately bring to mind both Astrid Lindgren and Tove Jansson, but Renata goes one better - her people are real people in real life, and it is easy for the reader to understand why she loved Rome so much.

Though I am yet to get all of this run this is a must have for any Ninja high school fan!this is the original Quagmire USA and should not be confused with the newer one that is about 6 issues long(this ones 3 issues btw).

This story is a sort of follow up on when Jeremy went to Japan and met that crane girl.long story short,she has returned to once again find Jeremy though what shes going to do to him this time is anyones guess,though since she still cares for him Its probably a lot more mercifull than what shes willing to do to those who get in her way n_n

Received Rat Race as a gift around age 8. Loved the pictures and the wild, absurd story. Read it over and over with my little brother. As with most of our old things, our interests outgrew this one, at which point it faded from memory: out of sight and mind.

The book unexpectedly resurfaced in 2002. I found it at age 26 at my grandparents house (who were recently departed). Hadn't thought of the book in all that time and guessed they saw some value in it and had saved it for me.

It remains one of my great treasures.

A crisp, clear edition of the famous play about a whoremastering Captain who, because his Shropshire lass stoops to conquer, winds up manning a playhouse.

I had hoped that this would tell me more about the life of the author of my favorite children's books. It doesn't give details about her adult life, but each chapter gives a memory from her childhood, and they are engrossing in and of themselves: beautifully written, magical, and affectionate. (Even if you are NOT a fan already!)

Job refused to accept his suffering. The first chapter of GENESIS tells of two creations. The early stories in GENESIS are half legend. Abraham ws a searcher. The first quality evidenced in Jacob is ambition. Jacob was forced to flee Esau's wrath for stealing his birthright. To the Hebrews, Moses was a great deliverer. The Israelites followed Moses out of Egypt because he had beaten the magicians. The Israelites were a democratic people. The BOOK OF RUTH highlights the worth of individuals. Gideon's wisdom is set forth in JUDGES.

Samuel fought in vain against the principle of kingship. Saul was thwarted in trying to create a succession for his son by a stronger contender, David. David was the best king, subservient to God. After the fall of Saul and Jonathan, the logic of events made David king. David, through sheer genius, declared Jerusalem his capital city. Solomon, David's son, introduced the idea of an absolute monarchy into Israel. The people revolted against his son. Elijah, the prophet, initiated an avalanche that overwhelmed the royal dynasty. Elijah refused to believe that God was a bringer of evil. Elisha was his single disciple.

Amos said he was not a prophet. He claimed that amid the love of gold the nation had forgotten its love of truth. Hosea attacked the multitude of altars. The northern kingdon of Israel fell but Judah remained. Isaiah was a citizen of Jerusalem. In the "Dooms" of ISAIAH it was prophesied that a penalty would be paid for breaking the everlasting covenant. Isaiah protected against the idolatry of Judah. The religion of the people was physical, that of the prophets was mental. Micah was convinced the God of Israel should be worshipped in none of the usual ways. Habakkuk was convinced that evil could not endure, that eventually it would fall of its own weight. Nebuchadnezzar put the royal family into captivity in Babylonia. THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS closed Judah's history. It is traditionally assumed to be the work of Jeremiah.

Jeremiah stood alone. He was scourged and imprisoned. He was born of priestly family. Members of his own class opposed him. He urged that the safety of the city was based upon the people's understanding of God. Jeremiah tried to take his case to the common people. During the siege of Jersalem Jeremiah became even more unpopular. Baruch was Jeremiah's secretary. He gathered together the scattered prophecies for the BOOK OF JEREMIAH. Jeremiah preached the doctrine of individual responsibility in Jersalem and Ezekial did the same in Babylonia. Ezekial used vivid and literal pictures. The BOOK OF DANIEL is a product of the persecution four centuries after the Babylonian exile. The great book of the redemption of Israel, ISAIAH, was written during the Babylonian Exile.

The BOOK OF PSALMS is a pilgrimage towards God. It describes many different moods. The prophets were heretics to their contemporaries. By the first century three sects had emerged in Judea, the Essenes, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees. The author deems the raising of Lazarus to be the critical event depicted in JOHN. It served to show that Jesus had fulfilled his ministry. Chute's views are unconventional and compelling in this well-written account of the believers' deistic search.

It is the most devastating critique of such notions as "identity" (unitary or hybrid), "subject position" (however contingent), and "experience" (recourse to materiality of an artifact-object paradoxically legitimates the immediacy of subjective perception), thus undermining theories ranging from deconstructionism, psychoanalysis to new historicism, or from postcolonial criticism, queer politics to media studies. Eloquently, Michaels contends that once we dismiss the question of the author's intended meaning, all we talk about is our different perception dependent on our different subject positions, that is why the radical play of signifiers that signify or "effect" differently in various contexts would take a conservative turn to maintain the primacy of identity. One result is that we now differ in terms of identity but no longer have any genuine disagreement (we only see different things from different perspectives). Correspondent to this academic atmosphere is the post-Cold War mentality, in which the ideological question of what we believe is displaced by the ontological question of what we are. Hence the peculiar conception of the war on terrorism, wherein Michaels points out neither side is truly conceived to fight for any belief (the enemies are not even seen as Muslim; they are only criminals). More precisely, terrorism as a limit case of our identitarian politics, Michaels argues, is projected as an ultimate crime of having no identity.

Despite his Anti-Theory reputation, Michaels proves to be theoretically engaging and indispensable to think through the dilemmas of theory rather than simply being dismissive. His reference to global political crises at this very moment testifies that theory, whether we are for or against it, is highly relevant. The adept illumination of theoretical issues by way of reading recent scientific fiction is another source of charm in this book. I especially admire the way he relates, under the encompassing problematic of theory, the sci-fi fantasy of the name Mars calls itself to the deep ecologistic claim that a tree or a river by itself can seek a legal redress, or to the nativist claim that a language should be protected like an endangered species. Michaels is not writing from an ivory tower of theory; rather, he is taking theory and his opposition to it as a light to reflect upon the much wider social and political practices. Nothing is more urgent and provocative than his conclusion that we should put aside not only talks of cultural/gender identities but also, more strikingly, the hypocritical imperative of historicization, so that the crucial issue of class conflict and poverty can resurface.

While I agree with Michaels's convincing descriptions about the "consequences" of theory's dismissal of authorial intention, it is difficult to follow his agenda that we should fall back on authorial intention, as if the problematization of the categories of "author," "intention," "meaning" has never occurred in the last three or four decades. Actually, the Michaels-style critique, (in)famous for its scandalizing power, itself already proves there is no U-turn to those categories. For one thing, Michaels's critique can never be applied to the level of authorial intention: no authors of the theoretical or literary writings that Michaels dismantles so ruthlessly are expected to say he reads their intended meanings correctly. For another thing, more important, even Michaels himself confesses (in note 8, p. 200) that his reading does not disagree with the authors he is attacking on the level of intended meaning but on the level of "consequence." That is, when someone intends to say s/he doesn't believe in authorial meaning, the "unintended consequence" according to Michaels must be that s/he will fall into the trap of identity. It is this "unintended consequence" definitely beyond authorial intention that is the real subject of this book. However, this would directly contradict Michaels' central claim that disagreement is possible only when we talk about authorial meaning, because, Michaels maintains, once we emphasize the ever-changing effects of a signifier drifting about in different contexts and received from different subject positions, we can only differ in identity without actual disagreement. If it is really the case that we can only disagree about the intended meaning but not about the effects, then how can Michaels possibly launch his attack based on his disagreement about consequence with the authors he is criticizing? How can he conceptualize the distinction between the effect that he accuses deconstruction for being obsessed with and the notion of consequence his own critical enterprise is entirely reliant upon? Michaels seems to presume (he never articulates) the distinction lies between the contingency of the deconstructionist notion of effect and the internal (or pure theoretic) logic of what he names consequence. Such a distinction, however, breaks down from the very beginning, because Michaels realizes what he critiques (the consequence of theory) cannot afford to be purely logical or theoretical but is a distinctive "historical phenomenon" (introduction, p. 14). Worse still, as long as Michaels goes beyond authorial intention in his critical reading, his reading is no longer a reading, in his strict sense of this word, but only an experience based on his own subject position, the very thing Michaels spent a whole book trying to discredit. Michaels's dilemma suggests that while the dismissal of authorial intention historically led to the rise of identitarian politics, this need not mean that authorial intention is the only thing that can bring back disagreement that transcends the difference in identity. In place of the irredeemable notion of intention, Michaels unintentionally attests, is "consequence." In fact many people do not find themselves in disagreement about the real "intention" of the war in Iraq (Who cares if the administration really want freedom in Iraq? -- I guess they do, but so?) Rather, what the disagreement is about is the consequences of the war: Has it made the world a "safer" place? What kind of democracy will it bring about? What has it done to the welfare of Iraqi people Americans are supposed to liberate? It is this alternative possibility of disagreement, alternative to authorial intention, that Michaels has shown us despite his intention.

"Songs Of A Sourdough" is Robert Service at his best!. This is nature poetry at its finest. Here the Bard Of The Yukon use picture words that place the reader right in the Yukon of old. As you read you can see the stranger stagger in to the Malamute saloon and feel the fifty below gush of air until he closes the door behind him. You will hear him play the piano and see the ghastly look of the Lady that's known as Lou. You too will jump for the floor when the shooting of Dangerous Dan McGrew starts. You too will hear the Call of The Yukon and understand its Law while you come to appreciate The Younger Son.

I bought my first copy of "Songs Of A Sourdough" during my Canadian honeymoon in 1980. From experience I can give you one bit of advice. Do not, I repeat, do not ever pick up this book unless you want to be hooked on Robert Service and his songs forever.

There are chapters on Plato, Aristotle,Bacon,Spinoza, Voltaire, Kant, Schopenhauer,Herbert Spencer, Frederich Nietzce, Modern European Philosophers, Bergson, Croce, Russell, Modern American Philosophers: Santayana , James, Dewey.
The great popularizer of Philosophy Durant had a number of skills which made his works so readable: He had a great enthusiasm for Philosophy, and a very good comprehension of it. He was not simply a clear writer but one who told the stories of the philosophers and their ideas. He also was a very decent and moral human being , whose sense of values informs the whole work.
Rereading the entry on Spinoza many many years after first doing so I was pleased to see that my initial impression of its great insight , power and appeal- still held.
This is a true classic in its field.

its reeally good. i like it. i yoozed it to learn to speek