Bloom Books

As Bloom himself admits, this brief book is really just an extension of what he wrote in his tome, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. He feels he didn't do justice to this play in his larger work and he wants to correct that shortcoming here.

If you are familiar with Bloom's other works on Shakespeare, there won't be any real surprises for you here. All of his prejudices and obsessions are on display here: how Hamlet and Falstaff are the greatest of Shakespeare's creations, how modern criticism and performance do no justice to this play, his subtle (and not so subtle) disdain for other characters and plot in the face of the character of Hamlet, etc. I've written of these before and don't want to go over the same ground again.

Still, as this is a much closer examination of Hamlet than he has done previously, there are many joys here as he digs in deep. True, many readers find Bloom ponderous and arrogant and he can be; however, I find his argumentativeness inspiring. I disagree with many of his opinions on Shakespeare but I always find Bloom invigorating, forcing and focusing my own opinions.

Many of my friends do not understand or appreciate my love of Shakespeare but my feelings pale before Bloom's. This is my favorite play but I don't see it as of "no genre." I don't see the character of Hamlet as somehow beyond his play and his playwright. I don't see Shakespeare as some secular god. On the other hand, insight can often come from one of great faith and that is what can be found here.

As Hamlet is Bloom's god one would have expected a more generous bible. Instead this is one of Bloom's most disappointing books, filled with the hot -air of exaggerated praise unjustified by argument or evidence. This is Harold Bloom at his most -declarative placing Hamlet above and beyond all literary- and one would dare to say- human characters.
It is also quite a paltry text, padded with quotation. And it assumes a critical knowledge of Hamlet which I venture to say only few of even its most devoted readers and spectators possess.
As there is a whole critical literature built on the subject of Hamlet's delay in executing his father's request for vengeance I thought that Bloom would in some meaningful way address this. The Hamlet of passion, of passion for Ophelia also, of passionate involvement with the deepest questions of meaning in life is somehow absent here. Instead we have a more detached playing and playful Hamlet, cruel to the point of testing our sympathy.
In short 'the Hamlet' Bloom reads and worships is far from the Hamlet of most Tradition. And is far from the Hamlet whose tormented existential questionings have so enthralled so many readers through the generations.
Instead of augmenting the name of Hamlet ,Bloom has perhaps made a minor wound in it- though of course Bloom is right in knowing that this character is too 'immortal' to really be wounded by any single critic, however important or great.

Hamlet, a play within a play within a play, plays out as pure deception. In this respect Harold comes close to the mark by saying it is "unlimited." It allows scholars to keep asking the ever puzzling and vexing questions... ensuring more debate and questions in return. In other words, Hamlet is a universe of ever expanding possibilities because, as literature and fiction, it is never grounded in reality. We don't have the letters of the real Hamlet, we don't have anything written about him by his family or friends that would give us an insight into his true actions and character. Everything is fiction and speculation and could be argued indefinitely. In point of fact, the play itself contains the more questions asked by its characters than any other Shakespearean play -- and if the characters in the play don't know much, how can we?

Harold has given us his surmises about this hollow universe that expands into the unknown. One important thing he tells us is that Hamlet is acting from the start. I would say that almost everybody is acting or is disingenuous right from the start. If deception is par for the course at Elsinore then it is perfectly natural that Hamlet should act as well. Even the last scene of sword fighting involves deadly deception from this family of actors.

If deception and uncertainty are the royal stamps in Denmark, then I would take it farther and argue that the biggest deception of all was perpetrated by Fortinbras. I propose a new theory: Fortinbras had Claudius commit the fratricide and then he had Reynardo the spy act as the Ghost to incite Hamlet to kill Claudius. This would constitute Fortinbras' revenge against King Hamlet for killing his father and leaves him in a nice situation to take over the kingdom, which he eventually does. Fortinbras is then by far the greatest Machiavellian of the lot. Now I can back this theory up and it is as valid as any other out there. In other words, there is no ground floor of truth in Hamlet. But Harold should be glad if he gets people thinking - if Hamlet is acting right from the start, perhaps so is the Ghost -- and, in time, who knows what imaginative theories scholars will come up with and how perverse Hamlet could become!

It is not often that one reads a book about a Shakespeare play and needs about half a dozen other books - including a dictionary - nearby for reference. But it is absolutely worth the effort - reading this book is an education.

In response to negative reviews a defense of Bloom must be proffered. The genius of Hamlet is dark, capricious, spurring, somewhat mystical, and surpasses our own in each cognition. Where some have argued that Bloom's treatise of the poem unlimited is brief, I argue that prolix erudition is not what we need in regards to Hamlet. He is a professor par excellance in creativity and the commentarys we don't need on his genius are those of the ominous tomes of Henry James and the like. We likewise can do without a pithy take-home message that utterly misses the heart of the play and it's protagonist. Bloom's musings, like the divine criticisms of Dr. Johnson, go strait through the heart of Hamlet giving us an aesthetic mosaic of it's best parts for us to taste. Other oposing views are without a doubt concievable, but what Bloom gives us is one of the most lively, and sober readings of the most easily misread piece of literature in the english language. Bloom is a masterful laureate of critics.

This book is a travesty, a misuse of important historical sources. These letters, rediscovered by the Dodd family in 1990, should have been compiled into a book by a historian of the Nuremburg trials, combined with letters by Dodd to other correspondents, with notes filling in context and their relation to the historical record. In this way, they would have provided interesting views of Germany after the war and insight into how the Nuremburg prosecutions were put together. Instead, Chris Dodd has put the letters from Thomas Dodd to his wife into a campaign book, with family photos, purporting to show the human side of Dodd. The great romance which is supposed thereby to be revealed amounts to a lonely husband complaining that his wife--who is taking care of five children, one a toddler--is not writing long enough letters. These passages are repetitive and boring. By all means read the book for the historical information--but then go find a good history of the Nuremburg trials.

Dodd's letters truly present the allies (except the USSR) effort to insure that future generations would see the fairness and lawfullness of their deliberations.It comes at a time in history that individuals are being held by one of the allies without trial 5 years after their capture. Nuremburg 1 1/2 year Gitmo 6 years The Taylors, Jacksons and Dodds would be ashamed.Aside from the Legal?Historical perspective the book is an excellent example of a husbands love and devotion. Christopher Dodds has good genes.

After reading Ellie Wiesel's characterization of this book as "an important contribution to history", I wonder if he actually read the book or just skimmed some pre-publication proofs. Mr. Dodd's letters provide more detail about his living accommodations, dinner meetings, and travels than about the war crimes trials or the defendants. The defendants' cases are glossed over. You keep reading, waiting for details, waiting for insight. It's not there. The book is mildly interesting, but adds nothing to our knowledge of the war criminals or their trials.

This book was nothing like expected from the reviews I read before purchase. It started out a little interesting, but quickly became dull, boring, and endlessly repeating, repeating, repeating. I expected the excitement to build, it never did. His fathers letters should have remained a family secret,well hidden if possible, they have no business in print for rest of the world. I wouldn't buy this book again if it was on the $1.00 table at a rummage sale.

This is a great book that provides a unique perspective on the Nuremberg trials. Highly recommended.

I can't say I buy many anthologies of poetry; instead, I prefer to buy the collected works of poets I find interesting or about whom I am curious. This one, however, caught my eye. I have read other works by Bloom, including the WESTERN CANON, and I figured I'd see what he has to say about these poets.

The title should be taken tongue-in-cheek. Any selection of poetry is going to be highly subjective, especially when it is proclaimed to be THE BEST. Those criticizing the exclusion of certain poets are a bit off in their criticism; this is BLOOM'S selection of the best, and no other man's selection of the best poetry is going to be the same as yours, mine, or the dude who lives at the end of the street's.

You may ask, then: why should we care? The answer lies partly in Bloom's criticism, and partly because Bloom's erudition lends itself well to such anthologies.

By the first, I mean that his criticism is good. Not great; good. There are certainly sparks of illumination herein--I found the sections on Spenser, Wordsworth, and a few others particularly good--but in general it is pretty superficial, in the sense that his criticism does not delve very deep into any one poem or another (with the exception of maybe the FAERIE QUEENE, though no work of criticism can go deep enough into that!). Bloom instead prefers to skate along the surface of the poems, but, in so doing, he makes this a very readable and interesting volume, especially for the non-professional.

The second point, on his erudition, is valid because Bloom presents us with some very unknown and forgotten poets who are truly worth remembering. The standard greats are almost all there, but the real gems often lie in the unknowns.

If you are a professor, or somebody particularly well-read in poetry, it is only this last point that will be of value to you. For those of us who are neither (I'm relatively well-read in poetry, but by no means an expert!), Bloom's work is well worth picking up.

Harold Bloom is arguably the greatest living literary critic, a worthy heir to his own great mentors Samuel Johnson, F.C. Bradley, M.H.Abrams and Northrop Frye. Bloom forced to slowdown from composition of his own works while recovering for twenty-months from a triple- bypass put together this anthology of what he regards to be as the greatest poems in the English language. The work it should be noted does not include twentieth century works in part because Bloom believes there are so many fine poets in the twentieth - century it would be almost impossible to do this. He also hoped to avoid the kind of battles he has long been familiar with in which the 'politically correct' issues enter. Bloom makes it clear that those kind of ethnic, gender,sexual orientation issues and other what he calls 'irrelevancies' have nothing to do with the selections he makes in this work. His criteria are in his own words, " The standards of judgment which matter to me,are cognitive achievement, aesthetic splendor, and wisdom: only those three."
So what he provides Chaucer to Hart Crane are by and large selections from the standard canon of English poetry. He also provides a thirty-page introduction on how to read poetry, biographical sketches, and commentary on the poems. Bloom is a tough but loving critic, for whom agon and agony go with his whole understanding of the poetry- making process. The whole business of succeeding poets seeing their predecessors as rivals who they first admire and then must misread to overcome and distinguish themselves from is at the heart of his vision of poetry. But Bloom is also an extremely broad- minded, generous and appreciative reader. His passion for poetry is felt in the commentary, and his life- long dedication sensed in his championing of the selections. It is fitting that the last poet included in the volume is Hart Crane (b. 1899) for it is with a volume of his 'White Bridges' that the then twelve - year old Harold Bloom discovered his love of poetry, and his desire to devote his life to the reading and writing of it. As a great and perhaps unequalled reader, perhaps in terms of his mastery of the whole text of poetic literature the all - time master Bloom transmits to us in love the works he , and it is fair to say most general readers of poetry, have most loved .

This is one of those unfortunately common instances where I wish there were half-stars in the Amazon rating system, as this work is more than a "4" to me but less than perfection. I rationalize the "5" by observing some of the unfair and apparently arbitrary "1"s that Bloom's approach to literature is bound to stir up.

One expects that those politicizing literary approaches and idols that the aesthete Harold Bloom tears down to object to any of his works, let alone one so boldly titled "The Best Poems of the English Language". However, unlike most "Best Poems" collections Bloom's selection is broad if not always deep, and consequential if not reflectively conscientious. The poems Bloom includes in this collection are /good/, and Bloom carefully explains why they were picked, and why perhaps more popular or traditional works are ignored. There are a few surprises here, but I predict these are the poems we will return to 50 years in the future, when serious readers realize most extraneous influences on literary criticism and editorial choice are irrelevant.

I dump praise on Bloom because he is delightfully insightful and incisive. He does not pull punches, and has the experience of a lifetime of literary criticism and writings to back himself up. This is not to say that his critical style is neutral or wholly impartial; as another reviewer pointed out, Bloom may come off as a "bully" at times. But his selections

If you love poetry, and if you love the English language, Bloom's selection is for you. But if you're more concerned with Eurocentric hedgemony than aesthetics, and more sensitive to cultural egalitarianism than to effective rhetoric, you'll probably agree with the reviewers who didn't actually read this work, but rated it extremely low anyway.

You are probably better off buying something a textbook from the Norton. Because
1. The editor is biased again women and minority poets. To quote Cary Nelson in the Virginia Quarterly Review,
"If Bloom's wholesale elimination of poems by women and minorities is disgusting and deplorable, however, it is not especially interesting. It is simply part of the conservative backlash against muticulturalism."
2. He is a conservative who does not like modern experimentation.
3. He is biased against poems that show the ugly side of life (ex. war poems, poems about protest or violence).
4. He flatly rejects some of the best poems in history that pushed the limits of the English language.
5. His idea of the Sublime idea is still stuck in early part of the 19th century.

Mr. Bloom, you disappoint me.

So go please and find some true poetry. There's a whole WORLD out there.

A book to buy and read for anyone interested at all in the highest arts of the written English language. Dr. Bloom, a person with a higher level of knowledge and pure intellect than almost all, has brought together many of the great poems of our civilization. While I did not understand all he said in his introductions, there is no doubt he is a treasure of our society.

I am not someone who normally reads poetry. This book gave me access to works by poets (many I had not even heard of) that I would never have read otherwise---which would have been my sad loss.

This is an excellent book with an enormous scope. The author has hadmany experiences in Brazil--from sports to culture to shopping to even dancing in Carnaval. She has a great writing style and makes reading a guidebook fun. If you have interest in Brazil, get it and go. It was the best vacation I have ever had and want to go back and back again. I give this a book a great rating.

first of all. if you are looking for a book about a liberal woman impression of brasil, you will definitely like this book. ms bloom writes with a non guide book attitude and it~s quite captivating. problem is, many guidebook readers want to find info to assist their travel. in this area, ms. bloom~s shortcoming is most salient. another interesting observation is, ms. bloom~s liberal bias can be amusing as you continue the read.... you will see her abhorrance of consummerism (which in a way contradicts the essence of tourism which is pure form of consumerism) and her prescription to fix the problems in brasil are abundant (i.e. big government to be staffed by her so called indigenous people and the socially conscienous scholars and the usual the rich are taking advantage of everyone and should be made to pay). now, if you are looking for facts to assist your trip DON~T BUY THIS BOOK. you get better info for free elsewhere. worse yet, this book has so many errors that to a brasil newbie, sounds very accurate. the truism is, errors, when presentedly eloquently, sounds much better than facts. fortunately, these errors won~t cost your life, just a few bugs. case in point, in the money and exchange section, ms. bloom urged her readers NOT to use credit card to avoid the surcharge and use traveller~s checks and U.S. dollar and change to Real. this is blantantly wrong. first of all, anyone with a dosage of common sense will wonder as how the dealers, money changers make their paycheck as you use traveller~s checks and US dollar. the surcharge is factored into the f/x rate!! hello??!! in fact, it is tototally stupid to use traveller~s check since it offers the worst exchange rate with no additional protection of theft. the best strategy is (well, as a true conservative, i always offer a workable solution - and cost no one a payment - as i critique), use 1. ATM card from your banks. here you get the official rate, as of this writing (12/31/02), the official rate is the best of any rates you can find. your bank may charge you a non bank ATM usuage fee ranging from $1-$3 per withdrawal but you can always call your bank and have them waive this fee as a courtesy. in addition to the non bank ATM surcharge, the bank also take off a few points for their f/x desk. e.g. if the official rate is US$1-R3.54678, you will get R3.5; 2) second best option is credit card. as you charge to your card, you get the current day trading F/X rate (minus a few points for the bank~s f/x desk similar to the ATM card). most major banks credit cards charge you up to 3% of surcharge if you use the card outside US. so get a card with no surcharge or low surcharge, use MBNC, First Union, Wachovia, Sun Trust. these banks charge 0% and you only pay 1% to VISA or MC. also check website researching on bank card rate for most up to date info. 3) the third best option is use U.S. dollar, here depending on the currency market, you may get better or worse than official rate - as of 12/31/02, you get worse, however, the rate is definitely better than traveller~s checks. the downside of this is security. no one wants to carry load of cash around. by the way, ms. bloom is WRONG again on asking her reader to get the day~s newspaper and check for the exchange rate. the current day newspaper f/x quotes YESTERDAY~s f/x rate as close of trading NOT the rate the bank will give you per the info i provided above. for current f/x rate, go to CNBC.com or even better bloomberg.com. the info posted there is current f/x rate on the currency exchange minus 15 minutes. go to any internet cafe and you get onto the web easy for as little as R2.5 for half an hour. there are a lot of other errors that i can write a book to save the souls of ms blooms misguided soul but i have better things to do... so (by the way, i am not talking about the location of the restaurants or shops since tourist business is seasonal and you can~t hold ms bloom accountable for these what i call time sensitive information). errors like when ms bloom threw in her personal moral political beliefs and made inaccurate remarks about the single men~s night clubs. don~t believe her. the girls in these night clubs are better than the super models from playboy. of course, to ms bloom, she prefers to see everygirl in tree hugging suits. also, she made me laughed when she stated that the haircare products in brasil are inferior to U.S. any travellers to brasil will notice brasilian women~s hair are much better than their u.s. counterparts and that american brand hair care products are widely available. also errors like health/ disease as not to use tap water to brush teeth and use aqua con gas....

now, how to get the most accurate and updated info on brasil? get the frommers or fodor~s guide books. these books are truly professional guide books and updated regularly w/o political bias or personal agenda. even better, check many websites about travelling in brasil. for up to date info on restaurants and night clubs, don~t worry about those info until you get there. at the airports, they have lots of free brochures available and most of the info are accurate, at least better than you get from ms. blooms and it~s FREE.

so, save a few bugs and get better info. 1 star for ms bloom~s funny political spinning and 0 star for accuracy.

I read this book both before I left and used it while I spent 12 days traveling Brazil. I was inspired before I left and was much less surprised by many of the cultural differences when I got there. It offered accurate and detailed descriptions of the hotels and restaurants. I actually made my hotel reservations with this book in hand with positive results. We also went to at least 5 of the recommended restaurants in Rio and Fortaleza, all of which were fabulous (and received double recommendations from the hotel staff). Word to the wise: Many people in Rio do speak English, but it does help (especially if you are traveling in the Northeast where English is much less common) to learn a few words of Portuguese ie number, greetings, "Thank you", "Stop here/now"(for taxi & bus drivers) and "I don't speak Portuguese, do you speak English?". This and a big smile will get you surprisingly far. Oh, and make sure to get the price of your cab rides in Rio before getting in the cab(I paid double to get home what I had paid to get to the club)! It's hard to argue prices in 2 languages. This book is great in combo with one of the boring fact/price/time books.

I was planning a trip to Brazil for quite some time and I looked on the internet for books to help me get around. I read the first review of this book (1 star) and couldn't believe that a book could be so bad. As a gag, I bought the book just to see how close to "fraud" the author actually came. I read through the book quickly (it does not read like a travel book) and went on my merry way to Brazil with many guide books in hand. I don't know what book that first reviewer read, but Bloom's book was probably the most helpful of the books I brought with me. Any book can tell you about the stores and hotels, but it is a rare one that gives you an accurate glimpse into the culture of a nation. Bloom's book did just that. Perhaps that first reviewer is a rival publisher jealous that he does not have Pamela Bloom under contract.

I just returned from a 10 day trip to Rio and the surrounding areas and was profoundly disappointed by the guide book for the following reasons: 1) No useful maps (do you really want to carry around multiple guide books?); 2) Totally out of date (I tried virtually every club/bar listed and wasted much time on wild-goose chases); 3) No useful info on hotels (doubt the author stayed in any of them or even visited them); 4) Restaurants recommended were all disappointments (if they were still extant)and 5)Assumes reader knows Portugese and is familiar with how to get around.

If you plan to visit (and you should because it's truly a wonderful country) invest a few weeks in Brazilian Portugese lessons. Surprisingly few people in and around Rio speak English (even in the service sector) and if you have a basic understanding of the language your trip will be a thousand times better. And if you want info on the local music scene, just pick up the local paper and it's all there.

Already having Ken Bloom's other book, BROADWAY MUSICALS, I found this to be a great companion piece. Being a huge fan and collector of things relating to the history of the American Musical Teatre, I found AMERICAN SONGBOOK to be another treasure trove of information, beautifully laid out with lots of great pictures and reproductions of sheet music, which I especially enjoyed. This more than makes up for the already mentioned typos and misinformation. My only disappointment, from the vantage point of American Musicals, is the absence of Stephen Sondheim. I understand that by the nature of the beast, some composers are going to be left out. The irony is, while Sondheim is one of the major forces in musical theatre here and abroad, both as a composer and lyricist, he would be the first to agree that he did not intend to write "popular" music. But I still found his absence sad in the context of the whole picture. After all, numerous singers, including a few that are given chapters to in this book, have recorded Sondheim...including countless versions of "Send In the Clowns".

This is a large and beautiful coffee table type book that cover the great singers, the big bands, and the song writers of that great era in music, the great American songbook. It is a very enjoyable book, with lots of pictures and facts. A couple of complaints: in the singers section, the author lists Louie Prima & Keely Smith and Steve Lawrence and Eydie Gorme under a two page chapter entitled Husband & Wife Teams. I'm sorry, but Steve & Eydie deserve, at the very least, their own chapter together, if not individually. They have been very successful and talented singers, both individually and together for more than 50 years...they deserve more respect. Same with Keely Smith. Great singer, great voice, deserved her own chapter. Louie Prima deserved his own chapter under Big Bands. And finally, no chapter on Buddy Clark? His career was cut tragically short in a plane crash, but he had a fine voice and was quite popular in the late '40's. If you're going to have a chapter on Russ Columbo (whose career was also tragically cut short) you have to do the same with Buddy Clark. You will enjoy this book very much, despite these complaints.

I bought this book to contribute to the music education of my 13 year old drummer grandson, who happens to love jazz, big band and American standards. This book was just perfect. Beautiful pictures, well written biographys of the American music greats. Wonderful tidbits and background on everyone in the American popular music business, from the singers, band leaders, songs, and songwriters. Very fun, entertaining, and educational.

...In all honesty, you have to think about what this book is trying to cover. It's really about the 'standards' era of popular music and those who composed in the genre, as well as those who performed in it.

Inevitably with such a wide scope it cannot cover every aspect of the period. But author Ken Bloom has done a good job of making his book representative of all that took place during those years.

As a music enthusiast, would be author and one time presenter I find myself reaching for the book pretty frequently to read up on a particular artiste or songwriter. it's usually the first place I start. If I want more in depth information I will look out one of the biographies. otherwise this book suits me fine!

Drew. Drew Savage is the author of The Deceivers. He is a standards era enthusiast and has been a guest presenter for the BBC.

Also recommended:

Broadway Sheet Music Hits
Show Tunes: The Songs, Shows, and Careers of Broadway's Major Composers
The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz: 3 volumes (New Grove Dictionary of Jazz)

If a coffeee table book is defined as the sort of thing to leave lying around to impress your guests, then this fits the bill admirably. The problem begins when you open it and start to read. As I see it, the book suffers from three defects.

First is the relatively straightforward matter of ensuring that the text is correct, and sadly there are numerous examples of slipshod proof-reading. Just to take two examples, on page 51 the entry on Cliff Edwards reads (across two lines) "Adrian links Rollini"! and on page 106, the entry under Kate Smith, about the song "God Bless America", reads "Smith wanted to sing it with a marshal beat". Such examples are scattered throughout the book, which seems curious given the trouble taken over the quality of the paper and the excellence of the photographs.

Secondly, there is the question of exactly what the book is setting out to be. The title itself seems incomplete, an impression fostered by the fact that both Michael Feinstein in his Foreword, and the author in his Introduction, refer specifically to the Great American Songbook. That phrase has a recognised meaning, that is, songs that were written for the golden age of the Broadway musical theatre and the Hollywood musical, and which have attained the status of standards. I'm not convinced that the book has gained anything by widening its scope beyond that, and I'm also disappointed by the omissions.

Finally, there is the style in which the book is written, in which the author's opinion is presented as fact. I recognise that someone else's opinion may differ from mine, but I do think some attempt needs to be made to validate it, and that it should be argued consistently. To take a case in point, Fred Astaire is described as an "interpreter" rather than singer, then in the next sentence we read "Astaire, like many other great singers". There is no mention of Irving Berlin's comment that Astaire sang it the way he (Berlin) wrote it. I found the critique of Astaire's singing to be an example of muddled thinking, which was irritating rather than illuminating. In fact, that sums up much of the problem I have with the author's prose.

Lest it be thought that I'm being unduly harsh, consider this comment on Crosby. "(He) kept his personality in check. He gave us nothing to make us cry, nothing to make us laugh - but he could draw a big smile, a pang of nostalgia, a wistfulness." This is the sort of writing that used to appear on the sleeve notes of some LPs, and I despair at meeting it again in this guide to the American Songbook.

Cereus Blooms was fascinating in how it brought alive life in a little Caribbean town. The portrayals of Chandin , Mala and Lavinia were so real I feel I know them in person.
The anguish a young child would feel at being abandoned by her mother - as she eloped with her FEMALE lover - can bring tears to the eyes.
I would strongly recommend this book.
I just though on the negative side - that all possible sexual orientations come to life around one little girl. Its a bit much to digest that the mother is a lesbian and so is the father's first love - and the two elope. The father is an incestuous demon, the nurse is gay and transvestite, the boyfriend's son is also gay. Hmm.......not too many normal people in this book.
But no sweat - it adds to the colour and pace !

This is, without a doubt, one of the most beautiful books I have read. The plot is original (although it did remind me a bit of the film Nell) and rich. I smelt and saw and felt everything Shani Mootoo described in this book. It is a magical book.
The only reason I gave it four stars instead of five is because some of the plot is a bit confusing at times. Eventually I got used to it and knew what to expect. So if you experience this keep reading and everything will clear itself up.

I recommend this book to everyone who wants to experience beauty and magic and love. I know I'll re-read this book many times!

My English professor assigned this novel for class during my freshman year of college. Although I started it grudgingly, I eventually fell in love with the world Shani Mootoo created for this novel. I'm sorry to say that I've forgotten much of the plot and a few of the characters too, but the sights and smells of that beautiful place stick with me even today. Even as I sat at my desk reading this book, I felt as if I'd lived a lifetime on that island. 'Cereus Blooms at Night' is a great story and well worth picking up.

And for any anime fans reading this- I'll never forget watching "Wolf's Rain" and immediately identifying the lunar flowers as night-blooming cereus--something I knew only because I'd read this novel a year before I watched the series.

I think I must have read this book about 3 times and each time it weaves a magical web in my mind that takes days to clear. Ms Mootoo manages to take the minutae of life in a time gone by and make them real. Perhaps the book resonates with my own past a bit or perhaps it is just one hell of a well written book. I suspect it both.

Books are, obviously, a matter of personal taste and I know people ( who I bought copies for) who hate this book. I take issue with the reviewer who compares it to The Color Purple though. As far as I know the human condition is sadly limited to a few experiences. One might as well say that any book that writes about falling in and out of love is plagiarizing another. I suspect the only problem with Cereus is that it is such an intimate book..written from such a particular perspective about a particular place that it may not resound with all readers.

One of my friends in Trinidad who grew up in great poverty says that the book takes him back to his childhood and the little comfort corner in his mother's shed - I couldn;t put it better.

I woul also suggest getting her book of poetry..well worth it.

As an Irish born, half-Trinidadian Canadian I love this book....I hope that one day I will have the pleasure of meeting the author.

This book was one of the few out of the many that I've read that is truly charming and exquisite. Mootoo's bravery and unabashed honesty were among just a few of the admirable qualities of this book. I had trouble putting it down at night, even when I had to be up in a few short hours. The characters are crystal-clear and the environment she paints is inspiring to anyone who wishes to write a novel someday. While the book had its heart wrenching moments, it was also full of triumph. Mala Ramchandin (the main character)has a story so rich in detail that you will feel the struggle every step of the way. This novel shines light on every facet of human emotion and it comes highly recommended!

Day-old baby boys respond to entertaining mobiles of objects, while girls fasten on faces or even images of faces. Apart from the gender distinction, this early clue of infant awareness indicates infants enter the world with a running start on coping with life. They may not be able to articulate their methods in dealing with the world, but certain fundamentals are laid down and built upon. The most basic orientation of all is "self" and "everything else". For Bloom, this is a new form of "dualism".

Dualism is a philosophy attributed to 17th Century French philosopher Rene Descartes of "cogito ergo sum" fame. Cognitive scientists have rejected dualism in recent years, and Bloom's resurrection of the term may surprise some readers. The author explains at the outset that his version has deep evolutionary roots. These roots are seen in the way infants and children interact with the world. Living things, especially "Mum" and other family members, are quickly perceived as different from "objects". This awareness develops at various paces for different forms of interaction, but the result is that children are cognisant of human intent - the "soul" - fairly quickly and nearly effortlessly. They must be able to assess what other people will do and at some point develop understanding of the reasons for particular behaviours. This ability, a form of "mindreading", guides the child's response and personal behaviour. The "root" origins of this dualism, though favoured by Bloom, aren't really explained by this book. They're not even speculated on to any extent.

Bloom is at pains to reach a wide audience for a variety of reasons. The primary readership appears to be more new parents and less his academic colleagues. He works in his own family, particularly his sons. The two boys have the advantages of being both different in age and in temperament. He's not beyond a small shock when it suits, as when he claims one son had transgressed every "sin" but "lust" by the age of four. He examines the characters of "Star Trek", especially the "logical" Mr Spock and the emotionless android "Data", to compare with emotional humans. Other film and TV series characters are offered as examples of many aspects of our feelings and behaviours. The expression of emotions, which bloom examines at some length, become indicators of the human possession of a "soul".

It is Bloom's dealing with the "soul" that erodes this book's value. Part of that broad audience, [parents all ?], will be various types of "the faithful". These folks are keen to arrive, soul intact, in some afterlife. They wish it even more for their children [except when the latter misbehave]. To deny this possibility would see the book languish on store shelves. Bloom dances about the question of the afterlife by declaring that the "physical soul" [whatever that is] cannot survive death. The door remains wide open for other forms of "soul" - simply fill in your favoured definition. The point of this dodging is that Bloom doesn't want to define "soul", while wishing to retain its use as shorthand for the vast panoply of mental experiences humans have in life. So, what happens to those experiences after death, the author leaves to reader prejudice and interpretation. It's a difficult term to deal with in any circumstance. Bloom fails to either clarify or simplify the task.

Although Bloom has examined a wealth of research and non-academic works to assemble a coherent package, the book remains a shining example of "pop" psychology - especially child psychology. While there is a great deal of good information in this book, there are serious gaps that aren't even clearly indicated. He understands clinical research and its value, but once more a scholar pandering to a limited audience relies on research performed solely on a single society. Yet, he blithely stresses the "universality" of behavioural characteristics. Children's attitudes about gods and the afterlife may be universal, but we can't know until we've queried more kids - especially those in different cultures. Even in cultures as near as Europe, there are distinct differences in the way children view some of the topics Bloom addresses. It's a pity he didn't read about them. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

In Descartes' Baby, Paul Bloom engagingly writes about research that shows babies are more sophisticated than we usually give them credit for. At a very early age, babies are aware of the constancy of objects, that appearances may be deceptive, and that other people may hold false beliefs. The problem is what Bloom makes of this.

Bloom thinks those experiments prove babies are Cartesian dualists because they distinguish objects from belief-holding humans. But dualism isn't simply the belief that there's a difference between people and objects. We were making that distinction before Descartes. Cartesian dualism conceives of the mental and the physical as so distinct and different that it doesn't seem the two could ever even interact. And that's not a distinction babies make. If "dualism" means that we distinguish conscious critters from inanimate things, then, yes, we're all dualists. But what have we learned except a new definition of "dualist"?

Baby dualism isn't even necessary dual. I can believe that you are different from a log because you are aware of and care about your world without thinking that you are made of two types of substance. I don't think Bloom has shown much more than that babies are aware that logs don't think and feel but people do.

This "insight" doesn't give Bloom much of a lever for understanding the Big Issues he deals with: Art, philosophy, religion, ethics... For example, he wonders how we can be moved by "anxious objects," i.e., art such as Warhol's Brillo boxes or conceptual art such as a dead horse hung from the ceiling. Most of the chapter goes through the predictable explanations of why we respond to art. At the end he acknowledges that he hasn't yet explained the appeal of "anxious" art. The big explanation: "...We enjoy displays of skill, of virtuosity, both physical and intellectual." But that's true of non-anxious art, and not true of all anxious art. Without acknowledging this, he moves on to say that we enjoy anxious art because we can see the human intention in it. But, again, that's true of all art, not just anxious art. His investigation does not come close to answering the question he raises. (Artworks are a good example of the impossibility of separating the physical and the intentional...evidence against dualism.)

Likewise, his explanation of why children tend to believe in Creationism (AKA Intelligent Design) - it is "a natural by-product of a mind evolved to think in terms of goals and intentions" - doesn't help. Animism also seems to be a "natural by-product." So what? How does this socio-biological explanation help? Likewise for his explanation of altruism, his discussion of essentialism - which waters the concept down the way the book waters down "dualism" - his consideration of the origin of religious beliefs, etc.

The book is exceptionally well written and engaging. The baby research is fascinating. But I think it fails as an attempt to make something big out of that research.

We have handled with equanimity the concept that the Earth is not the center of the universe, though some good fellows who championed that idea when it was new suffered mightily for doing so. Most of us, even the redoubtable Catholic Church, have accepted that evolution explains animal diversity and even the emergence of humans, although there are some who for religious (not scientific) reasons are kicking and screaming in refusal. Science cannot itself take on the existence of gods, for that is not a scientific question, nor is the existence of an afterlife. But souls; now there is something that science, and especially modern neuroscience, might go to work on. In _Descartes' Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human_ (Basic Books), Paul Bloom takes an even more basic approach, hardly mentioning such technological wonders as the scanners that show brains at work. He examines a wealth of clever experiments on babies and children to answer about babies the question posed more often about disreputable politicians: "What do they know, and when do they know it?" The answers provide an entertaining and informative evaluation of what we might be able to tell about souls.

René Descartes promoted "dualism": the body exists, and it is a machine of meat which, when it is alive, is coupled with an immaterial soul. This, according to Bloom, is a natural view; evolution itself has made us into dualists. We are wired to perceive material objects and mental manifestations as separate entities, and so naturally we think of the two as separate realms. But that we evolved that way is not an argument that it is the right way to think of things. From the very beginning, experiments show, babies treat the world as dual. Bloom goes on to explain experiments that show that children have inborn knowledge of fairness that is at the heart of our ability to get along with others. "... Our moral feelings are no less adaptations than our taste for sweet foods and our perception of solid objects." We are from an early age able to empathize with the pain of others, which leads to compassion and to helping them; it's all commendable behavior, and no less so because we come into the world hard-wired to perform it.

We perform it because it pays to perform it, and it simply gives us a reproductive advantage. Empathetic people (and those with altruism and other laudable traits described here) are most successful at working in societies, and we are social animals. What's more, they will be more effective in understanding and raising children, and so the behavior will be passed on. Bloom is clearly a materialist, not a dualist, but wisely avoids any attempt to prove the issue. What he has done instead is not to examine if dualism is justified, but merely why belief in it is so prevalent. The belief that objects are not really solid is just as fundamentally unnatural as the belief that mind is an emergent physical property of the brain. This could be heavy stuff, and philosophers have argued heavily for centuries one way or the other. But Bloom has a diverse array of interests, and includes discussion of such subjects as slapstick humor, autism, modern art, and disgust. Those familiar with Noam Chomsky's claim that we have special "language organs" in our brains that make us linguistic creatures will find that idea mentioned here, but vastly expanded to show our "physics organ" and "social organ". Throughout Bloom has illustrated his arguments with summaries of his own or others' experiments on babies. Those who would expect a materialist also to be a pessimist will be disappointed; he declares himself to be a "morally optimistic materialist," and gives examples of moral improvement (like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that would have made little sense to our forebears. Not bad for a bunch of natural-born dualists.

About 20 years ago, philosopher Daniel Dennett started talking about what he calls the "intentional stance." The intentional stance is the ability, prevelant in humans and animals to a lesser extent, to look at other beings as intentional agents with goals and desires. Dennett explained how th intentional stance could easily be viewed as an evolutionary adaptation - allowing those who can adapt it to predict others behaviors, understand language as a thing communicating inner states, etc.

In this book, Bloom is basically taking the same idea, showing the science that backs it up, and applying it to psychology. Babies, Bloom writes, seem born with the ability to see others as agents, differentiate between animate and inanimate objects, and feel empathy ("step into others' shoes").

Towards this end, Bloom cites innumerable studies done with babies, infants, and young children. Most of the studies on babies and infants measures whether the baby looks longer at certain images than others to see which are more interesting and (it is hoped) unusual. Fior instance, in order to see whether babies can 'grasp' the idea of objects' solidity, babies were shwon a picture, first, of a mug being pulled where the handle AND the base move in the same direction at the same speed and, second, a mug being pulled where the handle and the base travel in the same direction at different speeds. The babies tended to look longer at the second image, leading to the conclusion that they see the second as more 'curious' and unusual.

As other reviewers menktion, these experiments can be dicey and can lend themselves to a few different interpretations. Be that as it may, studies of children are more straightforward, as they consist of children being asked questions and to perform tasks. Needless to say, all the experiments with children support strongly the idea that children are quite good at the intentional stance. What seems to clinch it is the studies involving children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD). ASD children, when tested, fail in every case whereby experimenters ask that the intentional stance be applied to other beings. From attempts to find out whether ASD kids feel empathy with those in pain to cases of whether ASD kids see God anthropomorphically, Bloom shows that ASD simply destroys the ability to 'read minds,' an activity non-ASD kids seem to do naturally.

I am taking one star off because some chapters seem so loosely related to the authors thesis that they seem to impair the book's effectiveness. The chapter on the evolutionary origins of disgust, for instance, is interesting but hardly applicable to exploration of kids ability to see other minds as other minds.

To finish, the chapter on how children see God is particularly interesting, in light of many recent attempts to explain religion naturalistically. (See my review of Dennett's "Breaking the Spell") In their young years, children seem to see God as a figure with human qualities (both phyically and spiritually). Even studies done with adults show that adults tend to apply human traits to god even when they "know" that God is omniscient and far from human. Bloom's take? Religion is (a) an attempt to explain the duality between the physical world and the mental world; and (b) an extentsion of our natural ability to apply the intentional stance by creation of a god figure to whose mind we can attribute human traits writ large.

interesting book all around. Bloom is a good writer and provides a good balance between clarity and profundity. Anyone who enjoys books exploring how biology affects the mind will enjoy this one as well.

The name of this rather fascinating book is somewhat misleading: there is not too much in this book about child's psychology and a lot about psychology in general. Mr. Bloom, who is evidently a professional psychologist himself, created a very readable fusion of psychology, evolutionary biology and great multitude of historical and scientific facts.

When reading I could not stop recollecting myself as a child and juxtaposing the facts from the book with episodes from my childhood. For example, Mr. Bloom describes kids' imagining of God. As per one of the studies, they think that God is a human like creature with a voice and a face. Many kids in my kindergarten shared their vision of God in similar terms, but I remember a debate (if you can call it that) between other kids and me when we were arguing if God was a man or a woman. For some reason, the majority of kids were absolutely convinced that God was a man even though they could not explain why. The vision of God was changing with age - when I was a student, my professor of a set theory told me that God was infinity in its most abstract version. He was absolutely serious about that.

The book is practically infested with a great deal of facts and citations, which eloquently illustrate author's points. I have to admit that the author reminds me of Borges in this regard, whom he also mentions when describing some aspects of how human memory functions. Some of such illustrations are quite unusual. For example, when discussing the art and its role in human life, Mr. Bloom mentions a weird habit of Aristotle Onassis to have his barstools upholstered with the scrota of killer whales. Many might find it unusual at least and disgusting at most but it does perfectly illustrate how different human beings are in demonstration of status and power. The same is applicable to the description of Goya's painting SATURN DEVOURING HIS SON. After I read about Mr. Bloom's experience when he was admiring this painting in Madrid, I found reproduction of this artwork in the Internet and become very puzzled of how can it be anyhow enjoyable.

The last chapter of the book left me disappointed. Not because of the text itself, which was a very good reading throughout the whole book, but because of Mr. Bloom's verdict regarding factual non-existence of the soul. It is really hard to deal with such an approach, especially when formulated by a competent scientist like Mr. Bloom. I wonder how Mr. Bloom himself is dealing with this shocking discrepancy. He might be explaining it in his following book. Hopefully.

I loved it.

"All's Well That End's Well" is a convoluted story of guys who want to marry the girl who doesn't want to marry them, but wants the guy that doesn't really want her but, wants to go off with another guy. There's a coward, homoerotic undertones, slapstick, deceit, and a king who is in charge and apparently clueless.

The significance of a devious, influential, and brilliant young woman as a heroine is easy to understand when Queen Elizabeth was in the audience. In a period of sophisticated intrigues and war, this was a relevant bit of entertainment. Knowing the original context, much of this play's relevance is retained after almost 400 years.

The subtle insinuation that Bertram would rather hang with his buddy that his lady is easily lost if you don't pay attention, and would be easy to play down on stage. It shouldn't be, it was part of the play, and adds a subtle and arch touch to the script.

I really enjoyed this one, especially when the coward Parolles gets burned.

E. M. Van Court

In giving this play 4 stars, I am comparing it against Shakespeare's other work, not against any other writer.
This is supposedly one of Shakespeare's "problem plays", but I don't see the problem. We have characters who have extreme emotions (a favorite Shakespeare motif) and some situations that border on ridiculous, but the emotion and heart of the conflict reflects reality in a way that only Shakespeare can produce. Although modern audiences may balk at Helena's throwing of herself at a man who disdains her, we must remember that Helena is in love, and thus, not always rational. Love wants its desires, not practical solutions.
Alls Well also includes a wonderful Shakespearian character in Parolles. The man is a coward, a fool, and a braggart. The irony (and joy) of his character is that he knows and accepts these faults in himself. Despite his poor qualities, he is really the most honest character in this work. Read this play if for no other reason than to introduce yourself to this this great character.
Existential questions about self worth and the paradoxical nature of humanity are the real crux of this play, and once again, Shakespeare shows us what it means to be human. As one character says in Act IV, "The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together..." Alls Well demonstrates this in the dual nature of almost every character and plot device.

Try as you might, you will have a hard time finding any redeeming social merit to the "hero" of this play. In an era of arranged marriages, "our hero" abandons his bride and runs off to the wars because she is not good enough for him. This opinion makes him a majority of one, since everyone else thinks she is too good for him. Before he leaves, however, he sets her an impossible task which will win his devotion, if not his love. The heroine then undertakes to fulfill the terms of the task. In order to accomplish the task she devises a plan which will wound everyone who loves her and take advantage of his unworthiness of her.

It's hard to see what she sees in him, but as the saying goes, love is not only blind, it is also deaf and dumb. The plot moves snappily along toward its foreordained happy conclusion, with the hero's aide-de-camp, a sort of cross between Iago and Falstaff, providing "comic" relief.

Arkangel Shakespeare has put on a five star production of a three star play. Many recordings of Shakespeare plays add poor sound quality to poor diction, resulting in a product that is difficult, if not impossible, to follow. The sound is good, the lines are well-spoken, and the dialog is easily followed.

This play is probably not as great as others of Shakespeare's comedies, but it is still worth the effort. The play is quite ribald. It is a short play. The plot is a familiar one - a woman is set an almost impossible task, and if she succeeds in completing it, she will get her dearest wish. Worth a read.

All's Well has been unfairly treated. It's supposed to be one of Shakespeare's worst plays, but it is truly fascinating. It is subtle, and the conflicts are rich. Here, no one is purely good or bad, and perhaps it's the difficulty of feeling drawn to a variety of characters who are in conflict that makes people dislike this play. The female lead is bravely determined. The male lead is completely controlled by the political situation. Of course he wants his freedom! The adoration that the female lead feels for him must seem like a trap. . . And yet she does feel it, and she's willing to do everything to realize her dream. I love the reality of this play. It isn't glorious like Hamlet, it isn't abject like Lear. Instead, it's a picture of a middle class reality that gives us insight into sex, liberty, love, and authority.

The latest book from authors Ken Bloom and Frank Vlastnik, who authored a marvelous "Greatest Broadway Musicals" book in 2004, is this equally splendid tribute to the 101 greatest half-hour TV comedies of all time. Chock full of interesting facts, pithy critical comments and a wealth of color photographs, SITCOMS will be savored by aging baby boomers and coach potatoes of all ages alike.

Paging through SITCOMS is like revisiting your past. Us baby boomers grew up with television. Who of us can't remember sitting on the living room floor, looking up at and laughing at Lucy's crazy antics? Or chuckling at Barney Fife's latest idiocy? Not all the shows covered in this book were laugh-out-loud funny. Some were quietly humorous ("Leave It to Beaver") or sweet ("Family Affair") or wonderfully witty ("Frasier") or droll ("Newhart"). Others were caustically funny ("Maude") or mindless ("Three's Company") or wacky ("Green Acres"). Whenever you started watching television, you'll find lots to laugh about in this book.

Elevating a TV show to classic status obviously opens the authors up to criticism. After perusing SITCOMS, I think the authors did a fine job. Were a couple of my favorites not selected? Yup but so what? It's their call.

The shows in SITCOMS are covered alphabetically. I think it would have been a great idea had they been listed chronologically. Television comedy changed over the past 50 years and it would have been interesting to see the progression from "Mr. Peepers" to "Gilligan's Island" to "All In The Family" to "Friends."

Considering all the wonderful memories the book rekindles, the wealth of color photographs provided and the low price ($29.95), SITCOMS is a real winner. Read and enjoy!

Great book, but not all of the shows mentioned are classics and how could they omit the following great shows?
The Abbott & Costello Show
Buffalo Bill
Mork and Mindy
Anything But Love
Mad About You
The King of Queens
Welcome Back Kotter
F Troop
The Drew Carey Show
Night Court
Chico and the Man
Dear John
Home Improvement

This is basic, "Sitcom 101" information that offers no new perspective and only rehashes whatever stories found in other books. The amount of info is minimal and this is not a book for the serious student of television. It's only for those who haven't studied situation comedies and just want a coffeetable book filled with pretty pictures.

The book has really odd choices for the "101 Greatest Of All Time." Alice? Bob Cummings Show? December Bride? Topper? Wings? The Nanny? SERIOUSLY?

There are also numerous errors. Then they include totally unrelated information in the already-short chapters on each show (about 3 to 4 pages per show). For example, why mention Eleanor Parker in The Sound of Music in the middle of the Brady Bunch chapter?

Then how can they include Perfect Strangers but leave out Family Matters (the much more successful show it spun off). Or not include FULL HOUSE??--which will be one of the longest-running comedies that will be rerun for the next five decades (like Leave It to Beaver is today).

They also limit their definition of sitcoms so it doesn't include all cable comedies like Lizzie McGuire. It was nice, though, that they included Saved by the Bell (which often gets overlooked in other sitcom books).

Then there are a few pages devoted to "Flops," "Military Sitcoms," etc. But they do nothing but show a few pictures and give little information about the show. There is no perspective here and they treat every show on their list equally, where Hazel gets the same amount of space as Friends.


The authors really have no background qualifications to write this book--simply because they wrote a book on Broadway hits they came up with this book as a follow-up? It's obvious that they don't know much about the sujbect and merely rely upon a few TV guidebooks that they have read. There is not much new here.

People who know nothing about TV comedy may enjoy the pictures and the trip down memory lane. But there are other much better books out there about comedies that include analysis and more historical information such as ratings.

First off, I'm not Karen Cox. That's my mom (who ordered the book for me for Christmas). My name is Jeremy and here is my review.

I loved this book because it included information about shows I loved and used to love, information that in some cases I hadn't known. However and that's a big however, I found several errors within this otherwise great compilation. Names were misspelled ("John" instead of Jon Lovitz) and so were other words ("embued" should have been imbued). Facts were incorrect in some spots (Donna Douglas played Elly May and not Donna Dixon as is reported in one paragraph in The Beverly Hillbillies section). Lucy and Desi had been married eight years in 1948 when they supposedly had just become a couple (according to the authors).

I also didn't like the cynical, obnoxious tone the authors took towards certain shows it referenced when discussing one particular show. Each show in that book is great in its own way. In my opinion, the book should have included an additional 99 sitcoms (if it was possible) so the number would tally 200 and popular sitcoms like Family Matters, Full House, Boy Meets World, Alf, Mr. Belvedere and Step By Step would be included (I realize that not all of these shows are "great" by any stretch of the imagination, but they all have their loyal fanbases--believe me). After all, Perfect Strangers and Fresh Prince of Bel-Air were there and The Goldbergs (a show I'd never even heard of--probably the only show I'd never heard of in the entire book). Great photos, though. I loved every single one of them, black and white, color, they were all perfect.

This book contains many errors in the various episodes produced for a series. "The Beverly Hillbillies" produced 274 not 216 episodes. "All in the Family" was 204 episodes, not 212.

Hooray for Lehman for selecting Bloom as editor! I am absolutely as one w/ Bloom in his crusade, and I'm quite used to his general line-up of the perpetrators of the ultimate crime against culture (deconstructionists, historicists, Marxists, and all the other cultural resenters)but even I was shocked to find him being wonderfully and rightfully presumptuous enough to carry his criticism to the contents of a series he was editing and introducing!
on the poetry--the big-hitters are present, as well as some surprising selections such as molly peacock's 'have you ever faked an orgasm' (proving that bloom is resolutely not 'out of touch' as one reviewer suggests (is such a phrase even permissible in aesthetic judgements??))and i-forget-his-name's 'a cardinal detoxes'
this is the ultimate introduction to recent american poetry.

I could relate to about 1/10th of the poems. My instinct (late from the moldering glades of the academy) is that these poems were chosen to broaden (not deepen) the moat around the ivory tower -- poetry IS dead in this volume, mostly.