Pacific University Books

I believe that penchant for the moralistic (and add here more than a snipett of post-modern political corectness)from English-speaking readers has slighted judgements about this novel, which is a novel about people with sloppy morals in a time of sloppy political intrigue and sloppy moral standards offering a contrast with the philistine ambience of Thackeray's own age. I found the novel simply _lush_, and think that Hollywood has in it a treat in store for any filmmaker of genius who wants to emulate Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. Get ahold of a copy and enjoy!

Although for some reason forgotten by the US public, "The History of Henry Esmond" is one of the finest books ever written in English language. May be it has lost its luster because it offers no excess of blood-spilling and sexual adventures, but instead finds its way to describe the deepest and most vulnerable chambers of the human heart. I have read a handful of books, be it in English, French, German or Russian, that described the human strengths and weaknesses while tying them to a character one can relate to with such skill. People who do not like it, it seems, are just shamed by the morals offered in such a book, and are quick to forget it. I read "Henry Esmond" when I was a young boy, and now, half a century later, it hasn't lost a beat.

This book has been called the greatest historical novel ever and I would agree that it is a really good book. The writing is clear, lively and beautiful, full of color. This is the first time I've read Thackeray and I really admire his prose. Like all novels that are close to 515 pages, the novel has some slow points, such as during some of the the military battles Esmond is involved in; or in the last part of the conflict between Francis Esmond the edler and Lord Mohun which is rather melodramatic. Sometimes the prose does get slightly unclear. The first few pages of the novel are rather unintelligible; I think Thackeray here was trying to make fun of the vapidly pompous storytelling of other writers of his age. Thackeray then indulges in some very confusing discussion of the family tree of Henry Esmond, but after this the story overall is pretty easy to follow and is full of some very interesting characters, Henry Esmond most of all. Don't worry about trying to grasp the particulars about who is related to who.

Thackeray throws at the reader a great deal of names and aristocratic titles and it might be hard for the reader to understand exactly who is who. Perhaps an introduction attached to the book would be useful for the reader to give a basic history of the noblemen and kings and princes whom this story portrays from late seventeenth and early eighteenth century Englund. This would have made the reading for me a little bit easier. The central event driving the turmoil described in this book was the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when one Dutch Protestant faction of the British royal family invaded and overthrew James II who had given legal equality to the Catholic religion (or something).

But overall the story of this book flows very nicely and gives the reader a more realistic look than others might of British aristocrats during the period. A great many of the aristocrats portrayed here are dissolute, irresponsible and even brutish. John Churchill AKA the Duke of Marlborough is portrayed as somebody who while very brave in battle, will screw anyone high and low to advance his own material resources and has ever changing loyalty to anyone who will give him such resources, no matter what different political party or even enemy of Britain that might be. Esmond while engaging in pious rhetoric about military valor, mentions his disgust and alienation from the jingoist spirit in that that the battles in France and Germany he was involved in, usually ended with British troops engaging in rape and pillage, burning whole villages and crops, terrorizing helpless women and children, etc. One of the elector princes hanging out in France, was in line to become James III (or whatever number it was) if his sister Queen Anne would make peace with him and designate him as her successor. The whole Esmond family piously worships this elector but finds out when they smuggle him back into England that he is really a rather disgusting, vapid fellow.

Esmond's young lord Frank Esmond like his father is also a rather dissolute character. I enjoyed the blatant irony Esmond used in describing Frank telling his mother that he was very busy with harsh military engagements on the European mainland, thus he could not visit her back home in Englund. Frank was indeed trying to nock down fortifications in France and Belguim, but only the fortifications of hot young aristocratic ladies.

One can pick at little things in the novel--lack of clarity in some places, the lack of clarity of and the amount of time it takes the narrator to inform the reader of the exact nature of the secret told by the elder Lord Frank Esmond on his death bed to Henry--but I finished it with a great feeling of satisfaction.

This is a rich, complex, but ultimately unsatisfying novel about a young man of principle making his way in the corrupt and luxurious world of the 1700's English aristocracy.

Henry Esmond narrates the story of his own life, and the thing that sinks the novel is that he's always just a little too aware of his own virtue. He shows how venal, corrupt, and selfish all the other characters are, while refusing to admit he's secretly very impressed with his own demure Victorian primness. He's really Thackeray, the moralist with a guilty conscience, pretending to be shocked by the salacious 18th century, but all the time pandering to his own prurient desires.

The other characters in this novel all exist merely as foils for Esmond's virtues. His cousin Beatrice, as witty and seductive as Becky Sharp, is never given a fair break. Thackeray's man Esmond, while pretending to sing her praisies, actually hits her with every cliche known to man. Because she's clever, she must be evil. Because she's beautiful, she must be vain, and because she's vain she must be cruel. Because she has ambitions, she must be selfish. Never once does Esmond say anything good about her -- but supposedly he's heart broken when she rejects him time and again. It's more like, he hates her guts and revels in snitching her out behind her back. Esmond is supposed to be like loyal and loving Gatsby, and Trixie is his unattainable Daisy. But he writes about her like he's Nick Carraway sneering at Myrtle Wilson. It's not pretty.

Meanwhile, Esmond is debating whether to remain loyal to his family's heritage, and support the claim of exiled prince James Stuart to the English throne, or choose the winning side and support King George I. It would be a good dilemna, but Thackeray cops out by presenting the doomed and royal Stuart prince (who in real life was brave, generous, religious, and fair-minded) as some sort of creepy sexual pervert. Again, the Victorian Thackeray thinks he's being heroic by finding dirtiness in everyone and everything.

This book would have been so much better if it had been written by Sir Walter Scott fifty years before. Then Trixie would have been a real damsel, Esmond would have been a noble knight, and James Stuart would have been doomed but noble and good. Thackeray subverts the romance of Sir Walter Scott's historical fictions, but only in the meanest, most cynical way. HENRY ESMOND has less in common with IVANHOE and more in common with LESS THAN ZERO.

The History of Henry Esmond begins with the sweet Lady Castlewood stumbling upon the lonely abandoned Henry as she tours her new home. Her husband has inherited the estate and his illegitimate 11-year old cousin Henry, is fearful of the reception he will receive from the new owners. Will they throw him out? Treat him like a servant? When they instead embrace him into their family (which includes their daughter Beatrix and son Frank) he is overjoyed. What he slowly begins to realize (as he first becomes their almost-son, and later the de facto head of the household) is that this blessing is more complex than it first appears.

Throughout the book, Henry longs for a family, and although he is a part of the Castlewood's, he is also always an outsider. They come to rely on him because they know he will sacrifice more for them then any real son or brother ever would. With every page, the Castlewood family becomes increasingly complex - some relationships are strengthened and some are slowly destroyed in such subtle ways that when a catastrophe comes, it seems inevitable, and at the same time, surprising. True motives are hidden and twisted and everybody longs for a kind of love not given. Through it all, we have Henry's narration (although he speaks of himself in the third person), which casts a lonely and reflective tone over all the events. A beautiful book.

Like so many other ships, the USS Portland was one of the unsung heroes of the War. Author William Thomas Generous Jr. did extensive research yet correctly focused on the men, both swabbies and officers, as the real story within the facts. Personal experiences are interwoven with the larger story of battles and the War and sometimes with more personal analysis and opinion than many may think warranted, especially given the forcefulness at times. However, the reader will undoubtedly become attached to ship and crew alike as they progress further and further into the book. By the end, you want more, always the mark of a good book.
Steven Bustin, Author: Humble Heroes, How The USS Nashville CL43 Fought WWII Humble Heroes: How the USS Nashville CL43 Fought WWII

My grandfather TK Erickson served as a five inch gun "talker" on the USS Portland in world war two. He died in New Mexico about 15 years ago, and I've missed hearing his stories. In remembrance of him, I built a working radio controlled model of the USS Portland, but was never able to find any books about the ship.

When I ran across this book, I immediately had to purchase it. The book is a high quality, and it provides a true account of each battle star earned by the crew of the Sweet Pea. From the pre-war years when Portland escorted FDR on the USS Houston, to the final battles in the Pacific War, and finally the big Navy day celebration in Portland, Maine, this book lays it all out. My grandfather gave me a newspaper clipping from Navy day in Maine, and it was so cool to read more about that event, which obviously meant so much to the crew.

Like any other book about historical events, this one is not perfect, but regardless this book is a treasure as one of the few books about one of the most significant ships of the US Pacific Fleet in world war two.

A great book I cant say enough about it. When I came to the last page I was sorry the book ended.I wish there were more books like this.

"Sweet Pea at War" is seriously flawed. The author, William Generous, really knows very little about naval warfare of the period, with the result that his interpretations of events are misleadingly wrong. I'll give two examples:
1) Generous obviously has looked into the Portland's battle reports, but he does not have the knowledge level to interprete them correctly. In one, the commanding officer included a number of technical commentaries and complaints and suggestions from various crew members. Generous goes into a psychological rant about how this shows that the commanding officer was insecure, and how this reflected on his poor leadership style and why he was disliked by the crew, and on and on and on. Obviously he has not read other battle reports; if he had, he would have found that it was standard procedure for crew comments to be included in the reports, ver batim, when they were available. There are reports of AA actions that include the comments down to the seaman second firing 20mm guns. COs were instructed to sit their troops down and get written after-action reports from anyone with something to contribute - often not done because of circumstances, but still a required process. Thus Generous ends up trashing the reputation of an officer because he did not understand the procedures for naval after-action reports.
2) In one action Portland was off-axis from the line of approach of a Japanese air attack on a carrier. The Portland gunnery officer decided to put up a fixed barrage over the CV to deter / interfere with Japanese dive bombers. In the after-action report he claims that the barrage worked very well, and recommends that all CV escort ships follow the procedure. Generous then spends some ink telling the readers how this shows that the particular gunnery officer was so innovative and forward thinking and contributing to the advance of the art of AAA. This was, in fact, not the case. Barrage AA fire was an early technique borne of the lack of a good director. With the advent of the US mk 37, and good fuse setters, tracked fire was possible and more effective than barrage. The gunnery officer's "innovative thinking" was actually regressive. Generous does not know this; in addition, later in the history, when the Portland's gunnery officer again uses the barrage technique, and it fails, he is silent about this, ignoring the event, likely because it would undermine his previously-made case. Either we have a case where Generous picks out and highlights facts that support his positions and ignores those that do not, or Generous simply did not recognize that the later incident shattered his previously-made argument. In either case, we have a situation where the author really does not understand what he is commenting upon, something like reading a high-school paper on quantum theory.
There is lots of dross like that scattered throughout: Generous' analysis of Midway is sophomoric, and he continually makes editorial comments on things that just are not so, such as his statement that the .50 cal AA guns on the ship were replaced because they were "flimsy."
Given all that, you have to recognize what is available in this book. You are not buying Generous' expertice, obviously; you are buying the story of the ship, and the tales related by the crewmembers, **their** views and anecdotes and histories, along with the occasional direct quote from action reports, if one can assume that Generous quoted accurately, such as ammunition expenditure or AA aircraft kill claims.
From that approach, "Sweet Pea at War" is a worthwhile acquisition if you are savvy enough in naval warfare to separate the good from the bad, or if you are just looking for an interesting read on WW II in a cruiser mostly from the enlisted point of view. This book would be a worthwhile read for someone expert in naval warfare and the Pacific campaigns, but I would not recommend quoting the author on anything else, and I would not
recommend it as a casual read for anyone not an expert in the field.
Dr. Alan D. Zimm CDR USN (ret).

I am grateful for Generous' contribution of the details of the USS Portland and all the officers and men who served onboard her from launching to decommissioning. He is deserves praise for the efforts made to insure that those stories would not be lost to history. If he had just concentrated on this great task, I would have had no problem with his work. But he was not content with this. He seems to have taken this opportunity to project himself as a great naval tactician and analyst. It was bad enough that he proved himself nothing more than an amateur, but he did this at the expense of some great naval figures of the war. I, personally, cannot tolerate those who attempt to promote themselves at the expense of others, especially when facts are not properly researched or left out to accomplish this goal. His treatment of Rear Admiral Daniel J. Callaghan, the Officer in Tactical Command (OTC) of the task force that met the Japanese at the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal ("Night Cruiser Action") is the most blatant example of this. Generous seems to have had a grudge against this fine officer, who lived and died in the best of United States Navy tradition. He states that Callaghan "never had a major sea command before" taking on this task. It just so happens that he commanded the heavy cruiser USS San Francisco (a more prestigious command than that of the Portland) for a year before being promoted to admiral and being taken by the newly appointed Commander-in-Chief South Pacific Area. Admiral Ghormley had his choice of many who were senior to Callaghan, but chose him because of his competence. I would choose an admiral's evaluation for ability and competence over any academic historian of the following century. If, as Generous maintains, Ghormley was also as much a failure as he was, he would have sought out as his chief of staff one who he felt made up for what he lacked. Generous proved completely ignorant of the tactical situation that enveloped the days before this battle. He praised Rear Admiral Scott (well deserved) for his ability to train the ships in his force prior to his victory at the Battle of Cape Esperance. Generous leaves out the fact that Scott had weeks to accomplish this. He neglects to inform his readers that Callaghan only knew of his task and the ships that would be at his disposal the day of the battle. Escorting the supply ships and providing protection for them left him with no time to train or even meet with the commanders of all of his ships to discuss the strategy that would be employed. This was typical of the situations that confronted our forces at that time. While Generous again comes down on Callaghan for the placement of his ships, real naval analysis has never been able to come to such a conclusive conclusion. Generous, is so intent on destroying Callaghan's reputation that he also leaves out that he was killed in that action as a result of his not staying in the battle-hardened command and control station. He, as many other brave officers felt that they could not maintain proper perspective of the battle within an area that so restricted their observation. He died because he put his supreme duty before his personal safety. Generous exhibits such contempt for Callaghan that he even uses his receiving the Medal of Honor as a means of getting in a final stab. This is hardly what makes a competent writer of military history. Only his treatment of the crew of the Portland keeps it out of my trash can.
At the very introduction of the book I became concerned for what might follow when Generous admits that he had never even heard of the USS Portland until two years before he wrote the introduction. I knew then that the writer would not be of the caliber that normally writes on naval history subjects. Anyone who had not heard of the Portland could not have known much of the war in the Pacific. The rest of the book only supported my fears. I began to feel that I was not reading well researched material but what had been gleaned from interviews from crewmembers. This really comes out when the ship did not get a battle star for its one-ship raid on Tarawa in October 1942. He makes a major point of this at the event and then ends the book with a reminder of this neglect on the part of the Navy. Add this to his repeated effort to convince his readers that the turning point of the war was when the Portland played its most important role (where he blasts Admiral Callaghan) instead of the Battle of Midway. Both of those seem to be supported mainly from the tactical viewpoint of most sailors. There is nothing wrong with a crew seeing things as they do and judging events and their treatment from the perspective of themselves. But when a historian takes the same view, he misleads his readers if they are looking for the facts. He seems to think that a war's turning point is a tactical rather than a strategic event. This extends to the incident at Tarawa where Admiral Tisdale forces a cease fire before the captain wanted to. It is right for a captain to want to continue an engagement. But an admiral has a bigger picture of what the goals of whole operation encompasses. For Generous to imply cowardliness on the part of Admiral Tisdale is, once again, irresponsible.
After reading the first hundred pages, I reverted to just reading sections that talked about the ship and crew. By that time Generous had lost all credibility with me. By doing so, I enjoyed much of the remainder. As I said at the beginning, Generous is to be commended for his treatment of the ship and crew.

This book is a fine contribution, but does not stand alone and is in some respects incomplete.

It emerges from Harvard's Negotiation Project. If focuses on conflict resolution as a process that requires a checklist, an analytic toolkit, and an action plan.

The comment that got me past being a skeptic of this academic work:

"International relations should not be a spectator sport." The authors are right: IR is about your life and the future of all generations. Prior to 911 Senators and Congressman would brag about not having a passport because nothing oversees mattered to their constituents. 911 made their idiocy plain to all. See for instance, The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (Vintage).

They focus on points of choice, but overlook the point made by Howard Bloom in The Global Brain: Your Roadmap for Innovating Faster and Smarter in a Networked World, to wit, by the time a generation is 30-35 years old, their minds, culture, everything is "locked in" and only force and persistence and waging peace can allow a new generation to be created from scratch.

I have two pages of notes on this book, so it is by no means inconsequential. I liked the part that illustrated how we think we are sending one message but in fact another message is received, one grounded in THEIR historical and cultural and current context.

They share the view that Greg Treverton taught me, that decision-makers are beset by multiple information and influence inputs among which secret intelligence is often the least important in part because it can be ignored.

The four quadrants of analysis are very general, but on page 83 there is an excellent list of ten different academic points of view and 10 different professional practitioner points of view, all of which must be understood and reconciled, and that alone moved the book up to a four.

There is a superb conclusion on morality, and the table on page 113 of seven ethical perspective to consider is righteous and worthy. I am reminded of

The Lessons of History: The Most Important Insights from the Story of Civilization
Understanding International Conflicts (6th Edition) (Longman Classics in Political Science)
POLITIS AMONG ALL NATIONS
The New Craft of Intelligence: Personal, Public, & Political--Citizen's Action Handbook for Fighting Terrorism, Genocide, Disease, Toxic Bombs, & Corruption

The authors end by listing four constraints:
01 Poor design of 3rd party activities
02 Limited staff, limited skill
03 Constraints on officials
04 Roles played by institutions

I am reminded of
Security Studies for the 21st Century
Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency
Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It

There is no mention in this book of the impact of corruption, virtual colonialism, unilateral militarism, or predatory immoral capitalism. It is an essay with no bibliography or index, and thus limited to four stars, but certainly recommended.

At fewer than 150 pages, Beyond Machiavelli packs in enough ideas and advice to keep you busy for months to come. Fisher et. al. offer insights on how to better understand the people we are in conflict with. Also, Beyond Machiavelli shows us how to be able to influence people we disagree with, and how to legitimately analyze the situation to move towards problem solving. Regardless of what system or social structure you are in, there are ample skills that can be applied to face a multitude of situation. Though the majority of the illustrations in Beyond Machiavelli are from the political arena, the principles of the book can be used over a broad spectrum.

How many times we have been in a conflict with others may it be of a personal or business in nature. I find this text extremely useful in punctuating the loopholes and pitfalls to avoid in a conflict and means to manage it. When in a conflict we are always trying to send a message to the other party suggesting them that there is something else they should be doing. The text will help in the appropriate way to transfer this message across.

To identify the root cause of a conflict Fisher suggests that one must not be responsive but purposive. As an example when two children are fighting the adult who breaks them apart may ask "why" they hit each other. To this the most likely response may be "because he hit me first". But that response only explains the cause of the fight not its root cause.

Another key ingredient suggested by Fisher is keeping in perspective the situation and mind set the other side is facing. In a ball game it may be easy to not agree with a team change decision a coach has made. But understanding the dynamics and pressure faced by him, we are then in a better position to critique if the decision made was correct. If we had a chance him our opinion this added perspective can aid us to be sensitive to his situation.

Fisher believes that understanding how others view a conflict is knowledge that gives us strength. It enhances our ability to influence them. Through exploring and motivations leading up to a conflict we can increase our understanding of where their perceptions comes from.

No matter how much we disagree with someone we need influenced. It is extremely important that we maintain a level of dialogue; so that we may not push the party away and be faced with a situation we never wish to face. After the overthrow of the shah of Iran in 1979, the U.S unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the government for a hundred executions conducted by the new government. Ironically the U.S had overlooked the thousands of executions of political opponents done during the Shahs regime. It was in the best interest of the U.S to keep Iran engaged and maintain some working relationship to avoid Iran being driven to the Soviet block and preventing the hostage crisis.

This is not a book of answers and solutions to conflicts. The tools suggested in this book are intended to ask or simulate better questions. Better questions are not about who is right or who is wrong, or about one-hot solutions, but the process of dealing with conflicting views about right and wrong and for dealing with the inevitable changes that lie ahead. For e.g. Fisher suggests that instead of starting with the question "What shall I do?" you might want to start with such questions as "What would I like someone else to do?" and "What could I do that would make it easier for them to do it?".

Very decent book, with loads of good cases. It helps you understand the other side's position and options, and guides you to 'reasonable' negotiation.

If you liked Getting to Yes, you'll appreciate this one too. To me, this book is really about how to think clearly about complex situations. As the authors demonstrate, too often we don't think through the long term consequences of our actions. We react to the past without thinking how our actions will then be interpreted by those we seek to influence. Great book.

While not the most logically arranged book, the contents of this amazing book are worth the hunt. It is far and away the single most comprehensive resource I've found for anyone wishing to introduce NW native plants into their garden.

This is a "must-have" for anyone interested in PNW native plants. (As is Pojar & McKinnon's book, which is more like an encyclopedia with colored photos). The author knows his stuff -- the only frustration is that he sometimes sings the praises of plants that are extremely difficult to find in the nursery trade (except maybe at his wife's own nursery.)

Of the books I own on NW native plant gardening, this book is my most often referenced. It is full of detailed information about a vast array of NW native plants. Dr. Kruckeberg's enthusiasm for the propogation and stewardship of NW natives shines throughout the book. However, this is not a book about landscaping or effective planting combinations; it is a scholarly work that may be useful to a homeowner interested in native plants and their care, or to the professional landscaper in need of detailed reference information. I am impressed by the breadth of the author's knowledge.

A nice introduction (and more) to native plants of the Pacific Northwest. My only criticism about it is that it doesn't have great photos. I bought this book to give me an intro to plants in that area, as I'm designing a garden for a friend. This book doesn't give much sense of what the plants look like in a garden. I'll have to go there. It's comparable to Judith Phillip's book Southwestern Landscaping with Native Plants (for, obviously, a different part of the country).

I was very disappointed to see the lack of color photos in the book. There are color photos on the cover and back and also a section in the middle but most of the book contained black and white photos and black and white drawings.
Other than that, the book seems very informative.

Kurosawa is the master of the Japanese Cinema and this book is a perfect accompaniment to his films. You will not be disappointed!

I am a Japanese Kurosawa fan. This book is full of already-known knowledges, and fatally lacks detailed analyses of Kurosawa films. The book is full of quotations from the contemporry Japanese banal film reviews, which are not worthy of quoating. Yoshimoto, the author of the book, cannot make original discussions on Kurosawa. He does anything but persuasive discussions. To the Japanese readers, the book is boring to death, full of banal opinions. Yoshimoto has no status to call himself a film scholar. If he reads this book by any chance, Kurosawa must weep in the heaven. Duke University Press should not have published the book, if it wants to be an aclaimed publisher.

You can turn to the chapter in this sweeping tome of a book on Kurosawa's body of work, focusing on the magnificently situated national/transnational film "High and Low" ([1962] 'heaven and hell,' class warfare within the corporatizing Japan of the postwar city); and read this chapter along with the film's narrative and carefully articulated cinematics of gaze, city, body, and spatial formation. Splendid, wry, compelling, Kurosawa studies are made new by this book, but more importantly postmodern and postwar Japan as such is made to register a whole range of globa/ local/nation-state re-structurations in the (existentially moralized) samurai-struggles and self-other obligated warfares of capital. "National Shoes" beats Andy Warhol's pink glitter versions of the post-Van Gogh-artisinal plight...

Sometimes a marginal position in a faculty department or a personal discomfort with established disciplines can provide an impregnable view on the academic world. The tools that academics use for cognition and recognition--assigning people a place in the academic field, distinguishing between major and minor subjects, establishing traditions and ruptures in a particular area of inquiry--are turned inwards and become revealers of one's own position. By understanding his or her own social conditions of production and the position he or she occupies in society, the scholar is able to expose the whole social space that players fully caught in the game can only partially reveal. This act of reflexive lucidity is often perceived as an unforgivable aggression by insiders, who confuse analysis with denunciation, precision with envy, and realism with cynicism. Pierre Bourdieu, who applied this kind of reflexive sociology to the French academic world, was thus the object of constant criticism.

Although he doesn't quote Bourdieu, Matsuhiro Yoshimoto applies a similar methodology to the field of Japanese film studies. By putting Japanese cinema in search of a discipline, he not only reveals the limitations of film studies as an academic discipline, but also the difficulty in aligning a study of a Japanese filmmaker with other intellectual pursuits in the humanities, such as literary criticism, Japanese scholarship, area studies, comparative literature, post-structuralist theory or the new, post-disciplinary discourse of cultural studies.

As noted in his introductory chapter, Japanese cinema played a significant role in the establishment of film studies as a discrete discipline and in the legitimation of cinema as an object of serious academic research. Yet the history of American scholarship on Japanese cinema also reveals the impasse in which the discipline has fallen. From the cult of the auteur that started with Rashomon's Kurosawa to the theoretical turn of post-marxist or structuralist scholarship and the identity politics of cross-cultural studies, Yoshimoto documents the analytical flaws and methodological shortcomings in scholarly discourse on Japanses cinema (and as he wrily notes, "dropping theorists' names [Derrida, Lyotard, Lacan, Barthes] or their key terms [differend, meconnaissance, punctum, grand recit] does not make an analysis of Japanese cinema automatically theoretical.")

If film studies and their mechanical application of what passes as theory in humanities departments have exhausted their critical vein to the point of being "totally repetitive and uninteresting", then can one anchor the study of Japanese cinema in another supporting discipine? Unfortunately, none is in a position to offer much to the kind of film criticism that the author has in mind. For Yoshimoto, Japanese studies suffer from the original sin of their contribution to the wartime effort and the postwar attempt to "modernize" Japan. Besides, because film cannot be either "translated" or "annotated," traditionnally trained literary scholars do not know what to do with Japanese cinema. Movie critics who see in Japanese movies a reflexion of abstract values and Japaneseness are not of much help either. Comparative literature seems at first a more welcoming discipline, but failed to develop a strong body of research methods and results and recently suffered from the onslaught of cultural studies. Indeed, it is under this last label, conceived as post-disciplinary practice or "a tactical intervention in the structures and practices of the established disciplines", that Yoshimoto decides to record his study of Kurosawa movies.

This introductory chapter on Japanese Cinema in Search of a Discipline is itself worth acquiring the book. But the remainder is even more fascinating: after having cleared the space from unwanted cliches and cumbersome interpretations, Yoshimoto then attempts to build his own strand of film studies through a fine-grained and detailed analysis of each and every movie directed by Akira Kurosawa. Each chapter, of variable length, provides a unique perspective to Kurosawa's movies. The book will prove a valuable read not only to film studies scholars, but also to every Kurosawa fan who will discover more reasons to revere their favorite director.

Although the book covers every film of Kurosawa's career, this is not a work of 'auteur' criticism. In fact, Yoshimoto addresses the very shortcomings of such an approach in the introduction of his text. As suggested by the book's secondary title, the work tackles something much more broad in scope and does so more critically than any other work related to the films of Kurosawa.

First and foremost, what sets this work apart from most studies of either Kurosawa or more generally Japanese cinema (that are published in English) is Yoshimoto's close and careful attention to history. Not only does he 'historicize' both Kurosawa-as-author and his catalogue of films but he also does the same to the recent tradition of criticism on Japanese cinema that has become so popular in Western academia. He convincingly critiques the previous work of Donald Richie, Noel Burch, Stephen Prince (and more briefly David Desser and James Goodwin), and his analysis of Western criticism on Japan as falling into 3 phases (humanist - formalist/marxist - 'cross-cultural') is most helpful.

When I suggest that he 'historicizes' these three methods of critique, I mean he demonstrates how these approaches perhaps worked not to better illuminate the objects 'Kurosawa' and 'Japanese cinema' but to 'naturalize' or legitimate other historical developments 'outside' the intended object of scrutiny. For instance, Yoshimoto argues that humanist and auteur forms of criticism (that were popular in the 1960s) when applied to Kurosawa's films did less to interpret the films-themselves and instead worked to legitimate the contemporaneous formation of 'film studies' as a proper field of scholarship. He goes on to critique the other phases of critical approach in a similar fashion.

Yoshimoto also performs historical critiques of other interpretive frameworks that are often assumed to make sense of Japanese film production. He puts into question the category 'samurai film' as assumed by critics like David Desser by demonstrating its 'orientalist' function in recent 'cross-cultural' discourse. He challenges careless appeals to 'zen' that do less to make sense of films and more to 'essentialize' certain contingent aspects of Japanese culture. Also, he reads the typical grouping of Japanese film into two genres, 'jidaigeki' and 'gendaigeki', in the context of current historical struggles by showing this division to function as a kind of effacement of certain contradictions and invasions that took place in recent global events. These are only some of the enlightening points made throughout this book - mainly the ones that really stuck with me.

As stated before, this book is more than an investigation of Kurosawa - this is a convincing challenge to the practice of 'Japanese film studies' as a discipline. However, in relation to Kurosawa, the highlites (in my opinion) are his readings of 'Stray Dog', 'Seven Samurai', 'Throne of Blood', and 'High and Low'. Personally, I wish there was more on both 'Rashomon' and 'Yojimbo' - but that, in no way, alters my high opinion of this work. By far, this is the best work on Japanese film I have ever read. His writing is clear - his arguments are convincing, and his ideas are original. This is a 5 star work of scholarship.

Also, I recommend reading his article "The Difficulty of Being Radical: The Discipline of Film Studies and the Postcolonial World Order" in 'boundary 2' (Autumn 1991).

I live on a lake in Hell Michigan, hence the title for my review. I have a tiny O'Day sloop that I sail when the jet skiers and wake boarders are not about and I'm a child of Woodstock who remembers living life without hand rails. I related to this wonderful story on many levels; the great sailing adventures; the loose and whimsical way that the crew made decisions and the great freedom that the crew experienced as they crammed all of their worldly possessions into a sea bag and ventured out. This is one of those books that I wanted to gobble up in a single setting but I made myself parcel it out in small savory bites so that it lasted for an entire week. Reading a new chapter was my reward for completing parts of a syllabus that I was working on. Thank you Pamela Bitterman for this beautiful book, it has joined the collection of sailing stories on my book shelf.
Larry Broat

My wife got the book for me from the library, not knowing if it was appropriate for me or not. It was. I devoured the book in a few days. I'm a sailor and have an interest in historically rigged vessels. This book transported me to a time and place far more interesting than my current surroundings. The writing is at times laborious, but never burdensome due to the topic. Overall it left me with profound gratitude that the author took the time to write the story, wrote it as well as she did, and withheld as little as she did. I recomend this book highly as a model for adventure, a lesson in management, and a succesful experiment despite the sinking. I wish I had been a Sophian! Since another ship sails under a similar model (and the same captain), perhaps I can be.

This is a truly amazing adventure written by a courageous author who dared to take a risk and sail across the world. Composed mostly of journal entries, the book is written in an honest style that paints the picture of the long voyage out at sea and the hardships its crew endured during its sinking. Overall, I appreciated the honest style in which the book was written and the truthful accounts from the journal entries. The book not only told the story in writing, but conveyed it through its sincerity. I was captivated from the beginning to end, but especially during the end... during the sinking, the aftermath, and dealing with the loss. The accounts of the Sofia and what her crew faced were both fascinating and heartfelt, and they portrayed a vivid picture of what life was like on that tall ship. Whether you're young or old, the theme of the book is applicable to all. I will forever keep the the story of the Sofia and it's crew with me and will heed the advice of the author who once said to "have an adventure wherever you can."

Ms. Sisman's book is a thrilling account recalling the rich tradition of 19th century nautical fiction and travelogues of Melville and Dana, or the rich evocative canvasses of Turner. Like so many restless wanderers in search of themselves, Pamela's memoirs recount an epic journey to exotic ports of call and encounters with people who, without the trappings of our 21st century mall-saturated American culture, manage to maintain serenity, sanity and dignity. At the same time, the book recalls the 70's and the youthful quests all but lost to the "Baby Boom" generation.

I recommend this book to anyone who's fascinated with the sea, with travel articles and memoirs, and to anyone who has ever suffered a traumatic experience and lived to move on. I'd welcome a sequel about the reunion of the crew, should this be possible.

Gripping, descriptive, yet embued with both nostalgia and horror, "Sailing" riveted me from start to tragic finish.

S.Nathanson,
Valley Stream, NY

As introduction, I am the Norman in the book who is not otherwise identified. I submit that there are four sub-stories in the book, the travel account of people and places, the "mutiny" in Nelson to remove the captain, the sinking, and the liferaft trip until rescue. I am grateful to Pam for the first story, and have told her so, since I did not keep my own journal. I respect her right to tell it like she saw it, but found some of the accounts over-dramatized from what I remembered. Deep water sailors will notice some mistakes and omissions in nomenclature and descriptions of maneuvers, some of which are obvious only to former crew. As an example, SOFIA never had an electric bilge pump. Pam's strength is in descriptions of people and cultures, but not in navigation, ship handling, or equipment, which will probably be fine for the average reader.

I have no problem with the liferaft account either; it is a gripping account of a desperate situation and miraculous rescue.

I begin to differ with the story of the sinking, not so much for what is said but what is left out. If someone were trying to come up with some reason for the sinking and assess some responsibility, the information given is insufficient. There are many other technical details dealing with SOFIA's stability and pumping equipment, and her sailing characteristics in heavy weather, which are missing. The account of the evolution of the disaster is nevertheless gripping and worth reading.

Where I totally disagree is with the account of the "mutiny". It was not a mutiny because it was not for the purpose of the objectors to take over the ship, but to restore the democratic control of the crew/operators and prevent the captain from taking over. Pam describes the captain's takeover on page 284, after four of the objectors had given up and left. We were just exercising the right since the founding of the cooperative to remove the captain. What is completely missing is that we had serious concerns that the captain was incompetent in emergency situations and dangerous due to his narcissistic and antisocial behavior, that everyone's lives were in danger. Yet Pam makes no connection between the sinking two months later and the possibility that it was due to the very objections raised in Nelson. And the fatal voyage would not have taken place without the ship's papers which had been stolen by the captain. The account given is very one-sided, and nothing useful regarding cooperatives or mechanisms for choosing captains can be gleaned from the information presented.

Fair winds, Norman Goetz

In the nearly two decades since "Pacific Salmon Life Histories" was written by Groot and Margolis, much more research on salmon has been done, and that research is well summarized in this book, with appropriate references. Quinn writes for his fellow scientists, but technical jargon is kept to a minimum, so the product is accessible to any reasonably intelligent reader.

I disagree with an earlier reviewer who faulted Quinn for not inveighing more against dams. Quinn could as well be faulted for failing to note the threat to wild salmon through disease transfer from rampant salmon aquaculture in British Columbia [e.g., M. Krkosek et al., Science v318:p1772 (2007)], but such criticisms miss the point. The job of a scientist in writing a book for fellow scientists is to summarize what research has been done and what it implies. In any case, near the end of the book, Quinn notes

"Given the high fishing rates, habitat loss and degradation, careless transfers of fish among basins, overzealous hatchery propagation, and other stressors, the remarkable thing is not that salmon are in danger but that they still persist at all....their chances of recovery are good if we would only take our collective foot off their neck."

and

"Salmon are important to many of us, in so many ways. They are our food, our recreation, our symbol and inspiration, and a critical component in the ecosystems that we value and depend on. If we dedicate ourselves to ensuring that they continue to play these roles, I believe the salmon will do the rest. If we preserve habitat they will use it, and if we restore habitat and make it accessible, they will find it."

You can tell where his heart is.

I am currently an Undergrad at the University of Washington and had the opportunity to study under Professor Quinn in Alaska for a number of weeks this summer. While the book may not be best suited to sit down and read cover to cover, it is a very valuable reference for academics looking into topics pertaining to pacific salmonids. I can say with certainty that Tom sees writing as a process that is never finished (the art of rewriting), and science is as well. It is unrealistic to try to find a book containing every relevant detail on such a hot and emerging topic as salmon, but this book comes as close as any in recent times.

This is a great resource for people that want to learn about the ecology and behaviour of salmon.

I wish it went a little more into the effects of dams and hatcheries on salmon ecology and behavior.

On the face of it, this text is positioned to become the definitive reference on the state of our understanding of Pacific salmon, a rich and complex topic with huge implications for environmental policy. It is sponsored by the American Fisheries Society, the semi-official academic organization that pays attention to these things. The author is a respected academic with deep understanding of the topic. And the book itself is beautiful. As a coffee table book it deserves four stars. The writing style is accessible, and the text covers many hundreds of current research studies.

So, what's the problem? Like Oakland, there is no there there. Instead of a guided tour through the state of our understanding of salmon, we get what amounts to an unstructured core memory dump. Studies are cited, summarized, and dropped for the next pretty bauble. There is little in the way of integration of the huge knowledge base that is out there. Quinn awkwardly fluctuates between an academic and vernacluar style (in his defense, accessible writing on complex academic topics is hard to do).

But Quinn's most bizarre transitions come when he mentions a a few seminal works on Pacific Northwest salmon extinction, simultaneously genuflecting in their general direction and edging away from their implications. Quinn's conscious avoidance of the issues at the heart of the controversy over salmon extinction is the most troubling part of the text, and the main reason I think this book is unworthy of the subject. There is a reason for this. His research center at the University of Washington is largely funded by the government agencies and electric utilites responsible for salmon extinction in the Columbia river basin. Understandably, it does not behoove Quinn to take a definitive stand on these issues. But it belittles him that he does not openly acknowledge what the issues are, and clearly present the evidence we have.

In approving Columbia River development in 1937, the US Fisheries Comissioner ignored a half-millenium of evidence that dams make salmon go extinct, saying that it was a complicated issue requiring more scientific study. Seventy years later, hundreds of salmon stocks on the Columbia and Snake rivers are extinct, and all are in jeopardy. Yet Quinn apparently believes that the solution is...more scientific study. Basic questions - how big do salmon get? How many did there used to be? What is the evidence that modifying or removing dams will or will not help salmon survive? - is either buried in the detritus of multiple studies, or entirely absent.

The big problem with public policy is that you always have to make critical choices with imperfect knowledge. Inaction in dynamic systems like climate and species ecologies is a choice, and repurposing science as a passive excuse for inaction often guarantees a bad outcome. In his unwillingness to engage controversy, Quinn has, unfortunately, avoided relevance.

This book is the best modern reference to the ecology of west coast salmon. Quinn makes good use of the advances of the last decade and shows good judgement in selecting topics to discuss. I'm a fisheries biologist writting a salmon book so I know the subject and the difficulty of writing in an engaging and informative manner. I recommend the book highly.
A caution: this book is not for beginners.

...Hawaii, like everywhere else has a problem with litter and with homeless people. It also has some of the most amazing and beautiful places you will ever find. Meg may be trying to discourage tourism with this review. Many do. Read this book and visit Hawaii; but please do your part to keep it beautiful and leave it cleaner.

A previous review gives the impression that campgrounds in Hawaii are overrun with homeless people, and therefore are an unattractive place to camp. I consider this review false and misleading. Although there are some homeless people in Hawaii, as in many places, and they do sometimes camp on the state's beaches, they rarely choose to use state or city campgrounds. The reasons for this are that written permits are required at all such campgrounds, all stays are limited to a maximum of 5 days, and state parks charge a fee of $5 per day - something homeless folks cannot afford. There are a few campgrounds where demonstrators (not necessarily homeless) have staged "sit ins," protesting such things as loss of Hawaiian sovereignty, lack of affordable housing, and other social issues. However, if such a situation occurs, a prospective camper will be made aware of it when he applies for a permit, and can choose to go elsewhere

Hawaii has many beautiful campgrounds, both on the ocean and in forested areas. They provide a wonderful, hassle-free outdoor experience for thousands of people every year. It would be a shame to avoid using them based on one inaccurate report. And Camping Hawaii is the perfect reference to insure a great camping vacation anywhere in the islands.

Meg Munro >

the author writes about how most camping in hawaii is beautiful pleasant and only at certain beaches has an unpleasant atmosphere

when in reality the truth about camping in Hawaii most campsites are loaded with homeless people who are bringing tons of junk to the campsites to live there after all it is easy to live for free in a place where it never gets cold

on Oahu camping is prohibited on wed and thurs to discourage this but its still a scary proposition to camp there.

Hawaii really needs to charge people on a per night use fee before camping in paradise will ever work.

overall this book is a SCAM on the unsuspecting camping tourist.

get a hotel package instead

A previous review gives the impression that campgrounds in Hawaii are overrun with homeless people, and therefore are an unattractive place to camp. I consider this review false and misleading. Although there are some homeless people in Hawaii, as in many places, and they do sometimes camp on the state's beaches, they rarely choose to use state or city campgrounds. The reasons for this are that written permits are required at all such campgrounds, all stays are limited to a maximum of 5 days, and state parks charge a fee of $5 per day - something homeless folks cannot afford. There are a few campgrounds where demonstrators (not necessarily homeless) have staged "sit ins," protesting such things as loss of Hawaiian sovereignty, lack of affordable housing, and other social issues. However, if such a situation occurs, a prospective camper will be made aware of it when he applies for a permit, and can choose to go elsewhere

Hawaii has many beautiful campgrounds, both on the ocean and in forested areas. They provide a wonderful, hassle-free outdoor experience for thousands of people every year. It would be a shame to avoid using them based on one inaccurate report. And Camping Hawaii is the perfect reference to insure a great camping vacation anywhere in the islands.

Meg Munro >

This guide, newly revised in 1997, is the most complete guide to camping on the islands. It includes sites not listed in other books and the author knows what campers want to know, like where the most level spot is to pitch your tent, something most guidebook authors would miss on their way to rate the next hotel.

Kudos to the marketing team at Amazon. Out of the blue they sent me an email notifying me of a sale on a text that I have needed for years. It was a great price so I bit. It turns out that the book is like new. I am a happy camper.

Contains excellent illustrations. The terminology and abbreviations may be confusing to some. Needs to be updated as some of the family nomenclature has been changed. I wouldn't recommend this for the average "what's this plant" person.

This key for PNW flora is the key used by Washington State University. Text is scientific in nature, and is not intended for pleasure reading. An excellent but complex key, it follows a standard dichotomous (two choices for each step) format. Although not intended for the layman, the text includes a good glossary and has helpful black and white illustrations. This book would not be a good introduction to dichotomous keying as it is designed for the serious botanist.

This botany key is used by University of Idaho's botany classes. It is still "the" book reached for by the professional in the work force. Afterall, what else is there that is so comprehensive? However, it is in need of revision due to changes in genus and specie names since its fifth printing of 1981.

EXCELLENT first-book to reach for when needing proper scientific terminology. Does include some common names in the descriptions. Extremely detailed and uses extensive abbreviations. I used this book in Univ. of Idaho botany classes in the 1980's and still use it in my daily job now (year 2000). However, it does indeed need to be updated for current terminology and names, including lower-case spellings.

Joseph Taylor's award-winning history of the Northwest salmon crisis is the best book to date on this important topic. No other study is as well researched or beautifully written as MAKING SALMON. Taylor, who teaches environmental and Western United States history at Iowa State University, traces the historical decline of salmon runs throughout the Pacific Northwest, focusing primarily on Oregon. His argument--that while many have claimed to speak for salmon, most have actually articulated their own needs instead--takes the current debate beyond the politics of blame. Understanding the complex social and environmental history of the "salmon crisis," he argues, is essential to thinking more clearly about the future of our region's fisheries. Most impressive is his critique of the role hatcheries have played in diminishing Northwest salmon runs. Science and technology, he concludes, have not always saved nature from human abuses. Abundant illustrations, detailed maps, and a rich bibliography round out the book. There are many titles that explore the decline of salmon in the Pacific Northwest. None address the issue as artfully and intelligently as MAKING SALMON. It is required reading for anyone who cares about the future of Northwest salmon or the people who depend upon them.

There's your text books on salmon, and there's required reading.
Of the 300-odd salmon titles, Making Salmon is one of those you
must read. Like First Fish, First People, Making Salmon is about
the human side of the fishery, its evolution and confabulation
as a fought-over resource. Absolutely fascinating history, you
realize right away that nobody has an absolute moral high ground
in the salmon debate. Everything is allied against its survival,
and yet magically, miraculously, the salmon continue to return.
Like Mountain in the Clouds, put Making Salmon on your booklist.

As long as man has lived in the Pacific Northwest he has exploited the salmon. In this thorough history of the travails of the pacific salmon, Joseph Taylor does not hesitate to mince words or point the finger of blame, and there is plenty of blame to go around. Native Americans, commercial fishermen, loggers, farmers, sport fishermen, politicians, the states, the feds, the hatcheries, and others, all share the responsibility for the decline of these great fish.

Although focusing on Oregon, MAKING SALMON is easily transferable anywhere Pacific salmon exist, from California to Alaska. Extremely well documented, (fully a third of the book is taken up with notes and other addenda) MAKING SALMON takes the reader step by step through the last two centuries of development in the Northwest and what that has meant to the salmon fishery there. Taylor paints an excellent history of failure and simplistic answers to a complex problem. What comes through, as most intriguing, is the resiliency of the salmon. They somehow manage to survive despite our best efforts to save them. Resiliency should not be confused with immortality however.

Not always an easy read, MAKING SALMON nonetheless remains essential to anyone wishing to better understand the plight of the Pacific salmon or who is interested in the fine detail of what happens when man and nature collide.

Making Salmon is the definitive work on the problems facing the salmon fishery of the Pacific Northwest. For as long as man has lived he has exploited the salmon. Joseph Taylor takes the reader on a journey through time as he leads us step by step through the decline of these once great fish. There is plenty of culpability to go around. Foresters, developers, commercial fisherman, native Americans, even sport fishermen all come in for their share of blame. Although focusing on Oregon, Taylor's work is easily transferable anywhere salmon swim, from Alaska to California.

Extremely well documented (fully a third of the book is taken up with notes and other addenda) Making Salmon is occasionally dry but never dull. What is most dramatic about this story is the resiliency of the salmon. Time and time again they manage to survive despite our best efforts to save them!

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of dams, hatcheries, consumption or conservation, you will find merit in this work. Making Salmon is a must read for anyone interested in the rivers and fisheries of the Northwest.

Mr. Taylor accurately identifies most of the causes of the salmon population crisis facing Washington state, Oregon, Alaska, and British Columbia. And he is dead on in his assessment of the impact of farm fisheries on salmon ecology.
The book grossly understates, however, the impact of logging on salmon habitat. Without canopy to cool streams, temperature-sensitive salmon simply cannot spawn successfully. And let's not overlook the role that clear-cutting plays in causing erosion, sedimentation, and flooding. It's true that salmon ecology can still suffer from genetic contamination by farm fish, point-source and non-point-source pollution, illegal overfishing on the high seas, legal overfishing in fresh water, damming, and overuse of water by irrigators and developers. But let's not downplay the egregious impact of logging.