Customer Reviews:
Highly Educated Wit.......2000-06-09
These are about the only ghost stories that I like to read, and I usually like to think that I am a lot smarter than that. But I am inclined to think that some people were a lot better educated in the days of Ambrose Bierce, or he wouldn't have written his poem about "poor Salmasius" in THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY's definition of the word logomachy, a concept which is like psychoanalysis in its quest for effectiveness. What is absolutely lacking today is any evidence for the truth of the final line of that poem, "For reading Milton's wit we perish too." (p. 295) In these days, it is far more likely that the TV news and entertainment will be competing for most of the attention devoted to whoever is being more fatal.
Bierce sees the darwinian world as it is........1999-11-04
These hard-hitting tales expose the human condition for what it is. They deserve much better than the incompetent criticism offered by Clifton Fadiman, whose preface is little more than a compilation of his own shortcomings.
Bierce is always splendid, but Fadiman is utterly midcult........1999-09-23
This is a splendid selection of Bierce's work,and includes The Devil's Dictionary, Tales of Soldiers and Civilians, Can Such Things Be?, and other works of importance. It does desire to be the definitive selection, however, and therefore omits some extremely interesting criticism,journalism, some proto-Dada plays and political satires. These omissions all confirm Clifton Fadiman's genteel bias, evident in his Introduction. He characterizes Bierce as merely a cynic--as though that were not a tenable position--but in fact Bierce was a satirist of the first order. A true "cynic" would not bother to satirize anything at all. By all means read the Introduction, but try to imagine, as I do, separate afterlives for Bierce and Fadiman, the ones they deserve. Bierce is having a roaring good time in Hell, while Fadiman is serving herbal teas in dull Eternity.
Average customer rating:
- The Entire Daredevil Mythos Pivots On This Excellent Arc
- An addictive story
- Bendis and Maleev excel.
- Daredevil at its grittiest, most entertaining
- My first DareDevil, and I liked it!
|
Daredevil Vol. 4: Underboss
Brian Michael Bendis
Manufacturer: Marvel Comics
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Literature | Children's Books | Subjects | Books | Action & Adventure | Children's Literature Guides | Classics by Age | Fairy Tales, Folk Tales & Myths | General | Humorous | Literary Criticism & Collections | Poetry | Popular Culture | Read-Aloud | Science Fiction, Fantasy, Mystery & Horror | Short Story Collections
General | Comics & Graphic Novels | Subjects | Books
General | Graphic Novels | Comics & Graphic Novels | Subjects | Books
Mystery | Graphic Novels | Comics & Graphic Novels | Subjects | Books
Superheroes | Graphic Novels | Comics & Graphic Novels | Subjects | Books
Marvel | Publishers | Comics & Graphic Novels | Subjects | Books
Daredevil | Characters | Comics & Graphic Novels | Subjects | Books
Contemporary | General | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:
-
Daredevil Vol. 5: Out
-
Daredevil Vol. 6: Lowlife
-
Daredevil Vol. 7: Hardcore
-
Daredevil Vol. 3: Wake Up
-
Daredevil Vol. 9: King of Hell's Kitchen
ASIN: 0785110240 |
Customer Reviews:
The Entire Daredevil Mythos Pivots On This Excellent Arc.......2006-02-28
This writeup contains spoilers about the events that happened in the couple of years of Daredevil prior to the issues (Vol. 2 #s 26-31) reprinted here, so if you haven't read the earlier issues and are planning to, you may want to skip this review; the first issues of Volume 2 are reprinted in the Trade Paperback "Guardian Devil".
The Kingpin knows that Matt Murdock and Daredevil are one and the same, and has for quite some time (okay, everybody probably knows that one; it goes back quite a ways). But it, although the Kingpin's organization and Daredevil are constantly at war with one another, it's been a long time since Kingpin attempted to strike out at the Matt Murdock side of the DD/Murdock double identity. Quite a complicated relationship has developed between these two enemies over the years, and the Kingpin seems to have reached the point where he feels it's some kind of matter of honor to strike only against the Daredevil aspect of his nemesis; this in fact goes along quite faithfully with his character: the Kingpin is a ruthless, murderous individual, but he has his own code of honor that makes sense to him, and he prides himself and not violating it even when it would make his life a lot easier.
Here's the hook for the story: the Kingpin's men also know, with a fair degree of certainty, that Murdock is Daredevil, but they know their employer's general feelings on the matter and play ignorant. Into this scenario comes a breash, ambitious young up-and-comer in the world of organized crime, a new lietenant to the Kingpin named Sammy Silke. When Silke, who's got a deep resentment of all the costumed characters involved in the organized crime business or involved in opposing it, learns of what the others know, he's appalled and launches a two-fold plan: destroy Murdock/Daredevil on his own; and try to convince others in the Kingpin's crime empire to join him in a coup attempt against the now-blind Wilson Fisk, the Kingpin.
"Underboss" may be the single best 6-issue run of Daredevil out there, and brings in some of the most shocking changes in the status qwuo to hit the Marvel Universe in the last few years. Truly outstanding.
An addictive story.......2005-09-02
I never really liked Daredevil but this changed when I read "Underboss" by Bendis. Bendis' talent lies in making super heroes like Daredevil seem realistic and as if he could exist in our world. Underboss is a story about Sammy Silke, a traditional mobster who is trying to become the new Kingpin. It is reminescent of the Godfather by Mario Puzo but there are no ripoffs of line (Unlike another book called Dark Victory published by Marvel's competitor.) Sammy wants to be the new Kingpin by taking out Daredevil the traditional way:using traditional hitmens form the mob. He doesn't want to hire colorful villians such as bullseyes or boomerang. Just take out Daredevil like the mob would do it. Does he succeed? Buy the book and find out.
Bendis and Maleev excel........2003-03-28
I was never a huge Daredevil fan, for no reason in particular. With the recent attention from the feature film, and my appreciation for the writing of Brian Michael Bendis, I enthusiastically dove right into "Underboss". Bendis is remarkable, bringing the reader right in with Daredevil/Matt Murdock's thoughts and feelings. Maleev's art is perfect for the portrayal of the darkness and seedier side of Hell's Kitchen. The city lives and breathes around us as we follow Matt through his trials and tribulations.
As much as I enjoy traditional superhero stories, I'm even more impressed with Bendis' intention of making sure the reader knows all about the man behind the mask. By making us aware of Dardevil's internal struggles and imperfections, I was identifying and empathizing with him all the way. After a certain point, some costumed crusaders can lose the reader by being too invinceable, too invulnerable, too perfect. Matt Murdock is a human being, whether he's in costume or not.
Bendis and Maleev also give us a well developed plot and a diverse cast of supporting characters. It's easy to envision "Underboss" as a gripping thriller of a movie, or a page turner of a novel. Congratulations to Bendis and Maleev for giving us such enjoyable reading. I look forward to reading the next collection.
Daredevil at its grittiest, most entertaining.......2003-02-20
Daredevil is a book at its best when the lead character is pitted against real danger and Brian Michael Bendis puts him there. In the Underboss storyarc, a criminal named Mr. Silke has stepped in on the Kingpin's territory and is attempting to root it out from the inside. Convincing his own henchmen that Wilson Fisk's reign needs to end, he manages a coup of epic proportions, with Matt Murdock caught in the midst of the whirlwind. The ramifications of this storyline are still rocking Daredevil's world now.
With Bendis penning the book and Alex Maleev depicting the dark world of Hell's Kitchen, Underboss is an amazing read. These two talents have established a unique style for the book that puts it among the Frank Miller, Kevin Smith and David Mazzuchelli runs of Daredevil perfection.
The trade paperback format does all of the art justice, compiling several issues of intensity into one amazing read.
My first DareDevil, and I liked it!.......2002-12-29
Being drawn by the name of Mr. Bendis, and having heard good things about the character lately, I decided to pick this baby up and be ahead of the movie rush. I was glad I did! Mr. Bendis's DareDevil rates right up there with his Ultimate Spider-Man, although in a different genre. I'll also be looking for Mr. Bendis's previous DareDevil book, and the follow-up to Underboss, "DareDevil: Out". And if Mr. Bendis produces anymore DareDevil trades, I'll get them as well. :D
Book Description
From the bestselling author of Brainchild and Mavericks of the Mind comes a spellbinding journey into madness, more hellishly horrifying than your worst nightmares, yet more deliciously satisfying than your wildest dreams, David Jay Brown's science-fantasy thriller promises to completely splatter your brain, and thoroughly melt your mind. Join us for an unprecedented global transformation, as twisted aliens from a distant star system unleash an unstoppable, incurable, hallucinogenic virus onto an unsuspecting, schizophrenic world --- offering its inhabitants a final chance for eternal salvation and everlasting life. All it takes is one little kiss...
Customer Reviews:
David Jay Brown is Exceptional!.......2003-04-10
Author David Jay Brown does it again - a wild and wicked trip into the secret places of our mind through a delicious fantasyland of science fiction. Or is it? One has the feeling DJB has been there himself. How else could he describe the alien experience in such exquisite detail? Brown has an extraordinary gift for communicating on a verbal, artistic and emotional level simultaneously. Me? I'll read anything Brown writes. You? Read this book only if you're a mental adventurer with a true appreciation for literary genius... and the willingness to jump gleefully over the edge.
phantasmagorical entertainment tour.......2000-05-10
Virus is a wonderful escapade through the amazing world of MultiplePersonalities as seen from the eyes of an alien - or is it the world of an alien as seen from the eyes of...Either way, who else could have dreamed up such a phantasmagorical trip through the dimensions of mind?
I'm impressed!
Average customer rating:
|
Virus: The Alien Strain
Manufacturer: New Falcon Publications
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
ASIN: B000HNPS7A |
Customer Reviews:
Interesting...but was Salman Rushdie also "mistaken"?.......2007-04-12
In Democracy in America, de Tocqueville once observed that there is not a serious American social issue that does not sooner or later resolve itself into a dispute before an American court of law.
In this way, America has mirrored western society itself which has been characterized not just by the spectre of trial but significant trial and error in relation to the pitting of the mighty Goliath of state against the supposedly puny David of reform. And so, Galileo in the dock was much of a piece with Joan of Arc in the dock, Socrates in the dock and of course, Jesus in the dock.
It therefore nothing short of surprising to see an author actually stepping forward to essentially argue the side of the inquisition. Essentially, Rowland's thesis is that ultimate objective truth is unknowable and therefore no one -- scientists included -- should have a monopoly on defining it. Rowland argues that it was "Galileo's Mistake" to claim for science the sole perogative of explaining the whys of creation.
And amazingly, science's scrupulousness is actually a first witness in support of Rowland's thesis. Thanks to the limiting discoveries of science like Darwin's natural selection (which says evolution has no ultimate purpose in mind and varies its results based on the environment), Einstein's relativity (which says that your now is dependent on your state of motion and proxmity to great mass), Heisenberg's uncertainty (which says we cannot know both speed and location of quantum particles) and Godel's Theorem (which says that even mathematics itself cannot be relied upon to disclose even all mathematical truths), we can indeed say that there is no objective reality.
And more troubling still is the solopsist dilemna. Descartes' "Cognito ergo sum" ("I think therefore I am") is not so much a statement as a guantlet to objectivism. Any belief in external phenomenon is just that...an act of faith. In this way, all observationalism is a choice of faiths. What evidence, after all, can really be accounted to describe reality. And in what mixtures.
So far so good for Rowland.
However, where Rowland falters is in equating the power of Galileo with then existant power of the church.
Galileo was not a head of state. He did not maintain a judiciary. Indeed, he had no other means at his disposal to enforce his viewpoints than through the strength of his eloquence.
To the contrary, the Office of the Inquisition was very well empowered to secure compliance with its edict. Just three decades before Galileo in fact, it had consigned Giordano Bruno to the flames for believing that the universe was infinite.
To restate it more simply, the church had and was using the power to enforce its monopoly on reality. As such, it was impeding the search.
As pointed out in his book, science has been often wrong in its suppositions about reality. However, where it is right is trying to base its faith judgements -- its whys -- on the strength of objectively provable evidence.
In this way, Rowland was genuinely unfair in his characterization of science as being essentially a faithless endeavor. Perhaps the most noted scientific atheist of recent memory, Carl Sagan, produced one masterwork after another litterally gushing over the beauty and enormity of the cosmos and our place in it.
To be sure, while scientists may have their book of nature, others can and should have the perogative of their books as well. Everyone can and should be free to approach reality on their terms consistent with their faith and in a manner which does not impinge on the free exercise of others conscience.
Despite Rowlands "mistakes" his book is nonetheless important food for thought. Based on his writing he deserves five stars, but at the end of the day he now maintains a position that even the Catholic Church itself does not defend (to its credit). So some points were deducted because after all being wrong does have its costs.
Infuriating.......2005-09-12
What an interesting title; what a dangerous book. Other reviewers have cited examples of Wade Rowland's deep misunderstanding of physics. Most remarkably, he claims quantum mechanics says that, "modern science has proved to its own satisfaction that it (modern science) is incapable of describing reality." To the contrary, quantum mechanics is the most descriptive theory ever put to test, and has never once been shown to be incorrect in its predictions. However, most popular invocations of quantum mechanics are, simply, nonsense; so, one might give the author a bit of slack. But does he deserve it? Not at all!
To say that "modern science insists, just as Galileo did, that reality consists of numbers and formulas" displays a profound ignorance of science as it is practiced. Far from being Pythagorean mystics, who believed the world is number, modern scientists think in terms of processes and mechanisms, which have behaviors that can be captured by descriptions such as rates of change and various conservations. Mathematics is simply a convenient notation for manipulating these concepts and for reasoning about their implications. Perhaps the author's number fixation comes from the continuing fascination with 20th Century philosophers of science who focused their attention mostly on physics, which is indeed more mathematical than other sciences. However, because physics is quite developed, one might better see the scientific method, with all of its messy workings, as it is applied in the biological sciences. One can also grasp there the importance of mechanistic descriptions (with or without mathematics).
Interestingly, the author does provide a powerful insight when he suggests that the rise of science corresponded to the loss of the world view of Providential Nature, which was replaced by an uncaring mechanical universe. He claims that in a nostalgic world order where everyone believed that God provided (a providential) Nature to support and maintain humankind, there was no need to dominate and control nature (despite all the evidence to the contrary provided by the recourse to magical talismans during times of stress like the great plagues). It is true that science seems to identify an indifferent, even ruthless, universe that has no benign intentions for humans, but this interpretation may overlook emergent research from evolutionary science. Far from the Malthusian winner take all interpretation of resource competition, it seems that communities of species may co-evolve in ways such that survival is more certain given various kinds of cooperation (behavioral, or even biochemical). From this perspective, we humans are here as a result of an intricate web of historical happenstance and random interactions, but those events were not due to unconditioned chance; that our ancestors were able to pass on their genes was conditioned by the survival and structure of co-evolving, supportive biological communities. We belong here in the midst of this web of life, as much as any blade of grass. There are even evolutionary arguments for human values including ethics and morals; this despite the author's belief that without adherence to divine strictures morals and ethics necessarily go by the wayside.
If less were at stake, the author's choice of such a stupid verbal sparing partner for the side of Science would be amusing. Rather it is infuriating, even for the fictional protagonist for Science who at one point complains, "You give me all the crummy lines, all the feeble arguments! I'm humiliated every time I open my mouth! What is more you make me out to be a total boor-" (O.K., I know this is a rather blunt reference to Galileo's own Simplicio.) To which the author responds, "Number one: I don't give you `crummy' arguments. I give you the very best arguments available to your side. If you want winning arguments, you're out of luck. You appeared in the wrong century. No serious thinker has bought into the empiricist, mechanistic point of view for at least a hundred years..." Indeed, but modern thought cuts both ways!
Here we come to the mistake of a simple reading of Galileo's Mistake!
Power; it is, after all, always about who gets to define truth. Foucault has opened our eyes to this struggle, and even if we don't like it, we are compelled to accept that the center will not hold; that is to say, there is no way to demonstrate an unassailable truth because it always comes down to relying on some fundamental faith, which can always, equally, be deconstructed. So, as a mechanist with a smattering of interest in postmodernism, I must agree that Galileo did mistakenly believe there was a single truth and that he had a path to it; and futher I acknowledge the author's right to reason from his own anti-science prejudges. However, it does seem an abuse of power, on his part, to deconstruct Science, while silently letting the juxtaposed arguments of revealed, and received religious interpretations escape the scathing fire of modern deconstruction, and thereby appear to be the better argument.
I wish this book had been bigger and thicker; it would have made a useful doorstop.
Interesting but flawed.......2005-09-05
The book is entertainingly written, but what is chilling is that the author clearly advocates the position that theologians should be allowed to enforce their views of the world on everyone else. Rowland supports this position by making scientific statements that are, at best, misconceptions. What disturbs me is that he is not naive but disingenuous.
For example, Rowland makes much of the fact that Galileo was never under any serious threat of torture by the Inquisition - he argues that the threat was purely formal. He then constructs elaborate arguments based on Galileo's recantation of the Copernican hypothesis. However, he fails to emphasize that if Galileo had persisted in his position and refused to recant, he would have been convicted of heresy, and if he failed to abjure his "crimes", he would have been "handed over to the civil authorities to be burned, and in burning, purified." (p. 244) Are we supposed to believe that this eventual outcome of adherence to the Copernican hypothesis did not impact Galileo's conduct during the inquisitorial process? Apparently, being burned alive does not constitute torture if one is thus purified.
I list only a few examples of the author's poor science. He cites Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field as "a cornerstone of modern quantum physics". In fact, Maxwell's equations were a triumph of nineteenth century classical physics, and one of the most revolutionary aspects of Planck's quantum hypothesis was that it challenged a theory that was brilliantly successful in so many ways. Rowland's explanation of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is terribly distorted - no one with a reasonable grasp of science would speak of quanta as "thickenings or concentrations in a universal electromagnetic force field". It would have been far more true, and probably equally interesting, to note that almost no physicist would claim to understand quantum mechanics in the common everyday sense of the word understand. Finally his description of the Uncertainty Principle regurgitates the standard vulgar misconceptions. The Uncertainty Principle places very precise limitations on the accuracy with which complemantary physical quantities can be known. The uncertainty magnitudes are so small that they are only detectable when one is making measurements at atomic dimensions. The uncertainty in the position of a strand of DNA, for example, is negligible even when compared to the tiny size of DNA. It is a real stretch to go from a tiny fundamental "fuzziness" in the precision of our knowlege to the statement that science cannot know reality.
The book attacks the position that science has a monopoly on truth. I have no problem with this. However, it appears that the author supports the position that theologians can claim such a monopoly, and have the right to use force to back up this claim. Even if theologians of all faiths could be made to agree on a single set of truths, the history of the world is replete with examples of the tragedies that ensue when this position is taken to its logical conclusion. Readers interested in a more honest exposition of the limits of scientific understanding could skim Max Born's classic "Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance" - one can skip the mathematics and focus on the philosophy.
Ignorance isn't bliss; it's annoyance.......2005-06-25
This book is a cornucopia of misinformation about science, philosophy of science, Galileo, and the church. For example, having spared himself the trouble of reading any of the best recent literature on the subject, Rowland bases his argument on the assumption that an inaccurately reported version of old fashioned pragmatism, along with a little bit of what's most obsolete in the works of Thomas Kuhn is the very last word in theory of knowledge. Rowland's discussion of scientific method exhibits something close to total ignorance of experimental science. (If you'd like to know something about this, spend the money you would have wasted on Rowland on Alan Franklin's 'The Neglect of Experiment' or Peter Galison's 'How Experiments End' And if you're interested in Galileo, his 'Starry Messenger" is a delightful book and a good place to start.) When I read the bibliography it was no surprise to find that Rowland doesn't know about Pierre Duhem, the most sophisticated and knowledgeable advocate of the view of science Rowland favors. Rowland's tedious exposition of Aristotle is no better than his description of scientific practice. Add to all of this misinformation a patronizing, pompous prose style and you have a truly miserable book.
Poor Galileo on trial, again!.......2005-04-27
In his book W. Rowland has chosen to make a case agaist those modern evils that have partly been brought about by the scientific revolution by putting the blame on Galileo!
The book is not without merit. When the author writes, for instance, that in our present mathematically limited perception of reality we have come to the naïve notion that the past was bad, the present is better but the future must be best, his arguments stike a chord. However, by painting Galileo as the rather cowardly villan of the piece he is more than a little dishonest himself, as certain of his biased arguments show. Moreover, the more he tries to denigrate Galileo, the more the latter emerges as a tragic figure, facing what had by the seventeenth century become the awsome terrifying authority of a haughty intolerant Church institution. Whatever the undoubted splendour and spirituality of the Roman Catholic Church at the time, the Inquisition was no laughing matter, as Galileo and his contemporaries knew only too well.
All the same, I'm glad I read this interesting thought-provoking book.
A reader
Book Description
This digital document is an article from First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, published by Institute on Religion and Public Life on January 1, 2004. The length of the article is 2388 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Citation Details
Title: From Myth to history and back.(Galileo In Rome: The Rise And Fall Of A Troublesome Genius)(Galileo's Mistake: A New Look At The Epic Confrontation Between Galileo And The Church)(Book Review)
Author: Stephen M. Barr
Publication:
First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life (Refereed)
Date: January 1, 2004
Publisher: Institute on Religion and Public Life
Issue: 139
Page: 53(5)
Article Type: Book Review
Distributed by Thomson Gale
Books:
- The Complete Ghost Stories of Charles Dickens
- The Devil and Miss Prym: A Novel of Temptation
- The Empire City: A Novel of New York City
- The Good Negress
- The Half-Empty Heart: A Supportive Guide to Breaking Free from Chronic Discontent
- The Hill of the Ravens
- The Ice Curtain
- The Jezebel Letters: Religion And Politics In Ninth-century Israel
- The Man Who Laughs
- The Ordinary Seaman
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Video Over IP: A Practical Guide to Technology and Applications
- Rattlesnake Crossing
- In for a Penny, in for a Pound: The Adventures & Misadventures of a Wireless Operator in Bomber
- History: Fiction or Science
- Multiplication Unplugged
- The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President's Life After the White House
- Pacific: An Undersea Journey
- How Hard Are You Knocking
- Jobs in Russia and the Newly Independent States
- Weiss Ratings' Guide to Brokerage Firms: A Quarterly Compilation of Ratings and Analyses Covering th
The Complete Short Stories of Ambrose Bierce
The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary
Ghost and Horror Stories of Ambrose Bierce
The Vintage Mencken
The Devil's Dictionary
