Deleuze and Horror Film

Book Description

This book argues that dominant psychoanalytic approaches to horror films neglect the aesthetics of horror. Yet cinematic devices such as mise en scène, editing, and sound, are central to the viewer's visceral fear and arousal. Using Deleuze's work on art and film, Anna Powell argues that film viewing is a form of "altered consciousness" and the experience of viewing horror film an "embodied event."

The book begins with a critical introduction to the key terms in Deleuzian philosophy and aesthetics. These include: subjectivity/becoming, the body without organs, molecularity, time/duration, affect, movement/rhythm, space, anomaly, and schizoanalysis.

Themes such as insanity, sensory response to film, the subject/object, fractured time, the body, and cinematography are explored in horror films such as Jacob's Ladder, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Psycho, Silence of the Lambs, The Fly, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Alien Resurrection, The Others, The Shining, Interview with the Vampire, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and Nosferatu.

Customer Reviews:

Deleuze meets the horror genre: SPOOKY!.......2005-12-04

A fascinating, rigorous yet personal, application of Deleuzian concepts to the neglected field of horror studies. This is a ripe subject, as Deleuze is all about strange metamorphosis and viseral impact. Powell makes us look at both Deleuze and visceral/horror cinema in a new way. Intruginigly, the book engages BOTH Deleuze's cinema books AND his collaborations with Guattari in the Capitalism and Schizophrenia series, with much success.
This book is a beautiful tome and well worth it's steep sticker price. You will NOT find this rare volume in any computer databases.

Average customer rating:

30 Reasons you Should not buy this book

A music history book is more worth your time...

Fun, informative, practical guide for the absolute beginner

A good overview and starting point

One Man's Opinions - with a wealth of knowledge thrown in

Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1000 Greatest
Phil G. Goulding
Manufacturer: Fawcett
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Classical | Musical Genres | Music | Entertainment | Subjects | Books
General | Music | Entertainment | Subjects | Books
Instruction & Study | Theory, Composition & Performance | Music | Entertainment | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

The Vintage Guide to Classical Music

Classical Music 101: A Complete Guide to Learning and Loving Classical Music

The NPR Guide to Building a Classical CD Collection : The 350 Essential Works

Ticket to the Opera: Discovering and Exploring 100 Famous Works, History, Lore, and Singers, with Recommended Recordings

The NPR Classical Music Companion: An Essential Guide for Enlightened Listening

ASIN: 0449903567
Release Date: 1992-11-10

Amazon.com

This is a fun, approachable guide to classical music that uses a light touch, fun facts and humorous anecdotes to help the neophyte make sense of classical music and its origins.

Book Description

MAKE A SOUND INVESTMENT IN CLASSICAL MUSIC
Who are the ten most important classical composers? Who in the world was Palestrina? Why did Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" cause a riot? Which five of each important composer's works should you buy? What is a concerto and how does it differ from a sonata?
Maybe you don't know the answers to these questions; author Phil Goulding certainly didn't. When Goulding first tried to learn about classical music, he found himself buried in an avalanche of technical terms and complicated jargon--so he decided to write the book he couldn't find.
The result is a complete classical music education in one volume. Comprehensive, discriminating, and delightfully irreverent, Classical Music provides such essential information as:
* Rankings of the top 50 composers (Bach is #1. Borodin is #50)
* A detailed and anecdotal look at each composer's life and work
* The five primary works of each composer and specific recommended CDs for each.
* Further great works of each composer--if you really like him
* Concise explanations of musical terminology, forms, and periods
* A guide to the parts and history of the symphony orchestra
"This book uses every conceivable gimmick to immerse readers in the richness of classical music: lists, rankings, sidebars devoted to lively anecdotes, and catchy leads."
--The Washington Post
"One terrific music appreciation book...The information is surprisingly detailed but concisely presented. Goulding's writing style is breezy yet mature....[He] has raised music appreciation from a racket to a service."
--The Arizona Daily Star

From the Trade Paperback edition.

Customer Reviews:

30 Reasons you Should not buy this book.......2007-08-03

30 reasons you should not buy this book:

30. Lists are subjective and probably a waste of time, which is probably why you should not read mine any further but if you do, I hope I help you

29. Where is Ockeghem? Ockeghem is a very important Renaissance composer and follower of the also absent Dufay. I guess this author did not put much merit into the Renaissance and pre-Renaissance. I do.

28. Three composers from the Russian nationalist school is too much. Mussorgsky is the most substantial composer of the "Mighty Five" which make up the Russian Nationalist school...Rimsky Korsakov and Borodin are extraneous with regards to this list.

27. Carl Nielsen was in the ranking I think. I don't remember which number, but if I'm correct, he does not need to be here. He is a very special symphonist, but he wouldn't crack the top 50 in my view.

26. Hindemith is an odd choice to include considering the lack of far greater 20th Century composers such as Schoenberg, Copland and Rachmaninov.

25. The ranking of Janacek and Smetana should be reversed, because Janacek who I believe is number 49 in the book accomplished more in almost every genre than the earlier Czech composer.

24. I would not put Dvorak at 12 personally. His music is fantastic, but I feel with Brahms being 6 (and Brahms is a far greater composer) that Dvorak should be a little further back.

23. Where is Dufay? Dufay is a very import Renaissance composer who developed isorhythm (melodies with asymetrical rhythmic values happening simultaneously). A huge omission.

22. Gluck should be in the top 20. As an innovator Gluck would be in the top 10, but his presence in the concert hall today would bring him down to the top 20 instead. He is possibly the greatest opera composer before Mozart AND a huge influence on Mozart.

21. Saint-Saens is too high. Saint-Saens is a great composer yes, but he's ranked practically next to other French composers who are certainly much greater: Berlioz and Debussy.

20. Telemann was considered the greatest in his own day, but there is no need for him to be listed in the top 50 greatest composers. Certainly Purcell is a Baroque composer whose music has more importance today. Purcell was not included.

19. Why is there a comparison between Bruckner and Rachmaninov? The book includes Bruckner and states something in the nature that there was a choice between Bruckner and Rachmaninov and he chose Bruckner. I can't relate these composers since they never met, weren't from the same time, country and sound nothing alike! They should both be included.

18. I feel it is important to acknowledge Beethoven as music's greatest composer, more than Bach (who was placed at number 1) or Mozart (who was placed at number 2). It's really splitting hairs when you get to a level of greatness like that, but putting all personal preferences aside, it is true that Beethoven did the most to change and move music to new ground. For that he is the most substantial.

17. Tchaikovsky in the top 10? For most newcomers the name Tchaikovsky is even more familiar than Bach. However, Tchaikovsky should not be considered a candidate for the top ten GREATEST composers of music history. He is certainly great, and deserves to be in the book, but the top 10 should be reserved for the strongest and most consistent composers. I love Tchaikovsky's music immensely, but some of it can be very beautiful sounds lacking substance.

16. Sibelius is too far back. Sibelius is the greatest composer of the Nationalist movement. I would rank him slightly behind Mahler in terms of sheer greatness. He is probably the second greatest symphonist of the 20th Century, edging out Shostakovich by slim margin in that department.

15. Monteverdi not in the top 10? Monteverdi is THE transitional composer between the Renaissance and the Baroque. He is also the most significant composer of Madrigals in the history of the form. Most importantly he is credited with composing the first surviving great opera. Take Tchaikovsky out of the top 10 and put in Monteverdi.

14. America where are you? There should be at least one American composer in this book. Maybe America is a late bloomer, but certainly there have been greater American composers than Johann Strauss or Donizetti. I would include Copland or Ives, probably Copland.

13. Donizetti? Why is he here. Rossini is the most important Bel Canto composer. Donizetti did write a string of great operas, but he wrote more not so great ones and in most quarters Bellini (a short lived contemporary) is considered far superior. Bellini is not listed and probably does not need to be.

12. Is Vaughan Williams the greatest composer England had to offer? He's the only one listed in this book. Certainly, Vaughan Williams is a fantastic composer, but England produced composers of much greater interest: Purcell, Elgar, Byrd and probably Britten to name a few. Elgar should surely be included in this book (which focuses its attention on the Romantics), I believe Purcell would have been a nice edition too. Vaughan Williams did not have to be included.

11. Stravinsky is considered the most important musical figure of the 20th Century. Particularly because of his three ballets composed early in the Century. I feel it is unreasonable to not include him in the top ten. Many would rank him above Schumann or Handel, and certainly Tchaikovsky.

10. Does this author really know anything about Mahler? First of all Mahler should probably be closer to the top than 17. His symphonies have gained almost as much respect as Beethoven's and in some ways express the pinacle of orchestral writing more than any other works. The thing which concerned me was the author's recommendations of Mahler's works and the way in which he described them. I recall him saying the 1st symphony was beloved for it's understanding of form and structure. My comment on that is that while the 1st may be beloved, its use of symphonic form is extremely loose, and this is not Mahler at his structural best. He also recommended the Song of the Earth, which I agree with entirely. I also agree with the 4th as a recommendation. But what is surprising is the fact that instead of emphasizing Mahler's symphonic writing, the author equally emphasizes his Orchestral song writing...which is great, but hardly an essential part of Mahler's output. The 2nd Symphony and the 9th Symphony should have been recommended in place of Das Knaben Wunderhorn and the Kindertoten Lieder.

9. Not a single French composer in the top 20. Being that France has some of the most innovative composers to its credit (Debussy, Berlioz, Machaut, Rameau) I don't see how it's possible to not include a single French composer in the top 20. I would personally include Debussy in the top 10. His harmonic innovations are only rivaled by Wagner's.

8. Mendelssohn at number 11? This was a big surprise to me. Mendelssohn may be one of the most well known figures in classical music, and some of his melodies rank with Beethoven's and Wagner's with regards to popularity, BUT in terms of influence and sheer greatness, Mendelssohn does not deserve to be in the top 20, probably not even top 30. His symphonies are performed often, but not extremely well regarded, his violin concerto is one of the most beloved, but his piano concerti are almost unknown, his early chamber music ranks with the best of its time until it was outdone by Schubert and Beethoven a few years later. The Midsummer Night's Dream is good (well the overture is) overall, I think Mendelssohn was put at number 11 because the inexperienced author began writing with previous knowledge of this composer's music.

7. How did Johann Strauss make this list? Yes his melodies are well known, but so are Stephen Foster's. Johann Strauss would not make a top 200 greatest composers list written by an experienced listener.

6. Bartok is misplaced. I don't recall which number Bartok was placed as I refused to buy the book, but I recalled him being in the high 30s. Bartok is without question, a more significant composer than half the people who made the top 30...Bartok may not be as well known, but is a more serious composer than Mendelssohn, Puccini, even Richard Strauss.

5. Machaut? Where is Machaut. The French Medieval composer is often considered the greatest genius of the 14th Century alongside Chaucer. Machaut also established the Mass Proper which is the longest surviving form in music!

4. Josquin is not even mentioned!!! In fact Palestrina is the only pre-baroque composer who is ranked. Does this mean the author thinks that music was not great prior to the 17th Century? Certainly for a well-rounded read and collection, one has to acknowledge the greatness of composers prior to Palestrina. Josquin was the most significant composer from the Renaissance prior to Palestrina. In some quarters he is considered more important than the later composer for polyphonic his innovations.

3. Schoenberg is not in this book. His music is certainly not for the beginner, but the absense of his name hurts this book's credibility. Schoenberg is probably the third if not fourth most significant composer from the last Century. I would expect his name to appear in a top 30 of any list ranking composers' greatness!

2. Borodin was a great Russian composer, but to include him and not Rachmaninov is incredible, considering that Borodin wrote very little (and his greatest work Prince Igor) was not even finished by him. Rachmaninov on the other hand has probably shone to be Russia's second most popular composer after Tchaikovsky. While not as great in terms of innovation as other Russian composers, the omission of his name from this book is incredible. He easily outshines more than 10 composers listed.

1. The book is written by someone who admits to having extremely limited knowledge and experience with Classical Music.

I believe a more accurate top 50 would read:

50. Antonio Vivaldi
49. William Byrd
48. Johannes Ockeghem
47. Bedrich Smetana
46. Aaron Copland
45. Henry Purcell
44. Edvard Grieg
43. Gioachino Rossini
42. Gabriel Faure
41. Carl Maria von Weber
40. Camille Saint-Saens
39. Leos Janacek
38. Modest Mussorgsky
37. Anton Bruckner
36. Giaccomo Puccini
35. Sergey Rachmaninov
34. Edward Elgar
33. Maurice Ravel
32. Felix Mendelssohn
31. Richard Strauss
30. Sergey Prokofiev
29. Arnold Schoenberg
28. Guillaume Dufay
27. Antonin Dvorak
26. Jean-Philippe Rameau
25. Fryderyk Chopin
24. Hector Berlioz
23. Franz Liszt
22. Pytor Il'yich Tchaikovsky
21. Christoph Willibald Gluck
20. Dmitri Shostakovich
19. Giuseppe Verdi
18. Jean Sibelius
17. Bela Bartok
16. Georg Frideric Handel
15. Gustav Mahler
14. Robert Schumann
13. Guilame de Machaut
12. Josquin desprez
11. Johannes Brahms
10. Claude Debussy
9. Franz Schubert
8. Claudio Monteverdi
7. Igor Stravinsky
6. Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
5. Franz Joseph Haydn
4. Richard Wagner
3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
2. Johann Sebastian Bach
1. Ludwig van Beethoven

Again this is all only my opinion.

Dave

A music history book is more worth your time..........2007-07-21

To sum it up and repeat what others have already said, Goulding's work here is essentially like every music appreciation textbook I've ever read (perhaps slightly less dry) without the musical analyzation or description, and without the introductory cd sampler. It's fine but hardly ideal for classical music novices who know little to nothing going in, and for those who get enthused about reading page upon page of of lists and categorzized works without much of an idea what any of it ultimately sounds like.

Not to mention I find his list stifling, assertations like "Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven CANNOT be replaced in the top 3" laughable, and the obvious bias against post-WWII art music disappointing. Like most intro to classical music books, the author suggests keeping an open mind about 20th century music on the one hand to prevent being accused of a bias, but on the other hand the undertones in the writing suggest anything past the mid-point of the 20th century is no fun to listen to and too bizarre to be taken seriously. Which is an opinion, sure, but not one that should be forced upon novices who deserve the right to make up their own minds without any pre-concieved notions of what kind of classical music is worth their time. I mean, maybe I am the only one who thinks it, but Goulding's inclusion of someone like Bizet on the list for ONE opera and his omission of the likes of Schoenberg, Cage, Xenakis, Varese, Reich, Stockhausen and others was a horrible mistake and a grave underestimation of these composer's influence on the music and musicians who came after.

Fun, informative, practical guide for the absolute beginner.......2007-05-03

I echo pretty much all the good things said in the positive reviews. Especially Carl Nelson's review, I almost want to repeat that word for word. Note I'm not familiar with some of the other books with a similar purpose, like The NPR Guide or Swafford's Vintage Guide or The Rough Guide or Classical for Dummies or Dubal's Essential Canon, so I don't know if they're better. But I like this book.

How Goulding compiled his lists is interesting. He discusses this in early chapters. Basically he was facing retirement after a challenging and accomplished career, and wanted to undertake a project. Rather than take up golf, he decided to pursue his interest in "culture" and become educated in classical music. But it was difficult to figure out where to start. Since the book he wanted didn't exist, he set about to create it. He used playlists of classical music stations, and catalogs of classical recordings (and perhaps other sources), to determine who the most-played and most-recorded composers were, and which of their works were the most-loved. This method allowed him to produce a "ranking": almost exactly the way you would rank college basketball teams! It's a completely outside-in approach, and it's very appealing. He doesn't begin with a preconceived idea of who SHOULD be where: he lets broad listening patterns tell him who's where. This reduces the snootiness factor of the book to about zero. It's an incredibly practical approach to what is essentially an impossible task.

Of course that was just the starting point for his musical education. He clearly did a lot more research: there is a ton of biographical info on the composers, and anecdotes etc etc in the book; also sections on the instruments and the various genres and so forth. But the heart of the book is the listing (ranking) of composers and the selection of their key works.

So: who is this book NOT for?

Well, if you're already deeply immersed in the world of "permanent music", if you're a performer or music student or musicologist or reviewer or whatever, if you grew up with your parents playing opera on the stereo and you have some favorite conductors and violinists etc, this book will just annoy you. The forced ranking system will oppress you, and you'll miss the humor in Goulding's absolutism over his arbitrary divisions. Goulding uses little catch phrases to help "place" a composer, phrases which might be left over from his first learning efforts; and the way those catch phrases over-simplify will just drive you out of your mind. Frankly, you'll hate the book.

The book is for the neophyte who doesn't know much about classical music but would like to learn and start listening. It's designed to address the most basic questions. Where do you start? Who is important? What works of theirs should you look at first? And it does a very nice job of orientation.

I would completely ignore the recommended recordings. First, the book is over a decade old to begin with, so some of those recordings may not be available. More importantly, the book is focused on getting you acquainted with the basic repertoire, so it steers very middle-of-the-road in terms of performance and interpretation. It really has nothing to say about excellence in performance or recording. I would rely instead on the Penguin Guide. The two works really complement each other. This one is a "top down" approach, which places composers in their context and gives you a clue who to start with. The Penguin Guide is a "bottom up" approach, which discusses the merits of individual recordings and points out wonderful performances. Having two such completely opposite approaches to classical music is very helpful. The Penguin Guide is also a nice antidote to the notion of "rankings".
(Of course a trip to the local library to see check out the CDs they have is cheap & easy.)

Flaws?

The reviewers who point out that the 20th Century composers don't get enough coverage are completely right. This book will telescope your view a little, focusing almost completely on the 18th-19th centuries while leaving you a little high and dry when it comes to Modern music and Medieval/Renaissance music. It will also leave you with no information about great recitals and concerts etc (but here the Penguin Guide helps out a lot). There is very little about what to listen for in a given work, almost nothing on the author's personal responses to the works. That's a big lack: you'd like to know whether a recommended work sounds haunting or happy, or what makes it important & special. Of course there will always be information like that in the liner notes of whatever CDs you buy: but if you're going off of the author's recommendations, it would be nice to have a sense of what he thinks.

I also think the book might be something you'd grow out of. After you've hit Goulding's top 5 or 10 composers or so, you will have started to develop your own tastes and preferences: you'll have an idea what else you want to listen to, and may not need to plow thru the rest of his list. Of course, that's part of the point of an introductory work, to get you to an "intermediate" stage where you don't need the introduction anymore, so maybe that's not a criticism at all. I also find that even if I go a year or so without looking at the book, sometimes I'll have a question that will take me back to it ("Hmm, I wonder which Prokofiev I should check out?").

Where do you go after this book? Well, most obviously to the music itself! (Let The Penguin Guide help with that.) In terms of books, Swafford's Vintage Guide looks like an interesting next step (I haven't read it). There are also great books of music anecdotes, lives of the great composers, etc. And I have an unconventional recommendation as well: one terrific antidote to the idea of "best" works and "great recordings" etc is the work of writer Norman Lebrecht. Check out for example his books The Maestro Myth and Who Killed Classical Music. Fascinating.

But this book will definitely get you started, so you can go to the music.

A good overview and starting point.......2006-12-22

Some years ago Phil Goulding decided he would get into classical music. He found this a difficult and intimidating process: record store assistants were more ready to discuss the merits of different conductors than dealing with his naive request for "the best in classical music." And doing it properly requires some arcane knowledge: Who came first, Mozart or Beethoven? What's the difference between a sonata and a concerto? And just what is "the best in classical music," anyway?

Some answers are straightforward (Mozart came before Beethoven, though they did overlap; a sonata features one or a few instruments on their own while a concerto accompanies them with an orchestra) and some are not. For example, there is no simple answer to what is the best in classical music. Goulding's answer consists of selecting the 50 greatest composers and 20, 10, and 5 of their best and most representative works. He complicates this by listing the composers in descending order of greatness. That he categorizes them as Immortals, Demigods, Composers of Genius, and Artists of a High Order and insists that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the three and only three Immortals and that dropping the Demigods (numbers 4 through 10) down to Artists of a High Order (numbers 21 through 50) is very bad form shows the somewhat tongue-in-cheek tone he maintains, respectful though never dry or commanding. Another indication is his shorthand reference to each composer: Chopin is "Mr. Piano", Mussogsky is "Most Nationalistic and Most Daring Russian Nationalist."

Each composer's section provides a brief biography and description: what he is known for, what he is best at, and what his fellow composers thought of him. Each concludes with the aforemention 5, 10, and 20, referred to respectively as the "Starter Kit", "A Top Ten", and "The Master Collection."

Preceding this core of the book are chapters placing the composers in their time and place and mentioning those who didn't quite make the list, and discussing some of the key concepts of music: rhythm, melody, texture, and so on.

The final section maps the "Starter Kits" to specific recordings. As this book came out in 1992, this is somewhat dated but still helpful. A great recording never becomes less than great even though new rivals may appear.

One may argue with this approach. Restricting the best of the best to five works from each composer may be too generous to the lesser ones on the list while discarding worthy entries from the greater. On the other hand, it is likely a better way of producing a representative selection throughout the history and geography of classical music than a smaller number of composers. I found it interesting to learn of composers like Palestrina, Bruckner, Hindemith, and Rameau that a review more focused on the best of the best might have overlooked.

I found this a fascinating read on the whole and an excellent "bathroom book" (one that can be read in bits at a time). Though I got it from the library, I am inclined to buy a copy. I am currently slightly ahead of where Goulding was in his early stages, being somewhat familiar with classical music. However, that's largely limited to my favorites: Beethoven's symphonies, the best of Bach, and a few other works of note, branching out slowly as I hear something I like on the local classical music station. This would provide an excellent guide to expanding my horizons.

P.S. Matthew Cline, below, makes some worthy points but grossly misinterprets the author in some areas. This list of top 50 does not represent his personal preference but his estimation of the opinions of experts. Cline says he has issues with anyone who would prefer Telemann to Mussorgsky or Rachmaninov. If he'd actually read Goulding carefully, he would note that in the Telemann section he says, "One Telemann concerto grosso a month just about does it for me. For readers who have the same reaction to Telemann, my advice is to strike him from the list and substitute Sergei Rachmaninoff." So Goulding is much closer to Cline's opinion than Cline gives him credit for.

One Man's Opinions - with a wealth of knowledge thrown in.......2006-12-14

One of the things I noticed when reading the reviews for this book is that there doesn't seem to be any middle ground in terms of opinion here. People either find it entertaining and educational, or they think Phil Goulding is a short-sighted, pompous jerk who has a lot of nerve trying to shoehorn these men of genius into a stupid list. But, to quote Mr. Goulding himself from the book's introduction, "the total population of highly regarded ones [composers] was considerably larger than I had thought. My first goal was to whittle down that number to a reasonable size. Ten was too small, one hundred too large. I settled on fifty." Sounds pretty reasonable to me, and a fair number for a book aimed at neophytes.

In any event, I first read this book about ten years ago, when I was beginning to put together a classical music collection. His book was the first on the subject I ran across, so I took a risk and bought it. Honestly, it was a worthwhile purchase. It was an entertaining read and definitely broadened my knowledge of the genre.

One of the things I like most about it is that Mr. Goulding, being a journalist and admittedly having no musical background, comes at the subject with an outsider's perspective. He avoids using jargon, assumes the reader knows very little about the topic, and keeps things entertaining. He provides brief biographies of each composer, discusses their historical/musical contexts, and includes illuminating tidbits about his subjects from scholars -- and frequently from other composers as well. Additionally, he provides three musical menus for each composer: a five piece "starter kit", a "top ten", and a 25 piece "master collection." The starter kits are usually an artist's most prominent works, and the other two lists are useful if one chooses to delve more into that particular composer's catalogue. It's obvious that a great deal of research went into this, and I think the results turned out nicely.

Looking back, are there deficiencies? Of course. He has a strong bias for his three favorite composers (Bach/Mozart/Beethoven), an obvious disdain for Wagner, and skips over Thomas Tallis (and several others) entirely. But these shortcomings don't invalidate the book. It's still an entertaining read, and a strong start for anyone wanting to broaden their knowledge of classical music. This book is not the be-all and end-all of classical music scholarship, nor did Goulding mean it to be. It's a first step, and as such, serves its purpose admirably. If you're a beginner, feel free to start here. Where you go after you finish is entirely up to you!

Classical Music The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1000 Greatest Works

Average customer rating:

Classical Music The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1000 Greatest Works
Phil G. Goulding
Manufacturer: Fawcett
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: B000MVVLR8

Book Description

In gambling circles, fleecing suckers is a time-honored tradition and in Hunting Fish, Jay Greenspan builds on this history of con-manship by offering a unique narrative that chronicles his journey in search of the worst poker players America has to offer, wherever they may be. Armed with a small bankroll, he sets out across the country in search of pokers best games and worst players. Heading west from New York he plays in the tiny border towns of Texas and Arizona, where frontier law and guns still rule the day, to places like Tunica, Mississippi, the glamour of Las Vegas and finally Los Angeles where he matches wits with the eliteand where some of the biggest fish reside. The author has one simple goal in mind: Build a large enough bankroll to play in a Commerce Casino game where the players are skilled and fearsome and thousands are lost in a single hand. Hell need to build a $20,000 bankroll on his trip to play. Thats a lot of fish to fleece.

Customer Reviews:

entertaining, insightful read.......2006-11-04

This book is a great read, compelling from start - what's more compelling than reading about a poker player getting robbed, literally, of his bank roll a week before setting out on a cross-country poker trip? - to satisfying finish. The hand descriptions are precise and vivid, but it's Greenspan's excellent description of the color around the game - the various tablemates, the tedium of long sessions - and, most impressively, his thoughtful chronicling of his internal journey that the great gift of this book. A wonderful yarn, and a thought-provoking read for anyone who's ever considered going pro.

Good Story.......2006-11-04

This is not a how to book. It is a nice story about the author traveling the country trying to find soft poker games. Some of it is a bit tedious, but overall a good read. I like the end where he decides that a normal life is preferable to the poker life. Worth reading.

Marginal. .......2006-11-03

This is another of the poker books now available reflecting the nationwide poker boom (which hopefully isn't in the past). Greenspan tells us his story of going on a trip across America looking for profits against weak players. Much of the play described on these pages is very entertaining; although, I wonder about the author's playing style. Some of the plays he makes are totally batty despite their working out in the tale; although, the description of the poker action is very believable and easy to follow. His fellow semi-pros will readily identify with the ups and downs. Further, I liked that he let us know that sometimes fish are very bad for the bankroll. Their bizarre moves can eat you alive--at least in the short-term.

That being said, I can give Hunting Fish no more than three stars. This is wholly due to the narrator's refusal to treat his readers with respect. He is your classic "think I'm a liberal anti-liberal." He's a leftist progressive and can't wait to tell us all about his political views--only none of us bought the book to be subjected to his pretension and skewed opinions. Greenspan also appears to have never considered that many of his peers are libertarians who realize the futility of the nanny state and understand that government is more shell game than charity. Perhaps Greenspan has never listened to his tablemates and thinks that all of us are shallow statists in the same way he is. As for me, I was alienated by his reckless lecturing right away. I just wanted him to be quiet about politics and talk about poker. The pontificating was definitely a nuisance and decreased my opinion of him along my enjoyment of an otherwise okay book. A lot of what he said was comical though as he doesn't know much about politics or government. His are the observations of a poseur. Greenspan claims to be very comfortable in his ethnically diverse neighborhood and then adds that he remains happy about being there even after being robbed, lol. Why would he mention this unless he thought the mixed nature of his neighborhood had something to do with being robbed? Then he gives us the big lecture about George W. Bush and Bob Jones University just so we know what a good person he is because he'd never craft guidelines against interracial marriage. That's great, but what does that have to do with politics, let alone poker? Worst of all, Greenspan is very hypocritical. He makes fun of people like me who he dismisses as nutty libertarians, but then he makes the argument on pages 167 and 168 that poker players are unfairly taxed. Of course I agree with his opinion, but would add that all of us are unfairly taxed in America. However, the author only comes around to his epiphany concerning the Fedocracy because he has been personally affected. If you ask me, there are a ton of better books out there than this one, please save your money.

terrible book from wannabe pro.......2006-10-21

this book has 2 problems - the author and the narrative. first, he spend the entire book building up to his shot at 10-20 nl, then spends 2 pages there. huh? why did i stay for this?
second the author has an extremely vaunted opinion of his poker skills. oh, hes a semipro? who isnt. in 1 memorable part, he 'thinks' he picks up a tell on a big pro, bluffs him off a pot, then assumes that he can now wash that pro anytime he likes. any thought to randomness here? no, he jumps right to the conclusion he is now one of the worlds best. minutes later when he busts out, he says 'on any given day i can beat the best'. ohhhh, really? guess what, on any given day, so can anyone. thats poker

in league with "big deal" as one of the best poker narratives.......2006-08-26

this book tells it like it really is. I've read many many poker books and I found this to be among the most riveting and realistic narratives. I would rate it up alongside Big Deal by Tony Holden as one of the most entertaining and thoroughly enjoyable poker books ever written. The author comes at it from a fairly unique angle, as a budding semi-pro player who is trying to make a living at a game he loves. Poker is about different things to different people, and this book tells a realistic tale about making a living as a "blue collar" cash game specialist.

Book Description

The law affects just about every aspect of work, from hiring to firing to retiring. Now, as they've done with wills and estates, home ownership, family law, and consumer law, the American Bar Association has written this clear and compact guide to all the law that one needs to know, whether employee or employer. As in all ABA books, the advice is dependable and in plain English--not "legalese." Online promo.

Customer Reviews:

ABA Guide to Workplace Law.......2006-03-21

This order was received earlier than expected and has proved a useful reference guide.

Issues In The Workplace.......2006-01-05

The issues covered include the Family and Medical Leave Act, harassment and discrimination, drug testing, the Americans with Disabilities Act, unions, worker's compensation, dress codes and worker's rights.
The publisher should look at issuing a new edition of this. The information is valuable, but readers need to have confidence that they are getting the latest, most up-to-date advice (- 1 star).

Better than most other offerings.......2005-10-25

First, remember that the book was written in 1997. It's dated. It also appears to have been organized by dropping the sections together from around ten feet above the pages while standing in a strong wind - that is to say, the format and sequencing is not what it could be these days.

That aside, it does cover the basics and tells you where to go for more info. It is clear in what it covers and it covers a reasonable range. If you need a basic, small backup copy on US labor law or reminder of what the major laws are and where to find info, this would be an excellent book to have around. If you're looking for an indepth review of anything or the latest laws or case law or State law you'll be sorely disappointed.

American Bar Association Does FAIR Job at GUIDE!.......2005-02-16

Only 2 Stars goes out to the American Bar Association Guide to Workplace Law... After prevailing in the Cannice vs. Norwest Bank, et al. Case in the Southern District of Iowa Federal District Court, I learned a great lesson about workplace law-especially as it relates to discrimination and disability harassmment. The Book is certainly better than others but doesn't do enough to include topics that pertain to specific cases and the law. I'm sure that it serves some justice but leans more towards the coporate defense angle. I'd suggest reading the book and taking it for what it's worth. It's an easy read with enough references to law to get you started. As for an individual who is being discriminated against-my suggestion is to spend your time and money in finding a civil rights or employment discrimination attorney that can do the leg work for you.

Barbara Fick is to be complemented for her organization and for her courage to put such a great deal of information into such a limited format. It won't be a movie of the week-but I'm certain it will find its way into the offices of many corporate counsel offices.

For additional discussion, please contact me, Peter Cannice, of Scottsdale, Arizona, at HorsePete@aol.com.

OK, but really lacks the depth to be informative........2004-10-31

If you're looking for a general outline of federal employment laws, I would suggest this book. Overall, a quick read, but the use of common law abbreviations and inconsistant reference to what they actually stand for made it a little harder to follow.

However, if you are looking for some detailed information that is written without the "sometimes, however" and "some states" vagueness that can make you ask yourself why you purchased this book, then I would suggest picking another source for workplace law.

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books