This is the most inspired of the first three volumes in this series of short parodies of Star Dreck. Hilarious, and also fairly creative. The author sThis is the most inspired of the first three volumes in this series of short parodies of Star Dreck. Hilarious, and also fairly creative. The author should have written other books.
I'm delighted to have found out there were a few more volumes after this....more
I read this one in seventh grade. It seems to me that it was better written than some of Peter David's Star Dreck novels; but it was, regrettably, a tI read this one in seventh grade. It seems to me that it was better written than some of Peter David's Star Dreck novels; but it was, regrettably, a typical example of how tasteless his novels are. I had a buddy who read it at roughly the same time, and recently gave me a copy as a joke. (I'm not sure what to do with it--certainly not reread it.) Not recommended....more
The most disappointing book I've read in years. The problrm was that I misunderstood what to expect from the title. I thought it would explain specifiThe most disappointing book I've read in years. The problrm was that I misunderstood what to expect from the title. I thought it would explain specific critical theories of literature (and other art forms) and explain how each has contributed to the degradation of Western culture.
It is actually only an unfocused rumination and polemic on the political and social damage wrought by the critical theories, emphasizing much more their political effects.
Working on this. I own the Henry Reeve translation, but have also examined the newer Arthur Goldhammer translation for The Library of America; and I mWorking on this. I own the Henry Reeve translation, but have also examined the newer Arthur Goldhammer translation for The Library of America; and I must concede the Goldhammer translation is easier to read and comprehend despite the criticisms (alleged excessively literal translation, detracting from the literary quality of the work), with wording less elegant but more direct and more contemporary. I want to continue with Reeve simply because it's the one I bought, but impatience and even frustration with this translation might lead me to give it up for Goldhammer....more
From the rarity of reviews, I assume this book has been largely ignored. My library had a copy, but purged it from circulation long before now. If itFrom the rarity of reviews, I assume this book has been largely ignored. My library had a copy, but purged it from circulation long before now. If it rarely got borrowed and read, I can figure out why. Hal Lindsey is now also largely ignored as far as I can tell; and that would be because he was rightfully discredited when his apocalyptic predictions of the 1970s and 1980s did not come to pass in those decades. I know that in the 1970s (the decade before my birth), substantial numbers of young Christians gave up their lives to wait for the apocalypse because people like Lindsey convinced them that the end times were coming soon. Lindsey ignored or didn't know the fact that everyone in history who has tried to predict the time of Christ's return has been made a fool of. All those discredited predicters, including Lindsey, should have paid more attention to the Bible verse in which Jesus said only His Father knows exactly when. Also the principle (not a Bible verse) that to have credibility as a prophet of God, a predictor's predictions must be correct one hundred percent of the time. In my Southern Baptist church, I have never heard Lindsey's name mentioned, although the pastors and the older members probably know who he is.
So, then, why have I read Combat Faith? Only curiosity: I am typically attracted to books by their titles, and ever since I saw it in my public library in the early 2000s, I simply wanted to know what "combat faith" meant.
It is absolutely too bad, then, that most Christians probably ignore anything Lindsey writes or says since the 70s and 80s (again, if younger Christians have even heard of him), because Combat Faith suggests that whenever Lindsey is not unwisely claiming to have pinned down the end times, he is actually an intelligent teacher and man of faith. If people think Lindsey was only the Tim LaHaye of the 1970s, they would be mistaken. There's evidently more to Lindsey than that.
Combat Faith as a concept is simply trusting God in the most difficult circumstances; there's nothing complicated about it. Lindsey explains the dynamics of it through quoting many Bible verses (often explaining their original meanings in the Greek or Hebrew), and gives various figures from the Bible as examples of this faith, particularly Abraham; Moses; and of course Jesus Christ himself.
(I understand that later editions of this book were published under some different title. Possibly the original title was misunderstood to mean "fight faith.")
The main reason I appreciate this book and plan to keep it (I didn't plan to, when I started it) is not the lessons in faith, it's the significant amount of Biblical knowledge that I didn't know. Little bits of information given in support of points Lindsey is making. For instance, when discussing the very extensive symbolism of the first Passover, Lindsey observes that when the believing Hebrews smeared blood on their doorposts (top, left side and right side), the motions they made were the sign of the cross. The sort of fact I am typically delighted to learn.
I feel compelled to read this book at least once more. Recommended....more
I read this book in two days. The ending was very interesting and was worthy of a Doctor Who novel. Everything in the book before that reminded me whyI read this book in two days. The ending was very interesting and was worthy of a Doctor Who novel. Everything in the book before that reminded me why I suddenly stopped reading Doctor Who novels as a habit in the early 2000s. I certainly will not read any other book by this author again. To boot, Clara's characterization is unrecognizable. It's the worst book I've read this year. I regret to see that the author has written other Doctor Who books. I must avoid them.
This is the third novel or story collection from the new series that I've read; the others were Engines of War and Tales of Trenzalore. Compared to both the Virgin New Adventures and the later BBC Books line, all three books are--frankly--dumbed down....more
This is a great book on, specifically, the many different historiographies (historical interpretations) of Lincoln's life and career. Although consideThis is a great book on, specifically, the many different historiographies (historical interpretations) of Lincoln's life and career. Although considering the enormous volume of Lincoln literature, it's almost certainly not the only one. I already knew Lincoln was one of the most written-about figures in history, but did you know there have been tens of thousands (if not more) of books written on him since his death? They inevitably became quite redundant at some point, as this book points out.
What conclusions did I draw from it? Two things.
Between the huge number of conflicting, competing interpretations and the nineteenth-century's relative lack of ability to record information with veracity, any attempt to understand "the real Lincoln" is largely hopeless. My conclusion, not the book's.
The number of different groups and individuals who have used Lincoln as a pawn to represent their cause, is astonishing. Even the Communist Party of America has claimed to solely represent the spirit of Lincoln, and that's only the most ridiculous example. (Their rationale was that they considered Lincoln essentially a working-class hero, which is one of the major interpretations.) Others have stronger, even if uncertain, support for exploiting Lincoln in death: the temperance movement (because Lincoln avoided alcohol); Christians, because even though Mrs. Lincoln explicitly stated her husband was "not a technical Christian" [whatever that meant--she apparently didn't explain], Lincoln did tell someone he believed Christ is God; atheists, because Lincoln's law partner William Herndon always insisted Lincoln was a "freethinker"; and Spiritualists, because...I have no idea. I would say that Lincoln's exact religious or spiritual beliefs are the most impossible to exactly answer of any questions concerning him; and the historiography has reached both extremes (devout Christian and atheistic freethinker) and a middle ground (an atheist who eventually found faith) at various times.
Other wildly differing interpretations:
Position on slavery and racial issues. Except for Southern partisans, there seems a clear consensus that Lincoln opposed slavery--enough that people can say "everybody knows that!" Racial issues are a completely different thing. Lincoln supported voluntary emigration to Liberia, but there is frequent belief that he supported it because he believed racial harmony was impossible. Even if this was untrue, recent interpretations have criticized him for that; for not issuing the Emancipation Proclamation sooner; and especially for prioritizing the integrity of the Union above eliminating slavery. Finally, many African-American thinkers (including Frederick Douglass) were appreciative but skeptical of Lincoln from the beginning; and ever since the civil rights movement, Dr. King has replaced Lincoln as the "Moses" of African-Americans.
Poets vs. academics. This is one way to characterize the extremes of interpretation: the difference between the poetic and the putatively objective. The poets began mourning, celebrating, or depicting Lincoln in verse immediately after his assassination, and poetic interpretations remained popular until at least the mid-twentieth century. The outstanding or most famous of these is Carl Sandburg. The interpretive mode and frankly the goal poets like Sandburg is to create and perpetuate two things: a myth of Lincoln (myth in the neutral sense), and a folk interpretation that saw Lincoln as a quintessential American figure (even "the first American") and as a rustic (possibly working-class) who proved that someone of low birth and humble circumstances can do anything. Sandburg's popular biographies of Lincoln took this view, obviously. Academics complained that Sandburg's biographies were un-objective, ignoring or not realizing that objectivity wasn't the goal of poets.
But that I've read only two books on evangelism methods so far, I would say this is the best I've ever read. It would be difficult to find a set of taBut that I've read only two books on evangelism methods so far, I would say this is the best I've ever read. It would be difficult to find a set of tactics sharper or more clever. It was a good idea of me to add this book to my reading list as soon as I heard it, earlier this year....more