Illich makes what would otherwise be dry reading into an emotional and thought-provoking journey. He has great perception to see interactions in society. Every moment I spent reading it was worthwhile. Just as much fun was deconstructing his arguments to see how he reached the conclusions and deciding whether I agree. I am eager to read "Tools for Conviviality."

Illich proposes that sometime in the last 50 years society passed through a threshold where "modernized subsistence" was achieved and all our modern real needs were met. At this point we reached the maximum, and coincidently the ideal level, of individual satisfaction through a balance of autonomous action and consumption of mass-produced commodities (goods and services primarily in medical, transportation and educational areas). But then society passed through this threshold and, as a result individuals have been experiencing lower and lower overall satisfaction with life with our ever increasing use of mass-produced commodities.

Illich argues that society would have stopped at the threshold value had there not been created at that moment the distorting force of the Dominant Professions. Dominant Professions that impel society to produce a surfeit of mass-produced commodities.

Dominant Professions are a professional class with the power to impute the need for unneeded commodities upon the citizenry. By using the language of the Professional, they trick us laymen to go beyond our real needs by creating in us needs that we would not otherwise have - imputed needs. They do this for the sake of sustaining and furthering their authority and profession and in the service of the people who control the tools of mass production. The Dominant Professionals not only control the distribution and supply of the approved commodity that satisfies our imputed need, they also make it illegal or impossible to satisfy our need using a non-approved commodity. The Professional's commodities are of course mass-produced. Thus, society has passed the threshold because of the Dominant Professions. To get back to that threshold value we need to dismantle the authority of the professional class.

Those are the arguments. The fun part is decomposing the arguments. Stop reading now if you want to figure it out for yourself without being biased by my analysis.

First, Illich imagines us a citizenry of such simpletons we can't determine how much we need to sustain ourselves in this late industrial society. By calling every need an "imputed need" if it is beyond "modernized subsistence", Illich can blame the Dominate Professionals for causing society to progress past where it would otherwise have stopped, fully satisfied. I disagree. It is the ever expanding desires of individuals that keep us wanting more long after we knowingly achieved subsistence. We are never satisfied enough to stop wanting more. These are not imputed needs from an external Professional class that we need to defend ourselves against, this is our own natural behavior which we chose not to rein in.

Illich also tells us that we know the maximum benefit to life that industry can ever provide. Fortunately, this is not true. For example, if average longevity hasn't changed during the past 50 years it doesn't follow that industry has been ineffective. This assumes a constant population base whereas the size of society is increasing and more people are living to about the same age. And there is ample evidence that the mass-produced commodities are the cause for improvement in life. Examples Illich sites in the book as examples of autonomous actions replaced by commodites that induce "modernized poverty" include; peasants living in homes they built from and upon the refuse of others moved to pre-fabricated houses, indoor light from fires and candles replaced with electricity, infant mortality reduced by the presence of trained physicians. Furthermore, individual human longevity is not limited by a theoretical physical law we know of in the same way the speed of light is. Thus, because the record has not been broken in the past 50 years it does not follow that it cannot be broken during the next 50 years. If we followed this logic long-jump competitions were no longer necessary after the 1968 Olympics.

Illich proposes that we are faced with a new choice - "modernized subsistence" - resulting from the invention of modern industrial capabilities. However, each age - in it's own time "modern" - stone, bronze, iron or last week in the post industrial age, the commodities that determined the maximum attainable life and the minimum amount of resources needed to stay alive, e.g. the subsistence level, were dependent on what was available. Because installation of a society-wide commodity will always impede the liberty of an individual to use another technology or no technology at all - whether it is the rules of the road, language, or inoculations, there is no non-zero level of commodity use required that will simultaneously preserve for every individual the liberty to act and the same objective measure of "modernized subsistence". Simply said - your actions count towards yourself and the whole.

Illich's asserts we know what "modernized subsistence" looks like from empirical observation. In fact, Illich gives his opinion of a current and real country that has at its disposal the appropriate intensity of production to approximate "modernized subsistence." Subsistence is a minimum level to support life. "Modernized Subsistence" supports "Convivial Austerity." What Illich proposes is his ideal society: his idea of the ideal life for the individual that alienates the liberties he cherishes least and mandates the commodities he values more.

Illich shows our beautiful tendency to romanticize the past; when it seemed that the world reached its apex coincidently with our arrival on the planet. Language was real, technology was benign, and people were pure until that moment when a kernel -born only in our consciousness - metastasized and corrupted the balance of powers that would have otherwise been. Reality is that language is always evolving, applied technology is never benign and people run the gamut from altruistic to evil. And this has always been the case. Illich's arguments and desires for a better world are wonderful food-for-thought. They also are unfortunately an impractical model for society.

Burgchardt does a somewhat interesting job here with a fairly dull topic, in analyzing themes in the speeches of Robert La Follette, Sr. Some historical and biographical information is nicely interwoven, but the oratory is the major topic. Burgchardt shows how La Follette often relied on the condemnation of a great and cunning evil seeking to destroy morality, whether it be Iago in Othello, corporatists, oleomargarine or railroad owners. The speeches don't "read" all that well and probably were more interesting to hear first-hand, but the book overall is an interesting study. Not something I would buy to own, but I don't regret the time I spent reading it either.

Virginia Woolf said that all women together should let flowers fall upon the tomb of Aphra Behn - for it was she who earned them the right to speak their minds - well, within the Rover, her sexual politics are personified through the character of Angelica Bianca : and it makes for an intriguing read! Brandishing swords, embracing rape and finding their own individual identities in a society that veiwed women as second class subject, this remained the most frequently performed play right up until 1800!

Includes stories by Deborah Burros, Mercedes Lackey, Laurell Hamilton, Rima Saret, Gary Herring, Jennifer Roberson, Paula Helm Murray, Diana Paxson, Walter Kleine, Nancy Pine, Andrea Pelleschi, Vera Nazarian, Stephanie Shaver, Eluki bes Shahar, Josepha Sherman, Linda Gordon, Jere Dunham, Dave Smeds, Elisabeth Waters, Lois Tilton, Cynthia Ward, and Margaret Howes.

Enjoyable novel, but VERY British in outlook and very first person. Some parts were very abrupt in transition, and some things were left dangling. It felt like the middle of a trilogy.

In line with national reform efforts sparked by "A Nation at Risk", "The Closing of the American Mind", "Cultural Literacy", and "A Place Called School", this edition continues Brady's effort to convince educators to analyze what they actually teach and shift their teaching to more cohesive and comprehensive studies of what is important for students to know. This is a social studies model, organizing knowledge based on patterns of action, cultural premises, demographics, and environment centered around systemic relationships and change. It is thoughtfully laid out but unwieldy for most classroom teachers to use, and, as articulated in the book, inconsistent with the departmentalized structure of most academic organizations from college on down, extending to the textbook resources on which most teachers base most of their instructional decisions. Underlying the entire conceptual framework is an objection to the arbitrary divisions imposed on a child's growing understanding of a complex and interrelated existence. The core solution is collaboration between all persons involved in the education process. A thoughtful book but not easily digested or applied, although the new edition tries to coordinate it with new national standards.

Marion Rice Hart was my 3rd cousin (grandfather's first cousin). My father was Rusty, the teenager in the book. Our fravorite bedtime stories were 'Daddy's tales of sailing around the world'. Each of his 3 dauhters now covets her old beat up copiy of "Who Called that Lady a Skipper?' I have recently read it to get to know Molly better.

My earliest memory of her was visiting her apartment on 5th Avenue NYC in what had been the ballroom of a mansion. Quite an eye opener for a 5 year old from Maine. Molly fasinated my older sister and I. She had a tough leathery look to match her tough personality. Shr minced no words. She said what she thought and if you didn't like it, to bad. She was in her 70's I guess and would fly up to Maine to visit (I hunt for her later book, "I Fly As I Please"). I was awed by her self confidence. So in reading the book was intersting to see her grow stonger and confident in her abilities as a navigator. She later wrote a text on Navigion that was used at te US Coast Gaurd Academy when my father alltended in the early 40's.

Unlike most rich yatch owners, she took a very active role in the voyage of the yatch Vanora. She , like Beryl Markem, was an adventeress when that was a career. The 20's produced many amazing woman. Of coure inheritng 5 million didn't hurt. I wander what she would have done if she hadn't been rich. The money was mostly lost in the Depression and squandered by her sibilings and thier childern. She lived her life exactly as she wished, a trait my father inherited or picked up from her on his years on the Vanora.

This book should interst anyone intersted in adventures, travel to exotic islands, sailing without modern navigation aids, and interiging personalities.

The series of twenty-one novels and a dozen anthologies that sprawls across the history of human settlement on the planet of Darkover consists not of an ordered sequence of novels but of trilogies, duos and stand alones which weave in and out of each other, sometimes in direct conflict. This is one of the stand alones in this series, an aside from Darkovan events at large. Very few of the characters appear in or are even mentioned in any of the other novels, and this is not greatly dissapointing as it is definitely not one of the best Darkovan novels. The protagonist is a Terran who, being stationed on this primitive planet finds himself in service to one of the great lords of the Comyn, Valdir Alton. The contact between this Terran and another, Larry Montray (the foster-son of Valdir, due to events related in 'Star of Danger')is used typically by MZB as a platform from which to demonstrate Darkovan culture and explore the effects of culture shock - this technique of immerging a Terran in Darkovan nobility and standing back to watch the effects is one MZB uses in most of the novels set after recontact between Earth and its lost colony Darkover. It is quite slow getting into the story, but when it does it is quite a good rolic. It is a must read for devotees of the series but definitely not one to start on if unfamiliar with the series - The Heritage of Hastur or The Bloody Sun are probably the best to start on. Those more aware of the series will enjoy the brief contact with Larry Montray, destined to become uncle to Lew Alton, one of the most poignant and troubled characters of the whole series, and the focus on the Storn family, who are one of those families in the complex genealogies of the Comyn which receives little attention in the main novels. Particularly interesting for those who found Desideria Storn in 'The World Wreckers' a fascinating character. Perhaps the most interesting part of the novel for devotees though is the taboo broken by the Storn scion in order to obtain help from the Terran: he telepathically 'overshadows' him and takes control of his mind and body. Darkover is a society run by powerful telepaths and the observation of certain conventions, all of which utterly forbid such a maneuovre, is the only way to make such a society functional. This makes for interesting ramifications for all characters in the novel, and interesting explorations of conscience. The other bonus for those familiar with the series is the only excursion to the Dry Towns (except for the notable rescue in 'The Shattered Chain')in the whole series. However, these items of trivia for the fan are not enough to sustain a middling novel above a rating of three.

These books were written early in the author's career, and have many inconsistencies with the rest of the Darkover series. Nevertheless, taken as stand-alone novels, they are both enjoyable. The Planet Savers is an interesting study of a man with two personalities, representing opposite psychological extremes... and what happens when those personalities are put under stress. Overall, these are fun "light" SF reading, not to be taken too seriously, but good for an evening's entertainment.

(Disclaimer: All my criticisms are directed against Stephen Thornton, who prepared this edition when Marion died. I haven't seriously examined the earlier editions.)

Let it not be said that this book is utterly without virtue. It does have a good store of challenging, interesting problems. Also, the introductory chapter includes a unique (for this level) discussion of the Levi-Civita notation, which is great for managing complicated expressions in vector and tensor analysis (if you're currently taking junior or senior E&M, use this if your teacher asks you to verify all those crazy vector identities on the inside cover of your book!). But beyond this, I can see no redeeming virtues. In a genre which is littered with astoundingly bad books, this book is a standout, and is among the "hated classics" like Reif's statistical mechanics book or J.D. Jackson's E&M book. But even those books, which are admittedly overly-difficult and often obtuse, do contain a lot of quality thought and valuable knowledge. A good book, when re-read, will reveal greater and greater depths of insight and knowledge.

But rereading this book only revealed greater levels of sloppy thought. Only the more elementary derivations are comprehensible; the rest are befuddling, and I found that I had to write my own derivations and look up alternatives because the examples were either unconvincing, incomprehensible, or seemed to be based on incorrect physical reasoning. Ironically, I found that this book improved my confidence in mechanics because I had to spend so much time trying to compensate for the enormous failings logic, calculation, and pedagogy. But I'd still give it zero stars if I could.

This book is just plain bad (a judgement I very rarely make), and I am very curious as to whether the reviewers who defend the book really thought about its contents or tried to follow all of its logic step by step, as one should do during any serious examination of a science text. Now some reviewers had good teachers, in which case they probably paid more attention to their lecture notes than the book. An individual skilled with mathematical manipulation can do surprisingly difficult problems without thinking very much about the underlying physical concepts or looking at any part of a derivation other than the part in the box. Finally, a very bright person may simply think through matters for themselves during and after a class, not taking time to examine the book. So I am not insulting the readers who gave it good reviews; I'm sure they did well in class, since students who get good grades don't write vitriol-filled reviews about the required text on Amazon.com. But I know they didn't really read it carefully.

Instructors often choose this book because they were taught from previous editions (which may be superior), and may be too lazy or recalcitrant to change their ways. Although I often got cross looks from my professors for complaining about it, they generally agreed with my criticisms when I pushed the issue. But I didn't need to convince them. I overheard one professor bashing Chapter 4 as "just hacked together at the last minute because the material is sexy and fashionable." And right he was, for that chapter contains the worst explanations of nonlinear dynamics concepts I have ever seen (even if you discount the wrongly-printed Poincare sections towards the end). This same teacher admitted that he had spend over twenty minutes trying to understand the explanation of a very simple formula (and he is a theoretician who knows far more math than the average physicist).
Another fellow I knew, a Ph.D who was teaching an advanced mechanics class at my school for the first time, and was asked to use Marion, rewrote just about every example and explanation in the book for his students because he found them incomprehensible or too obtuse for beginners.

So don't feel bad if this book befuddled you. You're not alone, either among the great (Ph.D theoreticians and experimentalists) or the small (bile-spouting nobodies with undergraduate degree only).

Finally, a bit of advice for students: If you were made to buy this book, I recommend that you go to your library and find books about classical mechanics. Pick up a book or two that doesn't have the name "Thornton" on the cover. Now, it may be too easy (French's "Newtonian Mechanics" is less mathematical, but I still recommend it) or too hard (Goldstein is for highly motivated and prepared undergrads only), but I can tell you in all confidence that the random mechanics book you pick out will be better than the one you have now.

I'm taking physics 105 at UC Berkeley and we're using Marion and Thornton in my class. I like using the book as a reference, but I think that each chapter does a poor job of explaining how to solve the problems that appear in the end of each chapter. There are also very few simple problems in the book that allow one to become used to using new methods (like hamiltonian mechanics, and the use of lagrangians) before using them to solve difficult problems. I would reccommend another mechanics book such as "Mechanics" by Landau and Lifschitz or "Mechanics" by Symon. Unless you have an excellent instructor, Marion and Thronton is not very much fun to use.

Why is everyone complaining about the mathematical formalism in this text? While perhaps such formalism requires a certain level of mathematical maturity on the part of the reader, it does *not* detract from pedagogy. In my opinion, it is better to become used to such formalism in the context of classical dynamics, where intuition can be of great help, than later on, and please, calculus and linear algebra is all that's required! It's not *that* formal!

I'd also like to say that the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian sections present one of the more lucid explanations that I have seen.

Finally, no, the author does not give you an example problem and then ask you to do the same problem with different numbers at the end of the chapter--he assumes you could do that. If you can't read a book that doesn't have such trivial problems for you to work, perhaps you should go elsewhere. The problems in this book are often challenging, and require you to extrapolate from the previous chapters. I find such problems more interesting than ones that require you to only look back in the chapter, grab two equations, eliminate one variable, and then plug in numbers. I'm not sure why everyone has jumped on the "the problems aren't worded well" bandwagon either, as I have encountered very little ambiguity throughout this book. If you want to master classical dynamics, this isn't the only book you'll want to work through, but it certainly should be on your list.