This book is about 3 young boys go back in time all the way to the stoneage. Itmay seem like a fun adventure to the time warp trio, but they run into a lot of trouble along the way including a tribe of hostile cavewomen, a saber-toothed tiger, a bone rattling earthquake, and a wooley mammoth who wants to crush them. But the biggest problem is they depend on "The Book" to get them back from their little adventures but how can they get back home when writing has'nt been invented yet? Find out what happens to the time warp trio by reading this book that has comedy, adventure, and magic.

"Your Mother Was a Neanderthal," by Jon Scieszka, is a young adult novel in the "Time Warp Trio" series. The book features illustrations by Lane Smith. The story is narrated by Joe, a young schoolboy. With the aid of a magic book, he and his pals Sam and Fred travel back to prehistoric times. They have an adventure involving primitive humans and dangerous prehistoric beasts.

This is a humorous story that is nicely complemented by Smith's surreal, funny drawings. The prehistoric characters are amusing and likeable, and the three "modern" heroes have an entertaining chemistry. Overall, a pretty good adventure.

The Time Warp Trio (Fred, Sam and Joe) find heart-stoppingadventure when they end up in the days of the caveman. Cleverword-play keeps the reader laughing and the non-stop adventure keeps the pages turning. Another fun and highly entertaining book in the Time Warp Trio series. Jon Scieszka combines adventure, history, fantasy and humor in a compelling format that even reluctant readers will find hard to put down.

This book is one in Zondervan's Counterpoints Series, which presents the view of various (mostly) Evangelical writers on theological subjects. This book is sorely needed because Evangelical apologists have had a history of writing critically and polemically of one another (one thinks of the Clark/Van Til debate), with the result of the layman having a difficult time deciding among the various positions.

The problem with this book is either that the writers are too timid or are more irenic than their label would indicate. There are three authors who present variations on the traditional approach: the classical method (Craig), the evidential method (Habermas), and the cumulative case method (Feinberg). These approaches are quite similar, although some differences do arise. When the reader gets to John Frame's presuppositional method, he expects to get a starkly different approach. After all, Van Til was notorious for attacking "traditional" apologetics as "Roman Catholic" or "Arminian." Well, Frame tells us that he agrees with most of what Craig writes. The final writer, Kelly James Clark (who represents the "Reformed epistemological method"), says the same thing.

Perhaps the editor could have selected a follower of Gordon Clark (a rationalist who denied the proofs of God's existence) or a fideist to present a contrasting apologetic method.

Before I write anything, I would like to suggest that the reader of "Five Views on Apologetics" first read "Faith Has Its Reasons" by Kenneth Bow and Robert Bowman, Jr. (NavPress). Doing so will give you a good overview of the methodology taken by the different positions; it would be akin to reading a preview of this afternoon's football game, with a summary of the players and the strategy that will be used fully explained.

Overall "Five Views on Apologetics" is worthwhile for the serious-minded Christian. I do like these "View" books because they allow all sides to take part in a dialogue that certainly has more potential to get things accomplished rather than a free-for-all live debate. All sides get to give their side with succeeding rebuttals. This book certainly had some lively discussion as all of the participants had their own ideas of how apologetics should be handled. The five positions were: William Lane Craig (classical); Gary Habermas (evidential); Paul Feinberg (cumulative); John Frame (presuppositional); Kelly James Clark (Reformed Epistemological).

However, there were three weak points that I need to point out. First, I'm not sure the debaters were the best representatives of the positions they defended. For instance, Craig could be described as a combination classicist/evidentialist. Much of what he said could have been written by Habermas, as even Habermas admitted. Feinberg had, I believe, the weakest argumentation, as I just never did track with his thoughs. Meanwhile, Frame certainly has his own twist on Van Til's ideas, yet these twists make his position a "kinder, gentler" version of Reformed apologetics and thus is not truly representative of Van Tillians--and there are plenty of these thinkers out there. And Clark might as well let Alvin Plantinga write his section since Clark seemed to mention Plantinga in practically every paragraph.

Second, it is apparent that much of the differences quickly became similarities by the end of the book. In fact, Craig even mentioned how he appreciated the similarities the debaters had. If this is so, then why write the book in the first place? In fact, more than once a respondent to another's position declared, in essence, "Why, that could have been me writing! I think--fill in the name--really is a--fill in the position--like I am." This attitude prevailed through much of the book, especially in the concluding comments. (At the same time, perhaps we should rejoice that in a book of Christian division, so many similarities could be found!)

Finally, I think the book got a little too technical in some areas, especially by several of the writers. I think Craig is a master philosopher, and I've seen Bayes' Theorem before, but I'm still scratching my head trying to understand several pages of formulas he put together to support one of his points. Perhaps with some personal explanation I could better understand, but I'm thinking many reading this book would have been totally lost (as I humbly admit I was). Although I didn't agree with his stance, I thought John Frame did the best in explaining his philosophy in the simplist, most logical way possible.

Despite what I feel are its shortcomings, I do recommend this book for the serious student who is interested in apologetics. I enjoyed it very much and was certainly enlightened about the role apologetics takes in the Christian's life.

Few books have seriously tackled apologetic method, or how Christianity should be defended rationally. The last book I know of that surveyed options in this regard was Gordon Lewis, "Testing Christianity's Truth Claims" (Moody Press, 1976; republished by University Press of America).

This book presents five different approaches, each represented by one of its exponents: Classical Apologetics (William Lane Craig), Evidentialism (Gary Habermas), Culumulative Case Method (Paul Feinberg), Presuppositionalism (John Frame), and Reformed Epistemology (Kelly James Clark).

Much ground is covered concerning the Bible's approach to apologetics, where apologetic arguments should begin, how certain arguments for Christianity are, and so on. I will simply make a few comments.

The presentations by Craig and Habermas are the most worthwhile because they are the most intellectual rigorous and well-documented. They also tend to agree with each on most things and reinforce each others views. While I tend to favor a cumulative case method (influenced by E.J. Carnell and Francis Schaeffer, but with more appreciation for natural theology), Feinberg's comments are the weakest by far. He never mentions the leading exponent of this view in our generation (Carnell) nor Carnell's apt and well-published student (and my esteemed colleague), Dr. Gordon Lewis. Not one word about either one! His comments are brief, his documentation is thin, and he fails to advance anything very creative or helpful, I'm afraid. A better person should have been chosen, such as Gordon Lewis. Frame gives his "kinder, gentler" version of Cornelius Van Til, which still suffers from the same kinds of problems--most notably the fallacy of begging the question in favor of Christianity. Nevertheless, the notion of a "transcendental argument" for theism is a good one, but it should not carry all the weight of apologetics. Clark's material is philosophically well-informed (one would expect this of a student of Alvin Plantinga!), but apologetically timid. Clark almost sounds like a skeptic at times.

A few bones more bones to pick. The editor refers to Francis Schaeffer as a presuppositionalist. This is false; he was a verificationist with more in common with Carnell than with Van Til. Gordon Lewis's fine essay on Schaeffer's apologetic method in "Reflections on Francis Schaeffer" makes this very clear. None of the writers address the great apologetic resources found in Blaise Pascal. I also found at least two grammatical errors.

Nevertheless, as a professor of philosophy at a theological seminary who teaches apologetics, I found this volume very helpful and useful. But let's not get so involved in methodological concerns that we fail to go out in the world and defend our Christian faith as objectively true, existentially vital, and rationally compelling (Jude 3)!

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy Denver Seminary

Easy to read, well illustrated, reconstructed fossils from protists to sponges to arthropods to fish to reptiles to mammals. It is noted that the original edition of this reference was written in 1958 by Carroll Lane Fenton and Mildred Adams Fenton, with revisions provided in 1996 by Patricia Vickers Rich and Thomas Hewitt Rich.

It gives the reader a solid foundation of paleontology and fossil knowledge on which to build upon. It may not have all of the most recent theories and discoveries because the last revision was in 1996, but it is easy to read and well illustrated. It can be understood by anyone, and contains a wealth of information. It covers the entire 3.5 billion-year history of the fossil record in its 760 pages and is an excellent reference book that I keep returning to time and again.

Much in the way of really good material on fossils including some 1500 pen and ink drawings in this excellent compendium. It also includes highly readable text which others of its ilk seem not to include. Would highly recommend to both the novice and somewhat advanced collector. Has been revised and updated several times since its original 1958 publishing with 1996 being the latest. I equate it to the USA Today of fossil books. Bottom line, an excellent value.

Deadlock: The Inside Story of America's Closest Election is a workmanlike and emotionless recollection of the events surrounding the most controversial election of the past 100 years. It is a well organized, easy to follow and not visibly biased view of the relevant events leading up to and following the November 7 Presidential election. Seemingly accurate and double checked to a fault, reading this book left me with the impression that I had just read an excellent 275 page newspaper article and not much more. With almost no humor, lacking any sidebar comments, it is a book Joe Friday would be proud to call his own. While I am a Texan and Bush supporter, I much preferred Jake Tapper's Down & Dirty: The Plot to Steal the Presidency. I guess this means that like most people, when push comes to shove, I'd rather be entertained than informed. I do regret this intellectual weakness and like some of the votes in Florida I may change. But probably not in the next 36 days.

This book, by the editors of the Washington Post, does a good job of describing the events which led to the deadlocked 2000 Presidential election. In addition to detailing the paths which led to the deadlock, the book discusses all the post-election issues in a very readable format. Surprisingly, the books editors seem only slightly tilted towards Gore (especially considering it is the Washington Post, which is noted for its liberal bias), so no matter who you voted for, there is much to be found here for anyone with an interest in contemporary politics.

I personally think the Washington Post and NY Times are liberal rags that are generally not worth the paper they are printed on. However, in fairness, when they do well I think they should be commended. I read the NY Times "36 Days" and still think that book was not worth the paper it was printed on. It was nothing more than a reprint of their articles.

Conversely, though, Deadlock was a well-written book. Two passages are worth noting. The first is about the book itself. About one-third of the way into the first chapter the book says: "These are the ... decisions, alliances, power plays, snap judgments and personality flaws revealed when a flukishly close election is played out for staggering high stakes. Both sides were nimble and brilliant and occasionally shady; both sides were also capable of miscalculations, divisions and blame. The best and worst of politics were on displayed in those 36 days, and both sides trafficked in each. This is how it happened." Although the Post endorsed Al Gore (no surprise) they tried to be equal in their appraisal of how the two campaigns sought resolution in their favor.

As for the two sides' strategy one only has to look within the first three pages of Chapter 2 where the Post records that the Democrats enlisted the services of three authors who wrote "The Recount Primer". The book reads: "Anyone who read and heeded the booklet could predict how the two sides would play America's closest president election -- at least in the broad outlines. Gore would gamble; Bush would stall. Gore would preach a doctrine of uncounted ballots; Bush would extol the dependability of machines. Gore needed more: more counting, more examination, more weighing and pondering of more ballots. Bush needed it over while he was still ahead." The only trouble for the Gore forces with this gospel was that the Republicans knew the same gospel. The book attempted to show how the two sides played out the roles assigned them.

For a behind the scenes objective look at the two sides, I think the Post did a very decent job. This could have been a... job on the Republicans and conservatives, but generally it was not (though I expected it). It could have been a... job on the Democrats and liberals, but it was not (nor did I expect it). I am not accustomed to this degree of fairness from the liberal Washington Post nor do I expect to see it very often in the future.

This is an indirect copy of a fictional serial Rose wrote around 1918-1920: "Diverging Roads." It was republished by Roger Lea MacBride as "Rose Wilder Lane: Her Story," back in the 1970's. Unfortunately, it WASN'T her story: after giving the book that misleading title, MacBride explains in the introduction that many details were changed from Rose's real life. I compare this pitiful effort to William Holtz's staggering portrayal of Rose, and it is obvious which of these two men had more scholarly respect for Rose Wilder Lane. Even though I do not agree with many of Mr. Holtz's conclusions about Rose and her relationship with her mother, his work is fully researched, the information sound. The same cannot possibly be said about MacBride's attempts to pass off fiction as fact.

In the serial, here's what eventually happened to Helen (Rose's character): she doesn't marry, but joins forces with other women who are writers/journalists, and realizes that she wants a life of freedom and independence. That part was never published by MacBride, and I have often wondered why that was so. I personally don't understand why the "Rocky Ridge" series ended in such an adult fashion. MacBride could have concluded with Rose traveling to Kansas City to pursue a new career; Rose ended her book "Old Home Town" that way, with her character Ernestine (a young Rose in disguise) going off to business college to learn happily ever after. But no, it is much easier to copy Rose's original text than it is to come up with your own. Yes, I realize MacBride may have already passed on by the time this volume was approached, but anyone with background information on Rose and half an imagination could have finished the series with more success. Actually, that goes for the whole set of books, not just this one.

Although I was interested to read about this part of Rose's life, this volume wasn't as well written as the rest of the series (it was published after Roger Lea McBride's death and may not have been fully completed by him). It reads a little strangely (especially because it is written at an easy-read level but covers an adult period of her life) and sadly ends fairly abruptly, too, at a major turning point for Rose.

To read more about Rose's life, try "West from Home : Letters of Laura Ingalls Wilder, San Francisco 1915," which tells you what Rose was doing nine years after the end of this book and how things turned out for her.

If anyone out there has hesitated to read the Rose Wilder Lane entries into the extended Little House family as they felt as I once did they would be pale copies of the original series, please don't hesitate any longer! This series has a voice of its own, and is very, very well written. I wish it was longer. I loved this last book. Rose is very different than Laura and in fact I think most women of her day. She is very strong willed and intelligent, and determined to make her own way in the world. I was especially struck by the descriptions of the early day of her life both in Kansas City and San Francisco---just how lonely and desolate life could be for a career girl starting out in those days, and how strong she was to persevere. Her growing awareness in this book that the life she always saw for herself---as a contented wife to Paul in a small world---is not really what she wants is very well done. The message sent to girls who might read this book is powerful. I also very much liked the way this series "grew up" like the original series. This last book is quite adult, though certainly not inappropriate for those who also read the early ones.

There is so much within this book that I agree with, and so much that I disagree with. Shortly, it can be cut down to that everything I agree with are the Social Darwinian elements of this book/rant and that everything I disagree with is the rhetoric concerning the ultimate superiority of the white man in all terms. Naturally, Redbeard makes a better case for racist mysogenism than most other advocates of the code, even Hitler, because he highlights that the conquering race is always the strongest, and even Bakunin agreed that history, concerned a large proportion of itself with the conquests of the white race. Redbeard naturally views conquest as fantastic. Aside from his rather conservative Christian attitude towards other races and women, this book is genial. Redbeard has a prophetic way of talking that impells the ultimate power of this book. His views are sometimes enjoyable, often disturbing, but mostly (when concerned with Social Darwinism) completely true. This book is both celebratory of strength, advocating its use, while at the same time, conscious of its inevitability. Hell, if anything, readers who object to Redbeard's advocacy of strength, must realise that nature to which we belong, ultimately is survival of the fittest. One little point though, that's always bugged me about social darwinists: Redbeard believes that all that stems from strength is 'right', he also believes that migth/strength ultimately conquers all. Redbeards sets up the view that all things in this universe abide by the law of the 'survival of the fittest' and that everything that happens therefore must be right. At the same time he complains about so much it is almost appaling. Since this world ultimately always abides by the laws of social darwinism, how can an advocate of social darwinism complain about anything that takes place? For that matter...how can you even advocate social darwinism?

I am an open minded individual, and let me be the first to say that Might is Right will definetly change the way you think! It addresses a lot of modern concerns from a very real, hard truth, and esoteric point of veiw. This is a no frills collections of essays that really hit home with some people.

It is written in a very opinionated fanatical manner, you'll find it uncensored, and far from politically correct. If your easily offended this book is not for you!

Any unembarised man of thought will find it worth owning, but read with caution and take all you read with a grain of salt.

This book is an excellent, captivating read. There is no reason that an intelligent & open mind cannot gleam so great information from this book even if they do not agree with everything. There are a lot of racial viewpoints expressed in this book, but it is not so much hatred of non-nordics but pride of in nordic race and history. There is so much to be learned, it has literally changed my waltanschauung (worldview) and has helped and will continue to help me achieve the very goals that I am so willing and ready to accomplish now. All the reviews are helpful given so far. It really does feel as if this is a holy book. BUY IT NOW!

Robin Lane Fox is one of the leading classical historians today, known for major works on Alexander the Great and the clash between Pagans and Christians. And there is much in this book that many readers will find useful and interesting. Lane Fox starts off right away against those who believe the Bible is reliable history. He points out the two differing creation stories in the book of Genesis. He notes how Luke irretrievably muddled his nativity story by tying Herod's reign with a census conducted under Governor Quirinius of Syria, not aware that Quirinius, and the census vital for moving Mary and Joseph from Nazareth to Bethlehem, were separated from Herod by at least a decade.

And then Lane Fox goes on. He discusses the history of the actual texts and the earliest copies, and how there are in fact thousands of differences. Most of these are relatively minor, but the last twelve verses of Mark and the story of the women taken in adultery in John were clearly not in the original versions. We learn about the practice of pseudonymous authors, and we have a long discussion of the claims of the Tanakh or Old Testament, and how they usually do not match the claims of archaelogy or surrounding records. We learn the interesting fact that no-one in the New Testament quotes the Songs of Songs or Ecclesiastes. We also learn this amusing anecdote about the plant that temporarily shades Jonah: "Traditionally, the plant has been seen as a gourd, but the Hebrew word is uncertain. When Latin biblical translators changed it to ivy, Augustine knew of congregations in north Africa who rioted until the gourd was brought back to the text."

And Lane Fox is especially good on how Christians muddled the relationship between the "New" and the "Old" Testaments: "When Christians quoted those old prophecies, they used Greek translations which were untrue to the Hebrew originals: they ran separate bits of a text into one; they twisted the sense and reference of nouns (Paul, at Galatians 3:8, is a spectacular example); they mistook the speakers and the uses of personal pronouns (John 19:37 or Matthew 27:9)...they muddled Jeremiah with Zechariah...they reread the literal sense and found a non-existent allegory..."

Yet although Lane Fox is an atheist, there are times when he is surprisingly uncritical of the New Testament. He tries to argue that Jesus was crucified in 36, instead of a far more likely 30. His argument is that since Jesus died after John the Baptist and John the Baptist, according to Mark, was executed for opposing Herod Antipas' marriage to his half-brother's widow, that marriage must have taken place no earlier than 34, when the half-brother died. The problem with this argument is that a) Mark gets the half-brother wrong b) Josephus doesn't say John the Baptist's execution had anything to do with Antipas' marriage.

This leads to a larger problem. Against most scholarly opinion, and against most evidence, Lane Fox insists that the Gospel of John was written by a primary source, possibly John himself, and that the Acts of the Apostles was written by a genuine companion of Paul. Lane Fox's arguments are weak. He claims that John shows a firm knowledge of first century Judea, which is a) not directly relevant and b) open to question, since John 8:33 has the Pharisees claiming that they have never been captives of anyone, forgetting both Egypt and Babylon. He sees the references to "the other disciple" in John and the we passages in Acts as references to the authors, when in the first case they could be a subtle pseudonymous device, while in the second the use of "we" is a common literary device when characters travel over water, which is where the we passages appear. One should see Donald Akenson's "Saint Saul," for why we can't put our faith in Acts, but there are obvious problems with Lane Fox's account. If Jesus really said "I am the Resurrection and the Life," then all four gospels, not just one, would have it. John's Jesus emphasizes his divinity, while Mark's, famously, is secretive about being the Messiah, a difference which to me is only compatible with the idea that Mark is an earlier and closer source to the historical Jesus. Likewise it is questionable to put too much faith in "Luke," who not only gets the date of the census wrong, but at the end of Luke has Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday while having him ascend 40 days later at the beginning of Acts. Lane Fox seems to keep as much of the Gospel accounts as possible, except when they are clearly contradicted by other information. This is understandable for a historian for whom scarcity of evidence is a constant problem, but it is wrong.

I must admit that I am a fan of Robin Lane Fox. I like his manner of writing, deprecating humor and incredible facility for research. This book is simply a tour de force - no other words to describe it.

While not religious, Fox is just, even fair, in his treatment of a book many consider the Word of God. First and foremost he is a historian of the first degree, conversant with both the religious views of the past and the social setting in which they arose and thrived. The book travels along a fairly straight line but by subject - not chronologically.

For all the rants against the author he more or less accepts the Bibical accounts as being genuine which is not to say they are valid or even true. He does not ask obvious questions - how could a people without an alphabet or writing materials preserve a history of themselves or their god? Instead he compares stories, searches for meaning, finds numerous flaws in both prophecy and inner logic and lets the reader decide.

In his dating of the New Testament he is quite conservative. His text comparisons are interesting as are his descriptions of local customs of the time. The manner in which this disparate groups of stories became our Bible is a mystery story in itself but the author sticks with the words and their context. This work is very readable and written for the educated layman.

The first time I picked up Robin Lane Fox's 'The Unauthorised Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible', I was intrigued. While this was hardly the first time I had heard the historical information of the bible questioned in terms of accuracy or even plausibility, it was I believe the first time I had ever heard the word fiction applied in a serious way (the title, no less!) to consideration of the bible.

First, a note on the author. Robin Lane Fox is a fellow of New College, Oxford, and a University Lecturer in Ancient History. Among other popular and scholarly works he has produced are 'Alexander the Great' (a respected history) and 'Pagans and Christians' (an interesting exploration of the conversion of the Roman world to Christianity). Robin Lane Fox explains in the preface to 'The Unauthorised Version' that this is an historian's view, not an exposition written from the standpoint of faith.

Robin Lane Fox is often discounted, particularly by Christians, because he purposely writes for Christian-dominated audiences, but does so from the stated standpoint of being an atheist. He does make a few historical errors in his framework -- he would say they are matters of interpretation, but I dispute that. For instance, he claims that his address to Christians rather than Jewish readers is because the Bible is a Christian creation. He discounts the Jewish influence in formation of the canon (both the positive and negative aspects related to that, yet another double-edged scenario in history). He reads the biblical texts as he would any other ancient narrative -- this is perhaps what he considers objective. However, I would submit that to write as an atheist is already to import certain judgements into the scheme of analysis and interpretation, rather like those early Enlightenment scientists and philosophers who assumed the aura of objectivity but then discounted the value of thing that didn't fit the framework of their approach.

Robin Lane Fox discounts the idea of getting beyond the translations of texts back to original documents for closer understanding. Almost in an ironic position, Lane Fox argues for the 'standard' versions over the scholarly reconstructions primarily because of the level of influence and acceptance they have gained through recitation, spiritual development, and liturgical use. This reminds me of Luke Timothy Johnson's arguments against the quest for the historical Jesus, although this is a parallel Johnson would perhaps not appreciate.

Robin Lane Fox concludes, after going through historical and literary analyses of many stories and principles in the text, that the scriptures are not unerring, and most likely only one view or voice among many (a curious claim, considering that he also speaks of the biblical text having too many voices, not just one).

I enjoyed this book. It challenges much of my faith and belief, not only religiously, but also historically and philosophically. That, I contend, is its primary value. While I certainly don't discount the need for reading spiritual texts for edification, I worry about those who exclude all but that kind of literary. Is a faith that is never challenged truly faithful? Is a faith that cannot stand up against the arguments of Lane Fox a worthwhile faith? Is the faith that cannot admit when, as much as one might not want to say so, Lane Fox has made some good points, truly a strong faith?

One of the problems with texts like these (and, ironically, their opposites) is that people rarely read enough or think enough to pull in the variety of interpretations and materials they need for sound judgement -- this is as true among those who wander the halls of seminary as it is among those outside, both in and out of the church. We naturally gravitate toward those things that are comfortable, and avoid those things which are difficult. For many, Lane Fox is discounted because of his beliefs (and yes, atheism is a belief, not merely the absence of belief). Others discount him because they 'already know his viewpoint or framework'. This, of course, is arrogance, even though it usually has a subtle cast to it (and I am guilty of this often myself).

I recommend this book. Do not look for truth of a religious sort here, but rather look for a text that will prompt thinking, both subtle and direct. Some things of value include an examination of the lack of triviality in the biblical text -- there is only one accidental death in the whole bible, and that is also to prove a point (indeed, the word 'accident' does not occur anywhere in the Bible, the King James Version or the New Revised Standard Version). The whole text is devoid of anything that does not matter, that does not have a purpose. How many readers have that kind of attention and faith to detail?

Lane Fox ends with an evaluation of the 'answer' to Pilate's question. He states (accurately) that the disciples are presented in all the gospels as often fallible and ignorant. They argue among themselves over trivial matters, and fail to understand the importance of what is happening. They also loose faith -- they fall asleep, they run away. No other religion has texts with such a human foil to its story.'

In TOW Ron McVan presents a holistic world-view for today's Odinists and Aryan people in general.

Critical reviewers have said that Ron's Odinist writings push a political line, or 'academics' say that Heathen lifestyle is better understood by studying antique sources. But this misses the point entirely. In pre-Modern times the leaders of our folk combined both political, territorial and cultural imperatives in all their actions and thoughts. So how else could it be for those struggling to restore the true religion and community of the Euro-Germanic peoples at this time?

It is this synthesis that Ron acheives in his works. Ron McVan's writings and art in TOW and Creed of Iron, and the excellent magazine Focus Fourteen, are the texts I turn to for creative, philosophical, spiritual and political guidance. I for one am eternally grateful to the Aesir that today's Teutons and Celts have such inspired leaders as Ron.

Ron McVan a master Armanen/Erulian and adept in the Teutonic mysteries of the blood, the folkish religion of our Indo-European forefathers, takes the reader on a quest to the divine godman within all Aryankind through esoteric pathworking of the Yggdrasil, Sedjr, and Galdr. No stone is left uncovered in McVan's study of the spiritual path of Aryan man. Hermeticism, Gnosticism, Alchemy, Runelore and extensive study of ritual and the mythos are analysed and it's relation to the present struggle for the preservation of the folk. Warning: This is not universalist Norse wicca ala Thorsson and Aswynn but true folkish Wotanism for Aryan revival!

Temple of Wotan demonstrates the depth of conviction and dedication to Asatru/Wotanism by author Ron McVan and his colleagues. This guidebook to the religion of Northern Europe provides all the basics and a great deal of advanced knowledge for the Friend of the Gods. Awesome illustration, intelligent prose, meaningful wisdom throughout. Begin your journey into our past with this book for the future.

Extremely dense, muddy prose slung half way between poetic delerium and hardened theory, this vast experiement in writing is fascinating in its ability to have turned over seemingly everything- and liberally shaken. This can be a masochistic experience for any reader, although I think that it is one of the most interesting philosophical texts written this century. Certainly seems essential reading for budding psychoanalysts, intending social theorists and anybody interested in the problem of fascism. 'Dip in and out of it', as has been suggested by another reviwer.

Deleuze (and Felix Guattari)are fasinating, but their prose appeals to only the sophisticated and open-minded. These men test and subsequently abolish the hierarchies on which elitism, superiority, and exclusion are built and return the world to a "horizontality" that has not existed since humans came out of the trees. They begin be striking at the heart of modern psychology, the Oedipus Complex, seeking to destroy what they believe to be the source of dominance and difference. They supplement this radical notion by equating individual desire with social desire and have no use for repression. Superegos and overactive egos have no place in their society of unbridled and unexcused desire. Because desire takes as many forms as there are persons to implement it, its is a constantly changing thoroughly innovative idea seeking new channels and different combinations to realize itself, or as they term it, a "body without organs," the changing social body of desire. This is wild stuff and worth the time it takes decifer it.

If you're into sociology, and you're curious about Deleuze, then read this one first. Skim some of the bits on psychoanalysis. But read the opening and the sections on representation closely. This is the book that gives birth to Empire, currently a hot one in the anti-globalism movement. It's in this one that D/G show how any social order requires a means by which to articluate desire. They argue that desire is fundamentally productive, creative. But that it must be harnessed if a society is going to survive it's chaotic impulses and forces.
Anti Oedipus is really a book of anthropology. It shows how "primitive," "despotic," and finally "capitalist" regimes differ in their organization of production, recording (inscription, representation), and consumption. It's also a history insofar as it covers the process by which capitalism ultimately commands all the flows and chains of production, submitting them to a form of organization that is abstract (money is abstract) rather than local and physical.
The oedipal part of it is a critique of the Oedipal complex insofar as the complex articulates a model of society based on the family triangle. They want to show that the family is a kind of organization that must colonize its members, repress their desires, and give them complexes if it is to function as an organizing principle of contemporary society.
Their alternative, to be taken literally, is schizoid: subvertive, resistance, and always escaping capture by slipping in between the categories that organize capitalist society and its way of thinking.

In contrast to the previous reviewer, I have to say that this book is not groundbreaking. The author has simply taken material that already exists in the fields of art therapy and arts medicine, fashioned it into a book. There are so many other books that deal with this material such as MCNiff's Art as Medicine, Allen's Art is a Way of Knowing, and Malchiodi's Art Therapy Sourcebook, each provides more grounded, novel information than what is provided in this particular book. I also kept wishing that the author did not refer to cancer or illness as a gift-- that concept is tired and not appropriate to any literature on healing wisdom. This book would have been wiser to stay away from that all together.

I think this book does an excellent job of theory and technique. The book does not suggest that one has to be in "art therapy" to use art as a healing tool! The book is ground-breaking in that it gives the reader the impression that art is good for you and it does not take rocket science to maximize the healing potential of the arts.

This is a great book for lay people. Many books of this type are too academic, densely written or boring to the average non-professional reader who might be interested in this topic. The writer makes the concept so easy to understand. It's filled with examples of interesting (and often beautiful) art work with words and stories by the creators. Very powerful to have the individuals who themselves have gone through life-threatening illnesses and traumatic situations talk about the healing power of art. Particularly fascinating to see examples of how art can be used globally and with the environment. Kudos to the all the people who shared so honestly their intimate stories and viewpoints, and congratulations to the author for compiling such a compelling body of work.