Cart
|
|
my account
|
wish list
|
help
|
800-878-7323
Hello, |
Login
MENU
Browse
New Arrivals
Bestsellers
Featured Preorders
Award Winners
Audio Books
See All Subjects
Used
Staff Picks
Staff Picks
Picks of the Month
Bookseller Displays
50 Books for 50 Years
25 Best 21st Century Sci-Fi & Fantasy
25 PNW Books to Read Before You Die
25 Books From the 21st Century
25 Memoirs to Read Before You Die
25 Global Books to Read Before You Die
25 Women to Read Before You Die
25 Books to Read Before You Die
Gifts
Gift Cards & eGift Cards
Powell's Souvenirs
Journals and Notebooks
socks
Games
Sell Books
Blog
Events
Find A Store
Don't Miss
Spring Sale
Big Mood Sale
Teen Dream Sale
Powell's Author Events
Oregon Battle of the Books
Audio Books
Get the Powell's newsletter
Visit Our Stores
Powell's Staff:
Five Book Friday: In Memoriam
(0 comment)
Every year, the booksellers at Powell’s submit their Top Fives: their five favorite books that were released in 2023. It’s a list that, when put together, shows just how varied and interesting the book tastes of Powell’s booksellers are. I highly recommend digging into the recommendations — we would never lead you astray — but today...
Read More
»
Brontez Purnell:
Powell’s Q&A: Brontez Purnell, author of ‘Ten Bridges I’ve Burnt’
(0 comment)
Rachael P.:
Starter Pack: Where to Begin with Ursula K. Le Guin
(0 comment)
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
##LOC[Cancel]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
##LOC[Cancel]##
Customer Comments
kaath9 has commented on (3) products
Mythmaker Paul & The Invention Of Christ
by
Hyam Maccoby
kaath9
, November 09, 2010
I was impressed with Maccoby's attempts to manipulate the reader's perceptions, but disappointed in his scholarship. His book is full of what I refer to as "sleight of tongue." This is a rhetorical device by which the writer posits a hypothetical situation of what “might have happened,” then subtly changes the language from the conditional or theoretical (“might have,” “could have”) to the positive until they are speaking of the hypothetical incident or situation as if it had actually happened. The writer may then tell the reader what "we have seen" or what "I have shown" or what they may surmise. Having promoted an idea and assumed the reader has accepted it, the writer then proceeds as if the point has been proven rather than merely raised. In "Mythmaker" Maccoby tells us that, according to Ebionite sources (which are not cited) Saul of Tarsus—later, the Apostle Paul—was not, as he claimed, a Pharisaical rabbi, but rather a Gentile, born of Gentile parents. Further, he is “an adventurer of undistinguished background.” We are asked to accept Maccoby's word that the adjective “undistinguished” is accurate—ditto, the descriptive noun “adventurer,” both of which are evocative. Maccoby proceeds with the rest of his commentary on Paul as if he has proved that this is so, and so, later in the chapter, he says that “Even though Saul, after his conversion to Judaism, never actually became a Pharisee rabbi, the mere fact that he felt a strong urge in later life to represent himself as having been one must be significant. It means that ... this had been his dream. If his parents were indeed ‘God-fearers’ (i.e. Gentiles who lived as Jews), they must have told him about the famous Pharisees of Judea... The young Saul would have heard the names of the greatest Pharisee leaders ... he may have seen [them].” Maccoby completes the hypothetical construct by asserting, in non-hypothetical terms, that “The young Saul, planning to be a full convert, would be impelled by his naturally ambitious nature to see himself as no ordinary convert, but ... to become ... a great Pharisee leader himself.” At the end of the chapter, Maccoby sums up what we may now “surmise” about Paul based on the foregoing: “We may surmise that he made an abortive attempt to rise in the Pharisee movement; that he enrolled with some Pharisee teacher for a while ... but proved a failure.” The finale: “Instead of his dream of respected status as a rabbi, the reality was ignominy as a member of the High Priest’s band of armed thugs.” (Maccoby’s Mythmaker pp98 & 99) These two paragraphs are a case study in the attempted manipulation of the reader’s perceptions. After laying out a fabric of mixed conditional and unconditional assertions (must be, may have, must have, would have)—which are opinions about what Paul might have thought, been and done—Maccoby goes on to claim that based on these suppositions, we may surmise an entire chapter full of actions and attitudes on Paul’s part. Let’s reverse engineer this. Two things stand out most starkly, to me: 1) in the entire passage, the author fails to offer one actual fact and 2) the one thing he actually labels a fact is something he would have to be Paul to know. This is “the fact that he felt a strong urge” to represent himself as being a Pharisee. In Maccoby’s case, I think it’s instructive to look at the depth of omniscience he claims. He says with certainty that Paul: 1. never became a Pharisee 2. wasn’t Jewish by birth, but a convert 3. felt a strong urge to be taken as a Pharisee 4. dreamed of achieving high status in the Pharisee movement 5. planned to be a full convert to Judaism 6. had a naturally ambitious nature 7. made an abortive attempt to rise in the Pharisee movement (especially difficult if he was never a member of the movement to begin with.) 8. proved a failure (at an unproven, hypothetical ambition). It’s a mixed bag, but among the unsupported assumptions are three items that there can be no historical record of—Paul’s feelings, urges, plans and naturally ambitious nature. An unwary reader may emerge from the chapter believing that a scholarly treatise has uncovered an historical character’s true nature when it’s done nothing of the kind. As a rhetorical device this assumption of omniscience can be very useful. It allows a writer to paint a picture of the individual that—unless the reader is aware enough to deconstruct it—can outlast any factual information the reader might glean. I’m uncomfortable with this usage, even from writers whose viewpoints I agree with. Maybe it’s because I’m primarily a writer of fiction, but even in the realm of non-fiction, I’m a firm believer that showing, not telling is the best way to communicate honestly.
Was this comment helpful? |
Yes
|
No
(0 of 1 readers found this comment helpful)
report this comment
The Lightning Thief: Percy Jackson and the Olympians 1
by
Rick Riordan
kaath9
, March 16, 2010
This was an exciting read, the characters were great (I ADORED Grover, the klutzy but earnest satyr) and my seven-year-old loved it to pieces. BUT I found myself rolling my eyes a lot as I was caught up short by the holes in the fabric of the story and Riordan’s manipulation of his characters. Specifically, Mr. Riordan makes it clear that these kids are smart. They're smart enough to figure out that there's a spy in the demigod summer camp, for example, and Our Hero, Percy Jackson, spends the length of the book wondering who that spy is. But though he's fed increasingly clear clues as to the identity of that spy, he never stops to figure it out—he just continues to wonder. Moreover, when he and his companions have completed their mission and returned to camp, the question of the spy’s identity and role in Grover almost meeting an untimely end are completely forgotten. Time drags by and no one so much as mentions the spy or is the least concerned that they might still be a threat--which, of course, they are. Since I'd figured it out long, long before (because of the numerous unsubtle hints), this was more than a little frustrating. Most frustrating of all was the way Riordan literarily forces the reader to look away by simply not addressing the subject. The nature and powers of gods and other supernaturals are also vague and inconsistent. Sometimes characters knew things in detail that they had no reason to know and other times things took place right out in front of mortals and gods alike that the gods seemed to take no notice of despite the fact that Percy's movements were supposedly of dire import. I was continually wondering, “Well, if they know THIS how can they possibly NOT know THAT?” The characters seemed to know what the writer needed them to know, and not know what he needed them NOT to know regardless of the situation. It made me doubt that Riordan had a clear picture of the powers and nature of his supernatural characters. I also found the end of the book disappointing emotionally. Percy's mom, who is married to this nasty piece of work for reasons that become clear, finally has every reason to leave the buffoon. Riordan makes a big point of the idea that though Percy could take care of this for his mom through supernatural means, she shows courage by electing to do it herself. But in the end, she offs the guy (off-stage at that), employing the same supernatural device that Percy was going to use, thus sidestepping the issue of personal courage entirely. And I have to ask if the punishment fit the crime. Without divulging too much, there’s also a logistical problem in Riordan’s solution with regard to Percy’s step-father. The mom does him in using a device that would have had the same deadly effect on everyone in the room. We know he was playing poker when he, er, folded, and poker is not a solitary pursuit. But there's no mention of the other guys at the poker table. I will buy the rest of the books for my daughter, 'cause like I said, they're fun to read with lots of cliff-hangers, and I love the kid characters. I’ve also heard from several readers that the series improves with regard to Puppet Master Syndrome. I hope those readers are right and Mr. Riordan has come up with plots that don't require so much manipulation of the characters AND the reader.
Was this comment helpful? |
Yes
|
No
(5 of 14 readers found this comment helpful)
report this comment
Something Wicked This Way Comes
by
Ray Bradbury
kaath9
, May 22, 2009
This is my favorite novel of all time. The prose is so lyrical, I have to read it out loud ... and often stop to weep (literally) for the sheer beauty of it. The story is so compelling, it leaves a mark on the soul. This is one of the finest pieces of literature in the English language. Shakespeare, eat your heart out.
Was this comment helpful? |
Yes
|
No
(4 of 11 readers found this comment helpful)
report this comment