<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Good information...
Review: ...but not enough references. Telling someone *how* you find information is just as important as telling them what the information is.
Rating:
Summary: Good information...
Review: ...but not enough references. Telling someone *how* you find information is just as important as telling them what the information is.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent book to get you to rethink what you know!
Review: An excellent book to get you to start using some critical thinking skills. The author points out that what we think is so often is not. He did however pass on a myth that is not correct. He passed on the myth of glass being a liquid, when it isn't. Glass is an amorphous solid and not a liquid. It's crystalline structure clearly places as a solid and not a liquid. (Read S.R. Elliott's book, Amorphous Solids, An Introduction)This is but one source among many that will confirm this. I dare say that Mr. Varasdi confirms his own point! All in all a book well worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: ideas here applied to television
Review: I was looking through this book recently because I had read and reviewed a book called Modeling Behaviors from Images of Reality in Television Narratives: Myth Information and Socialization by Tony R. DeMars. I think someone reading that book about influences of TV shows on childrens' behavior who doesn't quite grasp the idea of the myths we build our world around as reality would do well to read this book also--as well as a book that came out in the mid-80s called No Sense of Place, by Joshua Meyrowitz. Some people seem to have a hard time stepping back from their 'reality' and seeing these myths.
Rating:
Summary: Great book that explodes commonly held myths.
Review: It's amazing how easily we accept as fact the many myths that pervade our culture. Varasdi explodes so many of these myths, and so convincingly, that he makes you wonder about other things "everyone" knows is "true." A great read, and a great book to read with others, so you can share your thoughts.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointed
Review: This book is not recommended. There are too many flaws to mention, as in the fact that the author actualy states some myths to be true (more on that later). Here are some flaws:1. No bibliography. His "debunkings" of myths are arrogant, yet he never cites a source. Scholarary no-no. 2. He claims that "Ring Around the Rosies" was a reference to the Black Plague and popped up in 1347. Where he gets this I have no idea. The first mentioning of Ring Around the Rosies appeared in 1881, a far stretch from 1347. Also, how could "ashes" been a corruption of a plague victim sneezing? The ashes part wasn't added until the 20th century. This was the first version of "Ring Around the Rosies": Ring a ring a rosie, A bottle full of posie, All the girls in our town, Ring for little Josie. How that could relate to a plague is beyond me. 3. He claims the Baby Ruth bar is named after Grover Cleavland's daughter. There is no evidence for this claim and it has always been rather ambiguous. 4. Finally the author claims John Hanson was the first president of the US. Let's look at this. No one in Hanson's time called him the President, and John Hanson couldn't possibly have been the "first president of the United States," because neither the office of President of the United States nor the nation known as the United States of America was created until after he was dead. Main source: ...
<< 1 >>
| 
