Nagham Kamel itibaren Valea Banului , Romania

_aghamk

11/05/2024

Kitap için kullanıcı verileri, yorumlar ve öneriler

Nagham Kamel Kitabın yeniden yazılması (10)

2019-01-16 16:41

8 - 14 Yaş Grubu Öğrenciler İçin Yaşayan Değerler Eğitimi Etkinlikleri TrendKitaplar Kütüphanesi

Tarafından yazılmış kitap Tarafından: Eğitim Yayınevi - Ders Kitapları

To make a fairly crude analogy, editing a book about the Labour governments of the 1970s is somewhat akin to performing an autopsy on a corpse that has been dragged about, kicked around, and otherwise mangled almost out of recognition. For the last two-and-a-half decades, politicians on both the left and the right have been pointing to the 1970s as an example of what they DON'T want to see happen again. Militant industrial action, a stagnating economy, rampant inflation, the humiliation of the 1976 IMF loan, and finally the so-called Winter of Discontent in 1978-79 all combined to a no-confidence vote in Jim Callaghan's leadership and the 1979 General Election that brought Margaret Thatcher into power. In the years that followed, Thatcher and her successors (both John Major and Tony Blair) sought to distance themselves from that particular time in British history. Blair even chose to rebrand the party as 'New Labour' specifically to assure the electorate that Labour had shaken off its past failures and flaws and was prepared to be a party capable of governing once again. Yet any number of questions still remain: To what extent is New Labour really a radical departure from the party of Keir Hardie, Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, and Jim Callaghan? Were the Wilson and Callaghan years really the string of disasters that today's politicians like to spend their time rabbiting on about? And if not, why have both the new left and the new right found the 1970s to be a surprisingly useful time period to denounce? The essays and articles in New Labour, Old Labour are on the whole an excellent collection of analyses on different aspects of the Wilson and Callaghan governments. Well-known and respected historians and political scientists delve into the details of government in the latter half of the 1970s, such as industrial and social policy, Scottish and Welsh devolution, the crisis in Northern Ireland, the Labour Party's near-meltdown over relations with the EEC, and the ups and (mostly) downs of the economic cycle. Other articles take a more personal look at the mechanics of government, specifically with regard to Wilson and Callaghan's relationships with their Cabinet ministers, the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the Labour Party rank and file. There were several articles I particularly enjoyed -- not surprisingly, they happened to be by authors whose writing styles appeal to me. Philip Norton's article about the Labour Party's struggles to keep control of Parliament was a personal favourite, though that might have something to do with the fact that thanks to Alec the Dissertation, I can practically cite chapter and verse out of some of Norton's other books about parliamentary dissent. Dennis Kavanagh also does a fine job looking at why it's so convenient for politicians today to misread and misinterpret Old Labour, finding in it a useful way to define themselves and their political platforms to the electorate ('this is what we're not' rather than 'this is what we are'). The one article that I wish had not been included was about social inequality under Old Labour, written jointly by Polly Toynbee and David Walker. I'm not overly fond of Polly Toynbee's writing style to begin with, so perhaps that was a mark against the article to start. However, in the midst of so many well-written scholarly articles on the time period, the work of two journalists simply doesn't feel like it belongs -- it feels lightweight, somehow. I suppose it was added in there to make the book more marketable to a nonscholarly audience, but I think I would've rather seen the article written by someone else (who doesn't set my teeth on edge to read him/her).

2019-01-16 19:41

Uzaydan Gelenler (Erdemleri Keşfedelim-01) TrendKitaplar Kütüphanesi

Tarafından yazılmış kitap Tarafından: Damla Yayınevi

Okay, so I'm aware that this is a widely beloved book with it's Homers, and it's oral tellings, and it's histories-DAAAWHAWWW But it must be said. This book makes a habit of taking FOR-FREAKING-EVER to explain what could be said in like five seconds. Example? Heres one: A bunch of freaking ships sail to troy! There I've done it. I have finally taken the biggest dumb on Homer. For in the book, that sentence takes AN ENTIRE CHAPTER TO SAY!!! You could argue that it's poetry. And since I almost never go out of my way to read poetry AND I think Shakespeare is REALLY over rated, that point would at all be unjustified. You could also say that Homer was explaining all of the ships and who was on it. EXCEPT THAT NOBODY WOULD EVER GIVE A CRAP IF THIS BOOK WASN'T SO FRIGGIN' OLD!!! Finally, you could argue that since I didn't finish the book, I have no right to criticize it. But, OOOH NO! I would sort of begin to agree with you If I was criticizing the plot or the continuity, and so on. But, I'm complaining about something that cannot be ignored. You can turn to any page in the story and see this problem. That is, the over stating of a simple idea. Many books fall for this. Even "Pendragon," one of my favorite franchises is guilty of doing this. Even I! Why just read this review and you'll see it!!! In fact, that's basically what writing is! One of the major goals of a writer is to create the illusion that there isn't any rambling going on, and this book fails on ALL accounts. Oh man, I'm getting so worked up about this that I'm overusing the caps lock. Well, I think my point is made. I didn't like "The Illiad."

Okuyucu Nagham Kamel itibaren Valea Banului , Romania

Kullanıcı, bu kitapları portalın yayın kurulu olan 2017-2018'de en ilginç olarak değerlendirdi "TrendKitaplar Kütüphanesi" Tüm okuyucuların bu literatürü tanımalarını tavsiye eder.