Kenneth McLeish (1940–1997)

I think Kenneth McLeish is phenomenal, a great example of someone passionately well-read, skilled, and willing to share with others. This book is a useful guide to many of the major artistic movements of the 20th century, and I appreciate having it on my shelf. Nevertheless, I'm somewhat ideologically opposed - McLeish is open in the introduction that he has chosen many of the artists based on whether he likes them personally or not, and has omitted fashion, photography, and film as controversially artistic (a judgment no doubt cleared up in the last 30 years) but this leads to some obviously egregious omissions. Caryl Churchill not in the theatre section? Women don't really make the cut here.… (plus d'informations)

Key Ideas in Human Thought

This is not the sort of book one reads even in many sittings, but it is a reference book of some indisputable value, even if it is also a remarkably biased book for one that professes to cover 1C2,500 important terms and topics in all areas of intellectual inquiry from science to history, economics to literature, mathematics to music. 1D

Now take a breath. What is intellectually parochial about this book (with which I shall deal anon) is perhaps outweighed by the usefulness of much of its information. For example, my partner just asked me what the first and second laws of thermodynamics might be. In these days of the Internet, I could have looked it up on wikipedia (another source that maintains a certain intellectual parochialism despite it cosmopolitanism and internationalism 14or possibly because of them), but 1CKey Ideas in Human Thought 1D was more readily at hand, so I cracked open its almost 800 pages and looked up 1Cthermodynamics, 1D which was easily done in this alphabetically arranged encyclopedia. (Historically, not all encyclopedias have been arranged alphabetically.)

In this instance, the article on thermodynamics was only about a column long. (Each page is divided into two columns, rather than the text running straight across the page.) The first and second laws turn out to have to do with the transfer/non-transfer of heat-energy and tell us that energy cannot be kept going as in a perpetual motion machine; rather, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and it moves from warmer to cooler bodies and not the other way around. It can be turned from heat into work-energy but not perpetually.

Well, this is useful if you need to know it and cannot remember what your science teacher was saying while you were looking out the window. The book contains such a vast number of succinct explanations of concepts you never thought you would need to know or recall 14but nevertheless might suddenly find yourself needing to define 14that its shortcomings can and should be overlooked 14up to a point.

Sometimes its flaws are at least a tiny bit laughable. For example, right before 1Cthermodynamics 1D is an article on 1CTheosophy, 1D which defines it as a cult (in bold print to indicate that that concept can be looked up, too) and after describing its historical origin in the work of Helena Blavatsky and H.S. Olcott along with their founding conceptions ands influences, finally sums up by saying, 1CThe cult was investigated in 1884, and declared fraudulent, but in its day, it attracted a huge following, worldwide. 1D As someone not attached to Theosophy but acquainted with it, I can only find this explanation much too short. Perhaps each contributor was given only so much space for each topic. (Not the same amount of space, for articles are of very different lengths.) Among the things I would add to this explanation of Theosophy are that, despite a more than century-old finding that the basis of theosophy might involve some fraudulence, Theosophy continues to thrive, worldwide, and had many touching points with events and ideas in the twentieth century. (Its most sustained importance to my mind is its influence on the ever-living comedy troupe, The Fire Sign Theatre; but one can't have that without all the rest.)

Another article is on 1CGreen Politics and Design. 1D This is of historical interest only as it traces a shift in environmentalist thought from a suspicion of 1Cgreen design 1D 14 1Clow technology, recycling and a social role for the designer 1D 14as part of consumerism to an embrace and appreciation for 1Cthe long-term implications of their designs and the materials they use. 1D It ends with an almost teleological prediction: 1CAs we approach the end of the [twentieth] century a new green aesthetic for design will influence the whole of our visual culture. 1D

The next article is on the 1Cgreenhouse effect 1D and describes the theory of global warming (though the term is not used here but is in the entries on "global warming" and "sustainable development") as succinctly as you might ever find, but, again, my favorite sentence is the last one: 1CHowever, it is likely that the biosphere [bold type equals q.v.] will be able to adjust to higher temperatures even if humans cannot. 1D In other words, even if global warming makes the earth unlivable for people, life will probably continue through creatures that are more tolerant of high temperatures. I find this remarkable because it is not comforting, and is so obviously not meant to be.

A somewhat more useful article, the first under 1CB, 1D is about 1CBa 19athism. 1D While not a household word, this is a pan-Arab political philosophy subscribed to by both the late Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Hafiz al-Assad of Syria 14father of the currently embattled Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Interestingly, despite both being nominally ba 19athist, Hussein and the elder Assad were regional enemies and rivals, Assad supporting Iran against Iraq in their 1980-1988 war. (He also joined the U.S.-led coalition against Hussein in 1991. Today, Iran has joined Russia in supporting the younger Assad against Syrian rebels.)

The article on 1Clibertarianism 1D idiosyncratically turns into a baldly argumentative refutation rather than a value-neutral explanation: 1CThere are two major problems with this childishly simple argument. 1D Even the subject of the final entry, 1CZoroastrianism, 1D gets a more objective treatment despite the contributor undoubtedly not being a believer.

Some potential articles are notably absent, such as one on the free market; although there is a discussion of 1Cfree trade, 1D this is an extremely limited aspect of free market theory, and even in this case there is no examination of free trade before the twentieth century. Free trade is primarily considered as a product of government intervention, which is an incomplete picture to put it charitably. Though the article is not written by the same contributor who did the one on libertarianism, the point of view is reminiscent since he too sees muscular governments as necessary to make economic transactions just. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I detect a profound bias in all of this.

The chief editor, Kenneth McLeish, is also a contributor. (He wrote the entry on 1CTheosophy 1D for example.) Like most of the contributors he is British. I see an Australian, a German, a possible South African, and one American in the list of contributors. The C.V.s of contributors are eye-opening at times. The article on the 1Cgreenhouse effect 1D was written by Richard Burchmore, a Ph.D. and researcher in parasitology, not, as one might expect, by Philip Sarre, a geographer and author of the book 1COne World for One Earth! 1D who did write the entries on "global warming" and 1Csustainable development. 1D Another contributor is Tania Krzywinska, whose degree in Modern Drama and Film apparently led her to her area of expertise, 1CCinematic Hardcore Pornography, 1D although she only co-wrote the entry on 1Cpornography 1D with McLeish and is one of four contributors to the article on 1Cgender 1D and is not the author of the entry on 1Ceroticism. 1D (That would be, again, McLeish.)… (plus d'informations)