Becket

Remarkable 20th Century History of Comic Strips

Revisado: 05-02-17

Would you consider the audio edition of Peanuts, Pogo, and Hobbes to be better than the print version?

Bob Neufeld's narration of "Peanuts, Pogo, and Hobbes" makes me feel like I'm actually listening to the voice of George Lockwood, telling me the fascinating history of his career.

What other book might you compare Peanuts, Pogo, and Hobbes to and why?

This audiobook is incomparable. No other narrative fully recounts how meaningfully comic strips have affected American history.

Which scene was your favorite?

I most enjoyed Lockwood sharing the overall narratives of his favorite comic strips, usually adventure strips, such as "Terry and the Pirates" and "Dick Tracy". I also enjoyed Lockwood recounted how the popularity of adventure strips transitioned into gag strips.

Did you have an extreme reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry?

I wish there were more books like this, but this is the only one, which in its own way, makes it a real treasure.

Any additional comments?

For anyone seeking to learn the history of comic strips, or interested in becoming a comic strip artist, this book is for you. It's absolutely brilliant. I've listened to it many times. R.I.P. Mr. Lockwood, and thank you for this great book.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

Flippant, bias, disappointing.

Revisado: 04-04-14

What would have made Church History in Plain Language better?

The fundamental reason I cannot support this book is that the author often demonstrates a flippant and biased attitude toward certain characters and events in history. For instance, on the section dealing with the Nestorian Controversy, the historian makes Nestorius out to be a sympathetic character regrettably slighted by a bullying church. There are many other instances like this, where the historian does not take into account the psychological attitudes of each culture; but instead appears to be writing from a modernist, single-culturaist, and anti-Catholic-Church point of view, giving little consideration to the psychosocial conditions of disparate cultures, practices and norms. This is the seed of his bias remarks. This history might be in plain language, but for me, the historian is too close-minded and thoughtless.

What could Bruce L. Shelley have done to make this a more enjoyable book for you?

I would rather read / listen to a history wherein the historian works harder at being objective. I would also rather enjoy a history wherein the historian takes into account the psychosocial and psychological attitudes of each culture. I would prefer a history wherein the historian demonstrates open-mindedness through objective comments.

How did the narrator detract from the book?

This is perhaps the most irksome part of the listening experience. The narrator continually mispronounces names and events. But he does have mostly enjoyable diction.

What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?

Frustration and disappointment.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 21 personas