Rating: 
Summary: how projections and hurt feelings write a book
Review: an atrocious bunch of lies, innuendoes and half-truths rush to
print aided by the New York Times book review, noted Jung-hater. One of the most irresponsible books to hit the presses in recent years, it
masquerades as science in areas that most would not be able to
challenge. And like the DaVinci Code (that at least has the grace to call itself fiction), Noll calls into question sacred cows. Noll obviously has a vendetta and is out to discredit and smear Jung. Reader beware! BS camouflaged as "scientific research".
Rating:
Summary: how projections and hurt feelings write a book
Review: an atrocious bunch of lies, innuendoes and half-truths rush to
print aided by the New York Times book review, noted Jung-hater. One of the most irresponsible books to hit the presses in recent years, it
masquerades as science in areas that most would not be able to
challenge. And like the DaVinci Code (that at least has the grace to call itself fiction), Noll calls into question sacred cows. Noll obviously has a vendetta and is out to discredit and smear Jung. Reader beware! BS camouflaged as "scientific research".
Rating:
Summary: Neither History nor Biography
Review: Evident in the beginning of this book is the author's obvious disenchantment with Jung and his subsequent dislike of the man. Much of the book is filled with conjecture that is, in turn, used later as if it were fact. For example, early on Noll describes Jung and his associates as a cult, thereafter referring to any member of the Jungian persuasion as a "disciple" or "apostle", instead of what they truly were: patients, colleagues, and admirers. Noll also seems to be confused on the matter of Jung's concept of a person's deification. Anyone familiar with this Jungian concept or similar concepts based upon Gnosticism is probably aware that the terms "inner-god" or "Self" do not literally indicate a person's Godhood or the transformation into a God in the Classical sense, yet indicate a change in awareness that elevates the person's consciousness to a primal state that is in harmony with the universe. Although I can't remember the page this is on, Noll gives a quote by Jung that specifically states his view that psychoanalysis is but one way in which to achieve greater self-awareness, something that doesn't quite fit into the common cult mentality. Another example of the author's clear bias toward Jung is in his disregard for the accounts of patients helped by Jung's analysis. Whenever referring to one of Jung's new patients or followers, Noll uses such phrases as "fallen under Jung's spell" or "snarred by Jung", in obvious attempts to paint these people as if they were victims. When speaking of those that defected from Jungian thought, he uses the word "escaped". The fact that these people were clearly not victims, in fact mant were either cured or enjoyed prestigious careers due to their encounters with Jung, is conveniently never brought up. Fanny Bowditch Katz is a good example of this. Katz came to Jung on the verge of suicide, yet after treatment by Jung and his colleagues, Katz found meaning in her life. This is all mentioned in the book, yet Noll can't seem grasp that perhaps Katz's return to a healthy mental state may be an indication of what Jung was doing right... you would thing a Harvard grad. would have the ability to realize this!
Anyway, there is so much that is bad about this book that 1000 words simply won't suffice. Many of Noll's arguments are either petty or thinly veiled attempts to portray Jung as a lunatic. He also employs that old trick of linking Jung to the Nazis in the last chapter and constantly mentions Jung's antisemitic tendancies (although he excuses Freud's anti-Gentile attitude). If the antisemitism of a thinker was a disqualifying factor for their ideas, we would have to disgard the likes of Luther, Goethe, Kant, Paine, Franklin, and a whole host of others. It is these types of irrelevant remarks attempting to discredit Jung that make up the bulk of this book.
The only reason I don't rate the book lower is due to its cleverness in delivering its deceit.
A true piece of trash produced by an otherwise intelligent individual.
Rating: 
Summary: Agenda masquerading as a scholarly work
Review: Evident in the beginning of this book is the author's obvious disenchantment with Jung and his subsequent dislike of the man. Much of the book is filled with conjecture that is, in turn, used later as if it were fact. For example, early on Noll describes Jung and his associates as a cult, thereafter referring to any member of the Jungian persuasion as a "disciple" or "apostle", instead of what they truly were: patients, colleagues, and admirers. Noll also seems to be confused on the matter of Jung's concept of a person's deification. Anyone familiar with this Jungian concept or similar concepts based upon Gnosticism is probably aware that the terms "inner-god" or "Self" do not literally indicate a person's Godhood or the transformation into a God in the Classical sense, yet indicate a change in awareness that elevates the person's consciousness to a primal state that is in harmony with the universe. Although I can't remember the page this is on, Noll gives a quote by Jung that specifically states his view that psychoanalysis is but one way in which to achieve greater self-awareness, something that doesn't quite fit into the common cult mentality. Another example of the author's clear bias toward Jung is in his disregard for the accounts of patients helped by Jung's analysis. Whenever referring to one of Jung's new patients or followers, Noll uses such phrases as "fallen under Jung's spell" or "snarred by Jung", in obvious attempts to paint these people as if they were victims. When speaking of those that defected from Jungian thought, he uses the word "escaped". The fact that these people were clearly not victims, in fact mant were either cured or enjoyed prestigious careers due to their encounters with Jung, is conveniently never brought up. Fanny Bowditch Katz is a good example of this. Katz came to Jung on the verge of suicide, yet after treatment by Jung and his colleagues, Katz found meaning in her life. This is all mentioned in the book, yet Noll can't seem grasp that perhaps Katz's return to a healthy mental state may be an indication of what Jung was doing right... you would thing a Harvard grad. would have the ability to realize this!
Anyway, there is so much that is bad about this book that 1000 words simply won't suffice. Many of Noll's arguments are either petty or thinly veiled attempts to portray Jung as a lunatic. He also employs that old trick of linking Jung to the Nazis in the last chapter and constantly mentions Jung's antisemitic tendancies (although he excuses Freud's anti-Gentile attitude). If the antisemitism of a thinker was a disqualifying factor for their ideas, we would have to disgard the likes of Luther, Goethe, Kant, Paine, Franklin, and a whole host of others. It is these types of irrelevant remarks attempting to discredit Jung that make up the bulk of this book.
The only reason I don't rate the book lower is due to its cleverness in delivering its deceit.
A true piece of trash produced by an otherwise intelligent individual.
Rating:
Summary: A Vicious Attack on Jung by a Bitter Partisan.
Review: First, unlike many of the arrogant modern academics alive today, I am a person of the old school who believes that we should let the dead rest. This means that we should not go through all their personal letters which their estate deems PRIVATE and then concoct some wild fantasies in order that we may judge them based entirely on this. This book just goes to show that in today's politically correct academic environment ruled by self-righteous PC elites, we can throw around the term anti-Semite against any German thinker we dislike and thereby discredit him. Noll obviously has some sort of partisan agenda and personal animosity towards Jung and he has done a lot to try to discredit the great man. Fortunately it is not paying off.That said, the book does have some good points. The pictures are nice and it does include a lot of detail about the relationship between many German thinkers of the time. It situates Jung in his historical context and presents a picture of him that contrasts with the fluffy image popular among many of his "followers" today. It astounds me however to see the rudeness of some reviewers who call the ideas circulating in Germany at the time, and Jung's unique form of self-understanding "crazy" or "insane". We can learn a lot from the so-called insane (insanity by the way is a modern myth and an attempt by a degenerate society to get rid of undesirables). And, even if Jung were mentally ill (much evidence suggests he may at times have been), he certainly did not harm anyone, and this does not take away from his discoveries. Jung was not a megalomaniac or a cult leader a la Jim Jones. And, this type of hysterical nonsense is unfortunate. Jung brought light to Freud's abysmal views of human nature, and has been hated by the academic establishment ever since. As such, he is a Prometheus-Christ figure, who dared to challenge the psychoanalytic Freudian movement, which remains second only to the Marxists in their use of abusive ad hominem attacks to discredit. Jung was not a pagan, but a Christian (of sorts, albeit perhaps unorthodox). And, psychoanalysis in its Jungian form is not a religion or a religious anti-religion, but rather a compliment to traditional orthodox religion. Many disparage Jung because his views will place man at the whim of forces beyond his control (as Jung had posted above his door, "Invoked or uninvoked the Deity is always present!"). These forces used to be called God and the Devil; however, it has become more fashionable in recent times to call them the Unconscious. Nevertheless, the principle remains the same. Jung's discovery of the Collective Unconscious, his regression into deep trance and his meeting with the archetypal forces of the human mind, should not be seen as a sign of madness, but rather as the attempt of a brilliant man to perpetuate his own unique form of self-understanding. In our smug self-satisfied life, we refuse to hear of such things, and we view ourselves as in complete autonomous control of our own destiny. While we are able to use our conscious thoughts as feedback into the unconscious (we are Aristotelian rational animals afterall), this is not exactly the case. One has only to be called out from one's apathetic existence by the presence of tragedy to realize the truth in this, i.e. that control is a myth. And, this is the lesson we can learn from the Jungian Unconscious. Much more can be learned from the kind of thinking circulating in Germany before the World War. However, if we ignorantly ignore it, for fear that it may be contrary to our modern ideologies then we will miss out. Of course, we must sort the wheat from the chaff, and not engage in racism. But, to blindly regard anything Germanic as necessarily racist or anti-Semitic is a prejudice of the highest order. This is the historical context of Jung and his time.
Rating: 
Summary: Banquet for Jungophobes
Review: I find Noll's previous Jungicidal effort more interesting and persuasive: first and foremost microanalyzing the roots of CGJ's intellectual edifice, from Haeckel and Driesch to Nietzsche. Unfortunately, insightful material was pretty much devalued by Noll's unique blend of personal vendetta against all things Jungian and glaringly obvious intent to write a bombastic bestseller. Anyway, I think Noll has accomplished at least three things: 1. Wrote a convincing record on Jung's, er, "shadow" 2. Traced his Lehrjahre and conceptual development ( albeit distastefully gloating over Jung's polygynistic "scandals" ). Still, I like the "neovitalism" and Mithraism parts - although, in all sincerity, I can't buy anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity and Blut-und-Boden Nazi parts. These two books ( I'd say, intentionally ) overlook Jung's later development, with Christ emerging as the most powerful ( for Westerners ) symbol of Self. In short: Jung's was/is a neo-Gnostic Christ, not "Aryan". Especially ridiculous is the contention that Jung considered himself to be a sort of "Messiah". 3. Vented his rage and lo and behold...he was showered with $$$$$s and academic awards ( at least, one big fish in the net ). If Jung is pop, this is hip-hop, rave and rap combined. All in all: cca 40-50 pages from both books [The Aryan Christ and Noll's earlier work The Jung Cult] are valuable. The rest is a salacious chronicle a la Seutonius.
Rating:
Summary: Noll has not aged very well
Review: If you like articles in the National Enquirer, you will love this book. Salacious, vicious, and generally unsupported by evidence, I thought I was reading one of those attacks on President Clinton, paid for by his enemies. No understanding of Jung's philosophy or methods but filled with imagined descriptions of unproven lovemaking that seemed to have more relation to the author's own character than to anything Dr. Jung might have conceived. Trashiest style I've ever encountered in an academic book or indeed in any legitimate publication for the general public. Waste neither your time nor your money on this [book].
Rating:
Summary: disapointing
Review: That is what you feel while reading this political article.
If you expect to learn something from this book about C.G.Jung,forget about it. Mr. Jung was a great man and a famous scientist, who enreached the Western civilization. But reading this so-called book you only will learn that Dr. Jung was charlatan, mystic, adulterer, anti-semite,fascist and so on.Most of the book, for some mysterious reason, known perhaps to Mr. Noll himself,devoted to american patients of Dr.Jung. Very few lines to Dr. Jung Himself. Very dissapoingting. If your are a serious reader and interested in the history of psychiatry,I would not recommend this book for reading.Waiste of time and money.
Rating: 
Summary: Discovering the Realities that form the Myth - very Jungian!
Review: The Aryan Christ, despite its shortcomings, makes a significant and critical contribution to providing a fuller picture of Jung the man, and the origins of his thinking. Prior adulatory accounts of Jung have portrayed him as a saintly 'wise old man', a scientific pioneer in developing the science of analytical psychology, and, a man of mystical insight revitalizing understanding of the Christian myth. Noll acknowledges the great contribution of Jung who early recognized the genius of Freud's insight, and his methodology for showing through psychoanalysis that mental disorder was psychological, not heredity. In support of this discovery Jung worked on the Word Association tests to provide a scientific tool capable of mapping the extent and relative strength of neurotic 'complexes'. Furthermore he was the first to attempt actual psychological treatment of psychotic patients at the Bergholzli in an age when incarceration was the sole 'treatment'. But what about the deliberate distortions and omissions (some due to Jung, and some by his disciples), and the withholding of documents by his estate? For example, was the Jung / Freud break caused simply by Jung's rejection of the Libido theory, or were the differences more complex? Noll presents convincing evidence that whereas Freud sought to contain libido through sublimation, Jung sought to express it, which he and his closest followers did by a reformulation of it into pagan sexual magic. Jung's own promiscuity and conversion to the polygamous ideas of Otto Gross coincided with the break with Freud. The polygamous practices of Jung's disciples (in Jungian parlance 'constellating the anima') have remained a hidden aspect of his thinking. The serial infidelity, and Jung's long term relationship with Toni Wolff have remained carefully hidden from outsiders, - from the uncomprehending 'hoi polloi'. How does all this sit with claims Jung broke with Freud to express truths related to Christian sympathies? Noll's work does oversimplify at times. The claims made in relation to the significance of Jung's experience of deification as a lion headed Mythraic God is an interesting hypothesis, but in the light of Jung's recorded answers to questions clearly overstates its significance. One can also ask whether Noll overstates the case for Jung's supposed goal of establishing a new religion. Don't all those who hold a view that they have unique insights capable of changing the life and condition of man wish to see it spread? But does that mean they wish to become canonized or deified? Likewise one must ask if Noll is altogether fair in presenting the role of the sun in Jung's system as being more akin to a primitive animism, than to potent symbolic and physical representations of 'Light'. The same must be said of his anti-Semitism. In the context of views widely held throughout Europe and the UK in the 20s and 30s they are not unusual, whereas in this post Hitlerian age some comments are not acceptable. Jung was a complex man, of particular and unusual interests and abilities. Some of those interests and abilities he chose to keep hidden. He had a lifelong interest in occultism and the paranormal, and hid these for professional reasons, particularly during the period from his doctoral graduation to his break with Freud. Following this break he returned to these interests, integrating them into his work. In his writing many of these ideas are coded into a more scientifically acceptable terminology. Noll provides sources (Creuzer, and Cumont) for some of the ideas Jung is credited with 'discovering'. Despite the suppression of some aspects of his life and work there is a need for a fuller and less bowdlerized picture of Jung. His own ability at trance mediumship, his divinatory practice by horoscopes for clients, and the 'I Ching' in his own life, the accounts of seer-like ability demonstrated on occasion, -- there is reliable written and anecdotal evidence for all these. What of his belief in reincarnation (he believed himself to have lived as Goethe, Paraclesus, Julian the Apostate, Meister Eckhardt, and, he told Laurens vdPost, as an African tribesman who lived around 4000BC). But even in MDR this material is absent. Erlo Van Waveren, one of Jung's colleagues trained by Jung, reported some of his own dreams in which past life experiences were woven. Jung was at that time open and revelatory with him but the following day had Mrs Jung speak to him and "tell me not to talk to anyone about our conversation". The enigma of Jung emerges much more humanly from this brave and critical work, than from the God-Man adulatory works of others. Noll has opened the lid of an old trunk, letting the light disclose its hidden contents. Some acolytes are shocked, fearing their God may be shown to have feet of clay. But there are those eager to discover a fuller, more accurate picture of this man who has so influenced the thinking of an age. For those who still prefer the sanitized adulation of earlier works, read Laurens vdPost. There you can read seven pages about his relationship with Toni Wolff and still not realize she was his mistress. The reason Jung burnt their letters after her death, according to an "inkling" of Laurens vdPost, is because they were about the secret innermost process of individuation! Such delicate sophistry! I'll take Noll's critical questioning any day.
Rating:
Summary: A disappointing, intellectually dishonest book
Review: The polemic and lurid title and the sensationalism of the blurbs on the cover bespeak the author's partisan resentments and his hunger to sell copies at the expense of intellectual honesty. The author makes much of the fact that that Jung hid his esoteric "neo-pagan" beliefs behind a mask of Christianity. Anyone even remotely familiar with Jung's work would recognize that his beliefs evolved over time. That he did not instantly publicly proclaim them as they emerged from his mind is hardly surprising or sinister. The author's assertion that Jung sought to make himself the high priest of some Aryan religion and that he saw himself as "The Aryan Christ" is absurd. To be sure, Jung was hardly an orthodox Christian and he and his followers saw their movement as something more than a mere clinical system. What is so sinister about that? After all, Freud was hardly an orthodox Jew and he and his followers saw their system as something more than an innovative system of psycho-therapy. Whatever personal motives the author has for making a career out of trashing Jung, there is a market for this tripe because the academic and publishing establishment has a hatred for all manifestations of Germanic culture. A large chunk of this books is a mean spirited, gossipy account of the lives of three of Jung's female analysands and analysts. The connection between these lives and the author's thesis about Jung is tenuous. These accounts are mere sensationalist padding for a very slight book. The book contains some useful biographical material and the footnotes are of far greater value than the text. Apologies to Amazaon.com -- but don't waste your money on this book. Get it from the library or get a cheap used copy.
|
