Greed: The Seven Deadly Sins (Ay Insp - Tickle)

Rating:
Summary: What is this book really about?
Review: This is the shortest book so far in the Seven Deadly Sins series, not that any of them have been long (the longest so far has been about 150 pages, including the index). Greed is amazing in that, of its 97 pages, approximately 30 of them are notes. Some of these notes are pages long. Unfortunately, brevity in text does not translate into coherence, and this book will leave readers wondering as to what the author was trying to accomplish, and with no very new insights into the sin of greed. The corpulent notes only detract from the main text, and many provide little or no substance to the subject matter, which is supposed to be greed.

There are many interesting historical snippets in this diminutive essay, and some of them relate to greed. Most of them are inserted into a vast 2000 year sweep of the evolution of the concept of "sin" and the effect that these events have had on western human history. St. Paul is discussed, Tertullian, Prudentius (specifcally his work called "Psychomachia"), Martin Luther, Alan Greenspan, Bosch, Brugel the Elder, Nietzsche, and many others are mentioned more in passing than in any detail. The ties of many of these hisorical figures to greed are tenuous or at the least not instructive as to the subject matter (i.e., Bosch painted a triptych called "The Haywain" and the author examines this painting as a symbol of Bosch's attitude towards greed- sure, it's interesting, but what does it really teach us about greed?). It's interesting in its own way, but isn't this supposed to be an essay about greed? Greed itself (plastered on the front of the book with a cartoony looking person clutching a large sack) seems to have been forced in and woven throughout an essay that was not originally about greed, but more about the concept of sin in general and greed was emphasized for the purpose of this series. Greed is, at one point (pg. 36) literally inserted with brackets into the text: "Many of us in my line of business would also add, even emphasize, as does Professor Schimmel himself, that it is the responsibility of theistic religion, 'to translate its relevant teachings [i.e., about greed] into an idiom that speaks to modern man while respecting his skepticism about religious dogma.'" The brackets are in the original text (and presumably, the author's own), and (though this is the most blatant case) give the feeling that we're not really talking about greed per se, but about a larger subject. The conclusion of the essay does not wrap up the subject of greed, but is more about Mario Donizetti's (a contemporary Italian painter) style of painting (though the painting discussed is called "Avarice" the discussion doesn't shed much light on the subject of greed, though it stimulates curiousity about the artist). What is the author trying to communicate through this essay? If the title had been "sin" or "the evolution of sin" or "explosive moments in the last 2000 years that have changed our conception of sin" the work may have made more sense. Diving into this book with the idea that greed is about to be discussed may cause some disorientation. One of the strangest lapses, which should have been put into the already burgeoning notes, is this passage from page 39 where Dickens' "Christmas Carol" is being discussed: "Indeed, Scrooge is so completely a caricature that he is better known to thousands of school children today as a duck than as a human being." Not only is this highly debatable - which is irrelevant here, not to mention in the book itself - it adds nothing, and even detracts, from a discussion that could have circled around the entire moral of the story which relates to greed (Scrooge is known through popular culture - mainly television advertisements - to many as the embodiment of greed). Scrooge is a caricature, and that's partly why the story works, to explore the consequences that greed can have on one's own life.

The book also includes pictures that add little to the subject matter. Some are mentioned in the text, but without direct reference to the actual figure (i.e., the book never tells a reader to "see Figure 1") so the reader must make the connection (e.g., why was the work called "The Greenspan Buddah" included? Greenspan is mentioned in the text, but why include this particular piece?).

Perhaps re-reading the essay without the notion that it is in fact about greed will yield more. It is too bad, because greed seems to surround us these days. Scandals in the financial industry and people living lives in debt for the pursuit of "stuff" abound. The book does not even attempt to shed light on these modern day issues (they are mentioned, but not examined in any depth). Greed is a huge problem and a huge subject, it's just too bad that this book is more about something else.

Rating:
Summary: Not as broad and fair as it could be
Review: Was driving to the city and heard the author on NPR and became engrossed with what she was saying and what the callers were interjecting as well. So I stopped and bought a copy of the book, which is a quick read and enjoyable.

What negatives the book has can be summed up as semi-USA bashing since the author seems to suggest and the callers to the show to often suggested that greed is an American creation and something other countries aren't driven to.

Excuse me? Anyone been to Japan or even modern day China where a few rule with greed as their foundation? And what about Saudi Arabia where the ruling family reeks of greed and where their subjects suffer often in abject poverty? Been to Paris to the fashion shows where one outfit can cost six figures? That's greed.

Greed isn't always bad. Someone can be greedy and want to make the most money because in doing so they have more money to give to worthy causes.