Rating: 
Summary: Better Than the Ayn Rand School for Tots!
Review: "The D'oh of Homer: The Simpsons and Philosophy" is editor William Irwin's second foray into returning philosophy to its marketplace origins, making it accessible to non-academics through pop-culture comparisons. Like his first, "Seinfeld and Philosophy," "D'oh" is an introductory-level philosophy text compiled of different papers and presentations given by various people in the philosophical field. Arguably, the Simpsons provide a far richer crop of philosophical conundrums than the "show about nothing" (who else would soundly wallop objectivist 'thought' like the "Ayn Rand School for Tots" episode), and that is reflected in the various chapters in the book, covering much of the major philosophical movements (although the moderns are strangely underrepresented).Topics include whether Homer is an Aristotelian model (he isn't), whether Bart represents Nietzsche's Will to Power (the book says he might, but he doesn't), and if Maggie embodies the Tao (she does, to a certain degree). There are more non-philosophical essays as well, including a great one of gender discourse and sexual politics, and essays on parody and allusion. Unfortunately, due to the short nature of the essay format, these topics are never taken to any great degree of depth, but those looking for an introduction to philosophy will find them to be more than adequate. As with any scholarly compilation, some of the essays are better (and better-written) than others, and the book's weakness lies in the fact that some of them clunk along at a jagged pace. Some were clearly written for an intellectual audience familiar with philosophical themes and discourse, and some were written for a higher degree of accessibility. That isn't to say that the essays aren't understandable, but the language, prose, and sentence structure of some (especially the more, um, dry examples) could be a real turn-off to those who would otherwise get a lot out of this book. It's weak, but not too weak to overlook. The only other problem is that the Nietzsche essay works from a VERY narrow interpretation of old Freddy's works, and should be taken with a grain of salt - but that's a personal problem with the book, not a professional one. Grade: B
Rating:
Summary: A generally good, if uneven, collection
Review: "The Simpsons and Philosophy" is a collection of essays written by different authors that vary in quality and style. The thrust is the introduction of aspects of philosophy through an analysis of the characters and stories in "The Simpsons." In this regard the book is mostly interesting and informative. A big chunk of it (Part II and much of Part IV) wasn't philosophy at all, but rather "literary" criticism that I didn't much care for -- the worst essay in the collection being the Marxist hissy-fit. Moreover, despite disclaimers throughout the text, there was an assumption of intent on the part of the script writers that, by listening to the voice-overs on the DVDs, one finds isn't really there. For all the above, I would have rated this book 3 stars. However, the essay "The Function of Fiction" was outstanding and worth the price of the book alone. This essay spent a lot of time away from the Simpsons in particular, but ultimately gave the best argument why the show is so great. For readers looking for a light read about their favorite show, this book isn't the place to go. But for people who love the Simpsons on all its levels, this book has its place.
Rating:
Summary: A generally good, if uneven, collection
Review: "The Simpsons and Philosophy" is a collection of essays written by different authors that vary in quality and style. The thrust is the introduction of aspects of philosophy through an analysis of the characters and stories in "The Simpsons." In this regard the book is mostly interesting and informative. A big chunk of it (Part II and much of Part IV) wasn't philosophy at all, but rather "literary" criticism that I didn't much care for -- the worst essay in the collection being the Marxist hissy-fit. Moreover, despite disclaimers throughout the text, there was an assumption of intent on the part of the script writers that, by listening to the voice-overs on the DVDs, one finds isn't really there. For all the above, I would have rated this book 3 stars. However, the essay "The Function of Fiction" was outstanding and worth the price of the book alone. This essay spent a lot of time away from the Simpsons in particular, but ultimately gave the best argument why the show is so great. For readers looking for a light read about their favorite show, this book isn't the place to go. But for people who love the Simpsons on all its levels, this book has its place.
Rating:
Summary: A generally good, if uneven, collection
Review: "The Simpsons and Philosophy" is a collection of essays written by different authors that vary in quality and style. The thrust is the introduction of aspects of philosophy through an analysis of the characters and stories in "The Simpsons." In this regard the book is mostly interesting and informative. A big chunk of it (Part II and much of Part IV) wasn't philosophy at all, but rather "literary" criticism that I didn't much care for -- the worst essay in the collection being the Marxist hissy-fit. Moreover, despite disclaimers throughout the text, there was an assumption of intent on the part of the script writers that, by listening to the voice-overs on the DVDs, one finds isn't really there. For all the above, I would have rated this book 3 stars. However, the essay "The Function of Fiction" was outstanding and worth the price of the book alone. This essay spent a lot of time away from the Simpsons in particular, but ultimately gave the best argument why the show is so great. For readers looking for a light read about their favorite show, this book isn't the place to go. But for people who love the Simpsons on all its levels, this book has its place.
Rating: 
Summary: Must-buy for any serious Simpson fan
Review: .
I'll keep this short: If you're a serious Simpson fan, you'll love this book!!
.
Rating: 
Summary: [Second] Worst Book Ever
Review: 1. If I puked it a fountain pen and mailed it to a monkey house, I could get a better book:
This book fails on more levels that previously presumed possible. William Irwin and his co-authors employ a deplorable style of writing, while struggling to establish any noteworthy connections between the Simpsons and philosophy. A more concise style of writing likely could have condensed most of the essays to just a few pages. Apparently, they decided that their approach worked more effectively than just repeating, "Screw Flanders" until they filled the desired quota of pages. Overall, these essays would struggle to earn a C in a high school English course.
2. I can think of at least two thing's wrong with that title:
Much of the book centers around over-analysis of isolated incidents from the series, while other sections overlook connections entirely. In most cases, the attempt to link the subjects compromises the idea of both the philosophy and the Simpsons.
I feel geniunely guilty for buying this book. I am irritated to know that the team of writers, most notably editor William Irwin, have a few cents of my hard-earned money. Furthermore, I hate to think I have supported the spread of awful writing like this. With only a limited knowledge of philosophy and my skills from high school English courses, I could write a better book. I expect more than that from philosophy professors.
(Note that I titled this thread Second Worst Book Ever because "The Simpsons and Society" sinks even lower, citing this book as its primary source).
Rating: 
Summary: Never quite gets it
Review: Basically, "The Simpsons and Philosophy" sums up my entire life. I'd been philosophizing about/during/with _The Simpsons_ long before I'd even heard this book existed. Once it was released I was quick to get it. Unfortunately, I was not thrilled with the book's content. I've also read the other installment in this series, _Seinfeld and Philosophy_, and the more essays I read in the _Simpsons_ version, the more I sadly realized that this was just an attempt to cash in on the success of the earlier version with a lesser-quality rip-off. Not that the book is all bad. There are some high points. Springfield's ambivalence towards Lisa's intellectualism is illustrated carefully and humorously. Some of the forays into the moral structure of the Simpson universe were successful. Unfortunately, though, the majority of the book was not. Many of the scholars who contributed (very successfully) to _Seinfeld and Philosophy_ were invited back this time around, but it is painfully clear that many of them have never really watched _The Simpsons_ in the careful way they have _Seinfeld_. The book gets off to a rough start with an Aristotelian evaluation of Homer's ethics, in which Homer is shown to be, more or less, a monster. Any true fan of the show has to feel a little uncomfortable with that assessment. Several other aspects of the show are analyzed in similarly unfamiliar ways. The few essays that do show sufficient knowledge of _The Simpsons_ tend to be, well, not really philsophical, while the philosophically sound essays are devoid of Springfieldian prowess. Essays dealing with gender roles and family structure belong more under the heading of Sociology than Philosophy, etc. If you really, _really_ love _The Simpsons_, you should get this book. If you're looking for a philosophical primer, however, or a flippant jaunt into the hilarity of the series, don't look here. You'll be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: For Philosophically Minded Simpsons Fans!
Review: Almost everyone is a Simpsons fan of one degree or another - everything from complete devotion to the occasional viewer. This book is truly for those who have watched the Simpsons and wondered about the archetypal structure of the family, the Power Plant and the town of Springfield. If that idea interests you, you should have this book. If you think that sounds like a bunch of hooey, then don't buy this book. If you are a rabid fan who must have every piece of Simpsonsphilia, buy several copies. It is a fun read for those who are interested in such things as both philosophy and The Simpsons, but I stress BOTH. You don't need a philosophy degree to read it, but you should have some interest in/and grounding in philosophy. Similarly, you should have a solid grasp of the Simpsons show, and the characters. I think this would be a bit dry for the casual Simpsons fan and bit lightweight for the ultra philosophical. But just right for a lot of us, and fun to read to boot! Some of the chapters include: Homer and Aristotle Lisa and American Anti-intellectualism Thus Spake Bart: On Nietzche and the Vitues of Being Bad Enjoying the So-Called "Iced Cream": Mr. Burns, Satan, and Happiness I had a very good time reading this book, and I do wish I had owned it while I was in college. It might have helped me digest Roland Barthes a little easier. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: You not like this book? That's unpossible!
Review: Any true Simpsons fan will recognize that as tribute to Ralph Wiggum's "Me fail english? That's unpossible!" line. Reading The D'oh of Homer, you will recognize the subtle humor that has become a trademark of the series. The book is split into essays covering a goodly range of topics, each of which reference specific Simpsons episodes and characters to make their arguments. Largely unpretentious and entertaining as philosophy can probably get is the deal here. An inadvertant plus to this book is that the reader can see philosophic models thousands of years old implented into modern day situations via the Simpsons episodes they know so well. Philosophies of government, religion, and humanity are displayed here, along with subjects that don't get much play elsewhere, such as American anti-intelletualism and the parody. If you are a regular watcher of the Simpsons, chances are you already have the subject material committed to heart; this book reveals the school of thought behind the more profound concepts of the show. All in all, this book is definitely worth a look. Check it out.
Rating:
Summary: You not like this book? That's unpossible!
Review: Any true Simpsons fan will recognize that as tribute to Ralph Wiggum's "Me fail english? That's unpossible!" line. Reading The D'oh of Homer, you will recognize the subtle humor that has become a trademark of the series. The book is split into essays covering a goodly range of topics, each of which reference specific Simpsons episodes and characters to make their arguments. Largely unpretentious and entertaining as philosophy can probably get is the deal here. An inadvertant plus to this book is that the reader can see philosophic models thousands of years old implented into modern day situations via the Simpsons episodes they know so well. Philosophies of government, religion, and humanity are displayed here, along with subjects that don't get much play elsewhere, such as American anti-intelletualism and the parody. If you are a regular watcher of the Simpsons, chances are you already have the subject material committed to heart; this book reveals the school of thought behind the more profound concepts of the show. All in all, this book is definitely worth a look. Check it out.
| 
