Rating: 
Summary: Not for the faint of heart or light of mind
Review: If you are expecting a light comedic romp, this is not the book for you. However, if you are looking for a fascinating primer on basic philosophy which ties in the most enjoyable TV show in history - this is the book for you.
Rating: 
Summary: MMMM--Philosophy
Review: If you ever wonder exactly what all those deep thinkers are really saying, but don't want to plow through their self congratulatory language, and you like the Simpsons, this is the book for you. In applying philosophical schools of thought to various Simpson characters and plots, the authors help explain those basic schools in terms readily understandable to fans of the show. And they underscore what we fans have always known, The Simpsons might just be the most important TV show of our generation.
Rating:
Summary: this book was entertaining maybe "best book ever"
Review: If you love the simpsons and think you can handle a book at this reading level then buy it for Willie's sake. It is one of many extremely awesome books although the first few chapters are a bit on the dry side this book is a gateway to books such as The Birth of Tradegedy and other books by Fredrich Neizchte and Aristotle's many books so if you have the money then buy this book.
Rating:
Summary: D'oh
Review: If you're a philosphy head and watch the Simpsons or if you watch the Simpsons and want to make some sense out of philosophy, this is a good book. It is a compilation of essays so some are more lively than others, but on the whole I enjoyed it because it gave all sorts of little tid bits to think about via Simpson character disection, but also, reading about episodes in a way where they are all put together in order to abstract philosophical points of view (impressive considering how many episodes there are and the wide-range of Simpson adventures)makes for an enjoyable trip down philosophy lane with much entertainment value enhancing the experience. For those who are Simpsons or philosophical purists and were not won over: "Don't have a cow!"
Rating:
Summary: How could it not be great?
Review: Irwin, et.al., who brought us Seinfeld and Philosophy, have done it again. Anyone who is a fan of the Simpsons, philosophy, or serious fun, must read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Simpsons + Philosophy = Instant Classic
Review: Most people would say that the Simpsons is merely a tv show and can therefore not be thought to be worthy of any philosophical discusion. However, in this in question, i.e., The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer by William Irwin (Editor), et al, this is exactly what these authors do. I especially liked the section where Bart is given a Nitzschean study whether or not he is the superhuman (ubermensch). The writing is witty, challening and exteremely funny. A must have for a fan of the show. Highly Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: I think therefore I - - D'oh!
Review: Okay, I'm not really big on philosophy and I didn't know what to expect from a book that combined philosophical views and my favorite show. Surprisingly, I enjoyed how characters from the show were interpreted in various philosophical ideas. This a great book for those interested philosophy or the hard-core Simpson fan. Not really for those who get bored easily or younger Simpson fans.
Rating: 
Summary: D'oh . . . make it stop.
Review: Rarely has anything as wildly amusing, witty, and entertaining as "The Simpsons" been the subject of such mind-numbingly boring yawnfest as this. It's the doctoral dissertation than no one but its author has ever checked out of the community college library. It's the college class during which you catch up on your sleep. If you love the Simpson's, don't torture yourself by attempting to read this dull, over-intellectualized paperback sleeping pill.
Rating:
Summary: I was vindicated and maybe you will be too!!!
Review: The book was great! It was great from the aspect of a MAJOR Simpsons fan, and a philosophy major. I would say it was perfect, well, with the exception of a few essays that will remain nameless, hence the four-star rating. I recommend it to any Simpsons fan and/or anyone with an interest in philosophy. Overall, it was an engaging and enjoyable read. But on a slightly different note... I was always suspicious that the writers of the show were incredibly intelligent in virtue of the obscure references sprinkled through each episode. I was constantly defending the intellectual quality of the show to both myself and others, and the essay on allusions by Irwin and Lombardo at last allayed my concerns. To be honest, that essay alone was worth the price of the book. (As an aside, the funniest esoteric reference of the show is from Mr. Burns about Prussia and Siam - How funny is that?). I mean, how many people in the U.S. actually know about Prussia and Siam? (I mean really?) Anywho, I was just happy to know that someone else had discovered the genuis hidden deep within the show. So, again, I highly recommend this book and the quote by David Mirkin, a (former?) writer for the show, succinctly sums up the situation when he says " We're writing [The Simpsons] for adults and intelligent adults at that"(p.81). Truthfully, I think the same could be said of this book, and for that it is definitely a winner. Kudos, Mr. Irwin!
Rating: 
Summary: Not bad, but could have been better
Review: The cover of the book prominently features the following quotation from Publisher's Weekly: "Each essay provides a hilarious but incisive springboard to some aspect of philosophy." The first part of this statement is false. None of the essays are funny, let alone hilarious. Many of the essays are, however, in addition to being a "springboard to some aspect of philosophy," interesting, relevant, and thought provoking. I especially enjoyed the essays "Homer and Aristotle" by Raja Halwani, "Lisa and American Anti-intellectualism" by Aeon J. Skoble, "Thus Spake Bart: On Nietzsche and the Virtues of Being Bad" by Mark T. Conard, "Springfield Hypocrisy" by Jason Holt, and also "Enjoying the So-called 'Iced Cream': Mr. Burns, Satan, and Happiness" by Daniel Barwick. The 15th essay, "The Function of Fiction" The Heuristic Value of Homer" by Jennifer L. McMahon was interesting and well-written, but really has nothing to do with The Simpsons specifically. This essay should have been the first essay in the book, to set the tone for the rest of the book and also to show why the analytical essays included in the book are worth writing and reading. This is the 2nd book I read in the Philosophy and Popular Culture series, after the recently released The Matrix and Philosophy. Compared to the essays collected in that book, the essays here are much less profound and much less relevant to the stated subject. A few of the essays in The Matrix and Philosophy really have nothing to do with The Matrix, and probably 4-8 of the 18 essays in The Simpsons and Philosophy would be just as good without any Simpsons references, which suggests that they're really not about The Simpsons at all. I wish that essays more specific to The Simpsons, similar to the first two essays included in the book (the ones mentioned earlier by Halwani and Skoble), would have flushed out the rest of the book, instead of essays not specifically about The Simpsons. McMahon's essay mentioned above and the final essay in the book, "What Bart Calls Thinking" by Kelly Dean Jolly are interesting essays, the former moreso, but are not really specifically relevant to The Simpsons any more than they are to other television programs (not even necessarily cartoons). Also, while The Matrix is a single work that surely everyone who wrote an essay in The Matrix and Philosophy watched, it seems unlikely that those writing essays in this collection have viewed all, most, and probably not even many of the over 200 episodes of The Simpsons. Indeed, the essays "Popular Parody: The Simpsons Meets the Crime Film" by Deborah Knight and "Hey-diddily-ho, Neighboreenos: Ned Flanders and Neighborly Love" by David Vessey each focused on only one episode of The Simpsons. This might have been okay if the episodes were representative of Simpsons episodes, but the general plot and theme of these two episodes are at least quite uncommon in The Simpsons and probably unique. Vessey could have, and should have in my opinion, wrote a more general essay on Flanders' character. Instead, his essay focuses on the silly idea of whether one needs to try to baptize others to save their eternal lives. The essay, I think, was probably about as good as could be being based on this lame idea, and I can only imagine how much better it would have been if it would have been based on bigger, more generalizable aspects of The Simpsons, such as a more complete study into the character of Ned Flanders. The 4th essay, "Marge's Moral Motivation" by Gerald J. Erion and Joseph A. Zeccardi is particularly egregious in that the authors make blanket generalizations about the show based on events that occur only once or rarely, suggesting that while they are not regular viewers of the show, they are trying to pass themselves off as such. For instance, they write of Marge, "As the wife of an occasionally unemployed, incarcerated, and dimensionally-confused husband, Marge has relatively little to work with financially" (Page 49). These 3 ideas either occur rarely (unemployed or incarcerated) or only once (dimensional-confusion). I gave this book 3 stars because while I really enjoyed some of the essays, such as the ones I listed above by Halwani, Skoble, and Conard, some of the other essays were mediocre or worse, were only relevant to The Simpsons in the most general of ways. If you've already read much philosophy the ideas in this book, both those tying The Simpsons to major philosophical ideas and those not really about The Simpsons, then this book probably won't give you many additional insights into either The Simpsons or philosophy. Also, some of the analysis presented in the essays really isn't grounded in higher-level philosophy but rather just common-sense observations and connections that could probably be made by just about any intelligent viewer of The Simpsons.
|
