Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric

Rating:
Summary: Arguing for the sake of arguing
Review: O'Leary made an honest effort to provide insights into the mechanics of apocalyptic reasoning. Moving from definitions of apocalypse and rhetoric, O'Leary extracted three basic topoi: time, evil, and authority. By means of a case study of the Millerites and Hal Lindsey's writings, O'Leary gave the three topoi a home in the tactics of persuasion of Miller and Lindsey. Though the subject matter is a timely one, the book does not appear accessible to everyone. This scholarly written book includes intense philosophical and literary discussions and presumes one to be acquainted with rhetoric. However, for the scholar who can follow the flow of the argument the application seems rather trite. Yet for the layperson the application seems of utter interest but the discussion of methodology and the foundational presentation of apocalyptic reasoning seems beyond grasp.

Rating:
Summary: Intelligent, Difficult, Provacative.
Review: Stephen O'Leary's book Arguing the Apocalypse is a difficult read but worth it if you can hang. O'Leary is probably the number one expert anywhere on Millennial maddness and his research and writing reflects the depth of his interest and study. I highly recommend this book for them with an interest in this disturbing field, but only if they've a high reading level as this isn't kid's stuff here.