> As for Shag's initial question about the pop philosophy books, I have
> to admit to not having read a single article from any of the "_____
> and philosophy" books, not even The Big Lebwowkski volume. I know some
> people who like Alain de Botton, and I've watched some of his series
> on philosophers and thought it was pretty good, given what it was
> doing.
Bring back the old Pelican paperbacks, I say. They were aimed at a general audience and yet weren't gimmicky, didn't dumb it down, and you really learn something from them. I switch into present tense there because thankfully there are stacks and stacks of them for $5 or less at any second-hand bookshop. I assume they were sold in the States as well? When I want to get a basic outline of something, I'd much rather read that kind of thing than something titled 'Colon: the astonishing hidden life of the punctuation mark that became a cliche', etc. (Actually, though, I exempt the 'history of the world in a grain of salt' type books from this, because 'keyhole history' can be pretty interesting - Kurlansky is a good example.)
> but the fact
> that kids often don't know Winnie the Pooh any more. Of course,
> there's a new movie out this summer, but I haven't seen it and doubt
> that many of my first-years will have.
Oh, that explains why there is so much Winnie the Pooh stuff around. A musical Pooh mobile is the first thing that got my baby daughter to laugh!
Mike