Customer Reviews

Greed: The Seven Deadly Sins (Tickle, Phyllis)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I went to the bookstore expecting a thick volume. In my mind's eye I saw a heavy book encompassing the immense history of greed.

That was my first surprise.

It is a tiny book with a bright yellow cover and an endearing cartoon personification of Greed. As I carried it for a week, those who noticed - and many did - smiled and asked brightly what it was about. Then darkened when I told them. Looks cute, but sounds bad.

But that is what we learn inside these covers about Greed. It constantly remorphs into novel prettiness. The mother of all sins, from which all the others come, as the author says.

Might be important to learn about this mother.

So in what might be called "Tickle's Condensed Cream of Greed" we learn about Greed in her naked beauty.

Not a fun sin. Not a popular sin, like lust. But remarkably adaptable and effective at the work of sin. More subtle than any of her six sisters.

To reveal this chimeric beauty, the author explores all the major world religions. And investigates the struggles of the great artists and philosophers of history to understand her and show her in their personal light. Great portrait painters are seen as one of our best hopes at recognizing her face.

Not what I expected.

This little book is like a tiny circus car that disgorges a thousand clowns. It demands rereading and thought. Fortunately, it is very portable.

I ashamedly admit that I first came across Ms. Phllis A. Tickle, the writer, only a short while ago. However, I boldy proclaim that I had the experience of being a student of hers in 1963, when she taught Freshman Composition at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. She literally changed my life forever, and I majored in English due to her influence. She was known as one of the best teachers at Rhodes, and indeed she was. Never too busy for her students, she would stay overtime helping us with our writing and sharing her infinite wisdom with those eager to drink from her generous fountain of knowledge and experience.
Besides evaluating her as a master teacher, I would say she was one of the kindest and most giving persons I have ever known. She was my anchor as a freshman that got me through the college experience.

Lately I learned about Ms. Phyllis A. Tickle, the author. I saw she had written an essay on "Greed," and I just finished reading it. It was as if I were in her class once more. Her essay is written the same way she taught. It is scholarly and provative, challenging and intriguing. I became a Glutton for each page, turn after turn. I loved her discussions of St. Paul and Dante, to name a few. Now that I am an avowed Glutton for Tickle's writings, I intend to read all of her works. Greedy me.

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.

"Greed" was part of a lecture series on the seven deadly sins cosponsored by the New York Public Library and Oxford University Press in 2002 and 2003. This is a small book (51 pages) with a deceivingly perky yellow cover that packs an intellectual punch. Phyllis Tickle begins by describing religion as a three-strand braid composed of "spirituality, corporeality, and morality." In history, there come times in which one or more strands undergo transformation and the braid must be restored in a new configuration.

According to Tickle, we are currently undergoing one of these transformative periods. Spirituality was in vogue in the middle to late twentieth century but has since lost some of its commercial popularity. Corporeality, which deals with the institution of Church, has been struggling to define itself since the upheaval of Vatican II and the sexual abuse crisis of today. Morality and the definition of evil are in flux due to changing standards of social behavior. War, especially Vietnam; changes in American society including the prevalence of divorce, abortion, and gender issues; and scientific advances have all called into question moral norms that were previously taken for granted.

Tickle acknowledges that the seven deadly sins, which include pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, and sloth, are the root of many of humanity's positive characteristics. "Without the fascinating seven, we human beings would never rest or eat or procreate or build or aspire. We would also, however, never sedate ourselves with drugs or gorge or suffer an epidemic of AIDS; nor, for that matter, would we murder, steal, or lie." The major religions of the world agree that of the seven deadly sins, greed leads the group. The others are all derived from it.

Greed is explored from a historical perspective, with Tickle dividing the past two thousand years into three eras: the first fifteen hundred years, the next four hundred years, and the remaining fraction of time. Literature and art are used to evaluate society's impression of greed in these three time periods. An overriding theme is the ability of greed to morph into a false virtue such as thrift or capitalistic spirit. Greed is present in all of us. We find it easy to see in others and very difficult to see in ourselves.

As stated previously, this is a very erudite work that presumes its audience is knowledgeable about the history of Western civilization. It is thought-provoking and requires time to digest. A unique feature of "Greed" is the quality of the endnotes. They explain the text in great detail and offer the reader a great advantage over those who experienced this lecture in spoken form.


Reviewed by Patrice Fagnant-MacArthur, Editor of "The Spiritual Woman Newsletter" - www.spiritualwoman.net and author of "Letters to Mary from a Young Mother" (iUniverse, 2004)

good book; a must read for anyone interested in the cultural aspects of this sin

I have read all the books in this series (except for Pride, which oddly has not been released yet). It it difficult to imagine that such a small book on such an interesting subject could be so completely tedious. It rarely deals with the actual subject of greed, but is more a reference to the 7 Deadly Sins as a whole. The author has chosen to use really, really big words, poor punctuation, and a myriad of endnotes to address this subject. Between the poor writing, the sloppiness of the intellectual examination on this topic and those pesky endnotes which require the endurance of a marathon runner to flip back and forth to, this book is like getting a hamburger without the meat, served by a sneering waiter.

As most of us know, we humans are good at rationalizing what are actually vices into virtues. We may be honest enough to admit our failings, but not quite honest enough to acknowledge them for what they are. So we interpret them in such a way as to cast them in a better light.

Reading Phyllis Tickle's little book on greed reminds me of this truth about human nature, because Tickle honestly acknowledges the flaws in her book but nonetheless fancies that they're virtues. It's incredible that a book with barely 50 pages of text can be accused of rambling, but so it is with Tickle's book. She interrupts herself constantly to wander down one path or the other, such as, for example, when she goes on a two-page excursion about graffiti (pp. 22-23) in the midst of discussing Paul's understanding of evil. Such excursions break the flow of argument and become rather tedious. That's the vice. But Tickle disguises it as a virtue (p. 19): "Having become over the years a great admirer of the conversational aside, I have indulged myself here, inserting them with what can only be called abandon...in the belief that asides not only spice but enrich the content."

In the case of Greed, however, the asides dilute rather than enrich. By the time one reaches the end of the book, one can't quite figure out what Tickle's thesis is. One knows that she thinks that religion has three strands--corporeality, spirituality, and morality--and that different periods emphasize different strands. We know that she thinks that there are three primary periods in the common era: the religious one of the first 1500 years, the secular one of the last 400 years, and the period we're now in, which she rather mysteriously hopes will be spiritual. We also know that she thinks that greed is the mother of all sins, and that it, like the other vices, is Janus-faced, morally ambiguous: sometimes greed is good, sometimes not. Finally, we know that she thinks that greed is better captured in images than words, and so she spends a great deal of time discussing selected artworks from each of the three periods. But apart from these observations, most of which are rather commonplace, the reader still doesn't have any idea of what Tickle thinks greed actually is.

One suspects this is because Tickle doesn't know. Her entire treatise has a tentative, exploratory tone to it. Even her chapter titles are tentative: "Being a Bit of Context," "Being a Study of Less than Three Parts," and "Being Another Prologue." It's almost as if the book is a preliminary doodle that explores possible themes that relate to greed, not a finished product. After awhile, the impatient reader can't help but say: "All right, but get on with it!"

The New York Public Library's 7 Deadly Sins series was a wonderful idea on paper, but its execution is uneven. Of the seven books that emerged from the series, three are quite good, one is above average, and three are pretty bad. Of those three, two are perfectly awful. Tickle's, I'm sorry to say, falls into this final category.

Though this is the shortest book in the Seven Sins series (consisting of only one main chapter and a prologue and epilogue), it seems to me the most complicated and challenging read. This book differs from all the other books that I've read in this series in that the author does not address their sin subject up front, but instead provides a lengthy background of the history of religion, and then sin, and then the seven sins before finally introducing greed as the main subject. And instead of examining the charistaristics or psychology of greed, this book takes a look at humanity's view of the sin and the application of greed to modern society and economy from the Middle Ages (The Age of Physical Imagination), to the Enlightenment (The Age of Intellectual Imagination), and finally to our time (The Age of Spiritual Imagination).

Though I confess that I am not an intellectual, the content of this book seems difficult to follow not because of the actual subject matter, but because of the way it was written. There are many long, complex sentences where I feel the author could have made their point with much simpler phrasing. In some cases however the text is easier to follow, such as when the author is describing certain paintings of Bosch and Brueghel, as well as a story called "Psychomachia", in which the seven sins are personified.

All in all it is certainly not for the casual reader, but I wouldn't discourage those who enjoy challenging reads from reading this highly complex book.

This essay is very intelligent and well written. It takes a little persistence to read because of the heavy religious emphasis on greed and the rather abstract way of presenting its premises. I was expecting a more down-to-earth approach such as was taken by the author of "ENVY", but the essay is nevertheless interesting and thought provoking. I would not particularly recommend it to the novice reader in philosophical thought.

Finally found an authentic author from Tennessee! From 1991-96, she was the religion editor (still contributing editor) for 'Publishers Weekly.'

Money is the root of all evil; it gives the wealthy the false assumption that they are better than everyone else and they don't care who they run over to keep their wealth. Even poor people hand onto too many possessions. They feel that is what makes them worthwhile. Ugly is as ugly does; it's what is on the inside.

This was a little book, in a series on the Seven Deadly Sins. Others are Pride, Envy, Slth, Gluttony, Lust, Anger -- what about Avarice, Strife, Covetousness, Allurement? Why not Evil? Some people are just plain evil and try to hurt others, be it the elderly or someone they have power over, through greed.

I can't see how greed is a greater calamity, as the others are equally just as bad. I consistently harbor anger and pride. For what -- it only hurts myself. Former President of U.S. Jimmy Carter admitted he has 'lusted' in his heart! President Clinton took it farther than that. Politicians are the worst for greed, and all the other sins, as they always manage to get away with it. I learned long ago not to envy others especially those who have lots of money.

Here is where greed comes in. The average American differs from the major players in the game of wealth (Martha Stewart, Jack Welch -- the good guy, and Gordon Gelleo) only in degree, not in intention. Most of us ordinary folks have never known luxury, seen it in movies, but have no idea of the real thing. Image is everything. There is no longer ethics or morality in America. But there is an abundance of greed.