Customer Reviews

A Terrible Love of War

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

In "A Terrible Love of War", Hillman examines war in a manner analogous to a psychologist working to understand the pathological behaviour of a person in depth therapy. This approach takes us on a engaging and extremely challenging journey into the archetype of war. On the way we meet famous men of battle, we rediscover the Greek gods Ares and Aphrodite (Mars and Venus), we catch a transferential glimpse at Hillman the man in some autobiographical "confessions", and finally come face to face with the war monger within the sacrificial lamb of God. It's confronting because Hillman makes no attempt to "explain" war, but leads us instead to understand it and the dark role it plays in our psyches, individually and collectively. It's a book that will reward careful and considered reading. I'm sure you will revel in his rhetoric, see the myth in his madness, and most of all, admire Hillman's unique approach to this most challenging subject, as I have.

Archetypal psychology has lacked an exploration of war and its deeper dimensions. This clearly written book not only fills the breach, it invites the reader to look into the heart of war: into the destruction, the religious fascination, and even the love that permeate warfare. Topics under discussion include the media role in aggression; accounts spoken and written by soldiers under fire; the mythic structures behind the American fascination with guns; and what psychology and philosophy have had to say about one of the oldest human pastimes--all in sparkling prose and flavored with anecdotes and examples.

To Christian readers I would recommend considering Hillman's view that Christianity has been martial from the start as a challenge to examine the relationship between the Christian emphasis on love and innocence and its long institutional history of intolerance and brutality. Is warfare endemic to Christianity? Are Christians who reject warfare exceptions to an almost universal aggressiveness? Must Christianity be a religion of missionaries who think they know better than the peoples they seek to convert? These are some of the questions raised by Hillman's study.

Hillman also brings new emphasis to a heavily underrated factor in American aggression: hypocrisy. How is it that we select as leaders (and do adults really need leaders to begin with? Indigenous cultures got on fine with wise elders and mentors) the most insincere and immature among us? Why is it (as Aaron Kipnis puts it) an old boy's club instead of a gathering of wise old men? What does it do to us, these deceptive speeches and these Orwellian justifications (war for peace; "democracy" from the top down; "pre-emptions" that precede nothing but endless cycles of violence)? And from the therapist's point of view: how does living in a nation addicted to unending warfare and cheap, finger-pointing patriotism impact the work we do with our clients?

Hillman's archetypalizing of warfare by bringing it home to the altar of Mars is an elegant move, but for me it always raises the concern: are we eternalizing something that ought to be analyzed as a cultural institution? In a book I'm preparing for publication (The Tears of Llorona; look for it here at Amazon.com around late July or early August 2004) I cite recent research by archeologist R. Brian Ferguson that the evidence for organized warfare only goes back as far as organized civilization. Hillman is correct to dwell on the archetypal aspects--a "ta'wil" move of bringing something back to its ultimate foundations--and while he never makes this a "war is inevitable" justification for armed aggression, I'm wondering if the social-economic-cultural aspect, which he's clearly aware of, needs more mention.

In a recent discussion at the Pacifica Graduate Institute, Hillman told me about how it was to visit the Civil War battlefields he mentions in his book. I was moved to see how deeply he felt about what for him is not a merely academic or intellectual interest. "The blood of our brothers cries out from the land," he said, and although he agreed with my phrasing it as "the return of the historically repressed," he did the subject much dearer justice by cohering so closely to the experience as it struck him.

Reads like drama. Just the time it takes to turn the page produced an anxiety reaction as I was so eager to keep reading.

A extremely well written cogent main thread is inter-populated with short "just in the right spot" and "just the right length" diversions. I especially enjoyed the diverson about Japan(1543-1879)and guns. A very nice presentation model.

Hillman presents war as an archetypal suprahuman truth he calls Mars or Ares. The book really gives no hope for the eradication of war as Hillman states towards the end:

"But war itself shall remain until the gods themselves go away."

As a vet, I also recommend this book for any veterans who otherwise might not be interested in psychology and mythology or give a hoot about archetypes.

uniquely fascinating!

Hillman shows formidable scholarship as he takes the reader through a tour of western civilization in terms of man's propensity for aggression against his own species. Hillman is especially good in using classical texts to develop his thesis. This book will not persuade those who dogmatically insist that man is essentially a loving creature, but it will prove to many readers that violence is as much a part of human nature as kindness. War is mankind's ineluctable destiny.

If only James Hillman could reach the audience Michael Moore commands.'A Terrible Love of War' is tanamount to a redressing of Moore's '9/11', uncovering the complexities which Moore's Telly tough guy stance avoids. As Hillman notes, parroting McLuhan - the medium is the message - and in typical concise yet elegant fashion implies that Moore's quick guerilla grabs, snappy editing, and sniper's asides are of the same cast, if not having the diabolics, of his heinious targets. While always delivering elegant prose, Hillman has not always been so concise. Erudition sometimes flashily displayed, occasionally fudged the point he groped for. Still, the groping was exhilerating, and perhaps, as he indicates in one of many candid asides, it was the point. With,'Soul's Code','Force of Character' and this work (his avowed final gift), Hillman has hit late career full bloom, the erudition honed unlike any issuing from the USA. What is the deep, violent stain which we project onto others, refusing to own? Hillman cites 'the hypocrisy in the depths of Christianity(that) keeps its believers ignorant of the wrath of the Lamb in which they place their trust. Only a contrite awakening to Christianity's hypocrisy in regard to peace and war could release a new dispensation, a new reformation to rid monotheistic religion of its roots in war and the roots of war in monotheistic religion.' It's with desapair and exasperation that Hillman sounds his Reveille amidst our sloth, diffidence and resignation. Readers awake to the heat of the Blue Flame!

This book is excellent and instructive. I have not read it all to date but what I have read I found helpful. The book is what I wanted and I knew about it from a friend so I knew what the book was about. No disappointments or illusions. Thanks

Everyone in America needs to read this. Hillman shines a bright light on why we (all humans) go to war, and, actually stay at war. His examination of the human psyche and its' propensity to make war leaves the reader understanding more of himself and the larger body politic as well as the human community as a whole. Hillman also offers no easy solutions to problems we as a species invented in the first place. Good night and GOOD LUCK.

Up until around page 100 I felt like giving this book a two star review--Hillman's particular disjointed style seemed rambling and even incoherent. However, the second half of the book was excellent and made me rethink my stance. Eventually the whole book comes together and it becomes worth while; the book is a bit of a trudge because of the apparent non sequiturs, but by the end it will seem worth your while.

The simple point of this book is this: War cannot, and should not, be abolished. War serves a purpose and is, in the appropriate context, a beautiful institution that is so deeply rooted in the human mind that any talk of its total abolition is folly.

Hillman suggests that instead of abolishing war, we ought to focus on limiting war to those instances when it is absolutely necessary. To do this we must disjoin war from religion and its reliance on blind faith (particularly Christianity, for the western world); we must also seek the advice and courage of our warriors--both those who have been to war, and those who embody the warrior spirit. Finally, and to me most importantly, we must come up with alternate ways to sate Mars--particularly aesthetic pursuits that burn the same combative, courageous, hard working spirits as does war. That is, we must pursue the arts and bring them into our political machine in a way that will teach us to be slower and more deliberative in order to avoid the haste that marks the march to war, and leads to so many mistakes.

Hillman also includes a great discussion of "belief" and myth vs. religion. It fits nicely into the blind faith that so often leads us to war (faith in religion, nation, state, flag).

I recommend this book--it is insightful and it is a very quick and easy read. I got through it all with no problem during Bowl Week commercials and boring fourth quarters. Well worth the effort.

Oh, and as an added perk, the hard cover is beautifully bound. If nothing else, it will look great on the shelf!

I work as a therapist. In my work I have been positively influenced by the Jungian tradition, including James Hillman & Thomas Moore. I read this book hoping to gain a deeper understand the archetypal foundations of war. However I struggled to stay with Hillman. I struggled to stay with the details the horrors of war included in the book. War sickens me. I will not watch violent films or violent television. I struggle to watch war and acts of terrorism on the news. I already know. Enough is enough. My stuff... I know, but if you're like me; avoid this book. I also struggled to stay with Hillman because I am positively influenced by the inner core of Christianity. (I am also deeply critical of much of what passes for Christianity and often struggle to describe myself as Christian because of the stereotypes now associated with the word 'Christian'.) I believe that beneath the religious and cultural externals that adorn the Christian faith there exists a path; this path (eventually) leads to a unitive experience of the Divine and at the same time a grounded experience of becoming truly human. The Christ experience. One of the normal fruits of walking this path is a commitment to peace and justice: because, those who suffer in war, on both sides, are our brothers and sisters. I thus relate to the Christian contemplative tradition. For me this books great flaw is its unbalanced criticism of Christianity. On one hand Hillman rightly points out the way that sections of (cultural)Christianity have engaged in acts of war. He also rightly points to scripture's such as 'God is a God of war' that have been used to justify war. I would agree with these criticisms. However Hillman's criticism of Christianity is one sided. He assumes 'We are all psychologically Christian.' I would agree that the Western psyche is profoundly influenced by Christianity, but to me there is a world of difference between this unconscious influence and a person consciously attempting to live in the spirit of Christ. Those who are consciously attempting to live this way are usually committed peacemakers. (Take Thomas Merton and Desmond Tutu as two examples among many) Hillman ignores; both the actual teachings of Jesus regarding peace and the huge influence Christians have made, and continue to make, in the struggle to bring peace and justice. He seems to assume that all Christians are fundamentalist. They are not. It seems to me that Hillman himself is taking a fundimentalistic stance in his attack on Christianity. He becomes one sided, biased, narrow, strident. To me this is the major flaw in this book. I have given it two stars. It gets two for the way it has provoked me to think. It loses three for its simplistic bias.

This is an incredible book. Hillman shakes all previous positions and shows the reader that war is the 'norm'. That does not mean he finds that laudatory, it just is.
"A Terrible Love of War" s not life-changing, but it is mind-changing.