I think the selection are top notch...I mean who really has heard of Tim Wise other than in this anthology? Which brings me to my last point: That it is the easiest criticism of any anthology to critique what it left out. By definition, an anthology should be judged by what is actually included...or so it seems to me. As a first step toward the study of nonviolence, it should be read and considered a success.
Perhaps I'm getting more conservative as I get older, but if this collection is the best representative writing from the defenders of "peace".. sorry, but I'm very worried.
Most of the selections (esp. the ones by Emerson, Thoreau, Gandhi etc.) are not their best pieces. They are either rambling or too short, and do not defend their positions adequately. In particular, they leave open the questions of "when is use of force justified?" and "how can one respond to a corrupt/despotic ruler that insists upon killing his/her opponents?" Personally, I think the author has hastily cobbled together writings from these "famous" writers, rather than actually examining/reading other pieces to cull the best defense. Granted, these writers are distinguished by their prodigious output, and selecting their best writings on peace is no easy task, but that's what I was expecting that Howard had done when we scanned and picked this book for our book club.
I was disappointed.
