G. D. Hodge

no

the rapid change of voice could have been handled better...

The ideas are good.

The author uses Eeyore as a straw man, as it were, but does not do justice to Eeyore's original character; he makes the character into something that fits his schema, but does not represent the original genius.

The stories were great.

The performance was beyond dreadful. There actually were several different narrators, and it would not be fait to diss them all. One of them had several stories assigned to him and his voice was like nails on a chalk board. The rhythm of his voice was bizarre -- he cant possibly actually speak like that, nor surely does he think that the authors intended their work to sound like that. It was AWFUL.

The performance was beyond dreadful. There actually were several different narrators, and it would not be fait to diss them all. One of them had several stories assigned to him and his voice was like nails on a chalk board. The rhythm of his voice was bizarre -- he cant possibly actually speak like that, nor surely does he think that the authors intended their work to sound like that. It was AWFUL.

A classic for its time, this book is maddening to anyone who wants to think seriously about the message of Jesus. Instead, the theology is extremely Pauline, and thus ignores most everything Jesus said. The book is a typical apologetic for standard fundamentalism, albeit it in a much more logical and sophisticated way than one gets from the right-wing extremists today.

The performance was good, right down to the overarticulation that was typical of Lewis' time.

no way!

It would have been much better if it had not been written by a psychologist.

Characteristically, with the exception of a few chapters, he reduces everything to individual-level dysfunction. Everything is interpreted superficially, the way that psychologists tend to do (I am an anthropologist). He misrepresents evolutionary science to fit his obsession with individualism. This is surely not intentional; psychology is not a well regarded social science precisely because its myopia causes its practioners and theorists to really think that they are thinking expansively. Occasionally, the author does have good ideas, but to get there we have to muddle through hours and hours of a cataloguing of psychological research.

Like most producers of audiobooks, the producers of this one seem completely disinterested in whether or not the reader knows how to pronounce foreign words and names.

Yes, as mentioned above. But there are far, far better sources that say the same thing, in a much better way. Ultimately, the author wants to make a contribution and his ideas may even be correct, but they are trapped in the logical mire and theoretical simplicity of his discipline.