This book has to be appreciated for what it is, a work of a genius!

Asia magnifico bujione la trakento

One of the main themes the authors deal with is not exactly an historical overview of science, but more along the lines of social and cultural history. They write about the relationship of elites, be they religious, social, or academic, to various kinds of wonder. Do the elites embrace wonder? Do they despise it? And what about lone philosophers? Where do they fit in? The answers vary greatly, according to multitudinous factors. For me, one theme to bear in mind while reading this book was my own experience of wonder, or curiosity, and the clashing of that feeling with "The Game" in school... Anyone reading this book will, obviously, have an extremely active, inquisitive mind, to say the least. Think back (or think forward, as the case may be,) to your time in school. Did you tend to keep the topics that provoked genuine wonder in you private? Did you generally avoid mentioning them, lest they should happen to become candidates for impacting "The Game," over which the more sociable people in any classroom preside? These are two very different states of mind, and their interplay can be quite fearfully tumultuous. If you know what I'm talking about, then you already have a feel for the kind of issues that the authors of this book delve into, and deal with on an incredibly grand scale.

By the way, I'd like to recommend a couple of other titles for people looking at this book. For some reason, neither of these are in this book's bibliography. I'm not sure why not -- probably because they are so basic that the authors may have felt that anyone reading their book would already know about them. For people who might NOT know about them, I'd like to recommend "The Great Chain of Being," by Arthur O. Lovejoy, and Rudolph Pfeiffer's two volume study of "The History of Classical Scholarship." These volumes will add whole dimensions to your understanding of the matters that Daston and Park discuss, if anybody out there is interested.

This book is a prodigious feat. Worth scoping out.

I found the sections on Erickson to be a good introduction to his work. There are only 9 printed pages devoted to Estabrooks, so you won't find much here. I also found the sections on Elman to be a gook introduction to him. It may inspire someone to further research on these people and their contributions. Unfortunately, I did not find much that I could use in the way of practical application. There is some of that in the book, however I think it would be most useful to someone who is completely new to the subject of hypnosis.

I was a bit bothered by the repetative commercials for Time Line Therapy. I was even more troubled by New Age religion being passed off as therapy. As a hypnotherapist, I think it is important to respect each individual's beliefs and to not impose a particular spiritual belief system onto a client. The chapter on Ericksonian Interventions has little to do with Erickson (who put faith in an individual's life experiences), and a lot to do with New Age beliefs. "Unconscious Mind" is always capitalized as if referring to deity. It is asked to make contact with "Higher Self" to get answers, and then to go ahead and "heal" the client. This was not Milton's way.

I would summarize this book as an introduction to hypnosis and a few New Age concepts. OK if that is all you want.

[I apologize for the anonymity. I have seen the attacks on reviewers who did not praise a work, and would rather avoid them.]

Don.

Until this book came out I'd have recommended anyone interested in hypnosis/hypnotherapy to start with 'Training Trances' by Overdurf and Silverthorn.
But not any more.

Whilst I still rate 'Training Trances' very highly, I'd say this book is significantly better. Firstly because 'Hypnosis' manages to cover so much material in a relatively small space - yet without seeming to miss anything of importance. Secondly, because it teaches by demonstrating three different approaches rather than just the one.

When I started out working with hypnosis it was very much in the Estabrooks "You are going to sleep ... you are going into a deep sleep" style.
Since discovering the Ericksonian style, some ten years ago, I've found the experience is much more 'harmonious' (for want of a better word) both for myself and for my clients. I believe I am also more effective before.
What this book did *for me* was both extend my knowledge and help me to understand why I personally prefer working in the Ericksonian style.

Having said that, the book has also given me a better appreciation of the benefits of other styles of hypnosis. So, whilst I thought I detected a slight, but undeniable bias towards the Ericksonian approach, I believe that the book is sufficiently even-handed to be of interest and value to readers coming from almost *any* other form of hypnotherapy.