A Formal Analytical Review
	"OF PARADISE AND POWER" - BY ROBERT KAGAN

"Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus" - apart from simply raising a few eyebrows, this line by Robert Kagan author of "Of Paradise And Power", has not only caught the attention of many but managed to stir up a wave of discussions among the politicians and elites concerned with cross-Atlantic relations. Kagan's thought provoking book became extremely popular and received international acclaim for its analysis of the deteriorating US-Europe relationship, not to mention its catchy and striking phrases systematically introduced throughout the slender yet captivating book. Kagan introduces multiple chapters in his book, in order to deconstruct the key underlying issues which he claims are causes of the ever widening divide between US and Europe. In the chapter "The Power Gap", Kagan starts from World War I to understand the aversiveness Europe displays towards military and wars. He argues that while both the World Wars weakened Europe tremendously; they helped the US emerge as a super power. He further elaborates on the might of the US in the chapter that follows - "Psychologies of Power and Weakness". Kagan explains how lack of power can not only affect psychologies and ideologies, but change perspectives as well. He claims Europe's paucity of military power compels it to not only tolerate threats but ignore them all together and at the same time try and counterbalance the US force by constructing a world which is governed by economic and soft non-violent methods. This chapter culminates into "Hyperpussiance", a chapter in which Kagan discusses intricate details of Kosovo and Bosnia, highlighting Europe's failure and America's effectiveness in handling the situation. He finally presents his central argument in the chapters "The Post Modern Paradise" and "The World America Made" where Kagan states, "Europe's evolution into its present state occurred under the mantle of the U.S. security guarantee and could not have occurred without it." Casting doubts on Europe's intentions, Kagan centers his argument on the growing self-centered policies of Europe and questions the validity of cohesive terms such as `west' in his chapter "Is It Still `The West'"?
Finally, it seems Kagan provides a solution to this insolvable problem of the US-
Europe divide in his concluding chapter, "Adjusting to Hegemony", by simply stating one line - "the task for both Europeans and Americans is to readjust to the new reality of American hegemony". This extremely small book, as compared to the issue it addresses needs further analysis and some close examining. There are many issues to be addressed in Kagan's brief analysis and one might not be completely satisfied with certain claims, reasonings or the manner in which such a grave and sensitive topic is handled. While there is a tone of underlying bias (in contrast to the general opinion of a well-balanced view that the author holds), Kagan manages to miss out some crucial facts and figures, not to mention present stark paradoxes, and the essay lacks sufficient citings.

    To start with, let me point out the contradictions in Kagan's arguments, the presence of which highly undermines his claims, leaving the reader in a dilemma unconvinced of either argument. Kagan claims, "Europe's relative weakness has understandably produced a powerful European interest in building a world where military strength and hard power matter less than economic and soft power...rules of behavior" (pg.37). He goes on to say, - "Since Europeans lack the capacity to undertake unilateral military actions, either individually or collectively as `Europe,' it is natural that they should oppose allowing others to do that they cannot do themselves."(pg.38) in contrast to "...Europe today has the wealth and technological capability to make itself more of a world power in military terms if Europe wanted to become that kind of world power" (pg.53-54). Kagan contradicts his own views, stating many times that Europe is militarily weak, nor does it have the capacity to build up its forces yet at the same time, puts forth an argument of Europe's capabilities of increasing its defense spending and military might to match the US.
    In the chapter, Psychologies of Power and Weakness, Kagan's one claim contradicts another which is made in the next chapter as the reasoning for both his claims seem to be absolutely tangential. He first explains Europe's greater tolerance for threats is due to its weakness and the fearful past, which it has suffered from. He then metaphorically explains it by giving the example of a man with a knife and the same one with a rifle having different interpretations of the word `threat' when confronting a bear (pg.31). But again Kagan himself feels Europe can become a military power as and when it wishes to, when he says "They could easily spend twice as much as they are currently spending on defense if they believed it necessary to do so" (pg.54). So this forces me to ask a question, would one be mauled by a bear if one could produce a rifle to prevent this misfortune? So isn't it quite possible that Europeans feel safe, not because they "...enjoy the `free ride' they have gotten under the American security umbrella over the past six decades" (pg.54), but rather because there was and is no real threat at all?

    With the use of phrases such as "The Axis of Evil" and "Rouge States" (pg.30), which Kagan uses to describe Iraq and Iran, not to mention his references to `Weapons of Mass Destruction' (which he uses as a pretext to the war in Iraq), which still seem to be elusive for some reason, he seems to perplex me by blatantly ignoring his own creation. While Kagan maintains that Iraq was a threat and the US perceived it as one while Europe did not, he might want to explain as to why, in 1997, he (Kagan was the Director of the Project for the New American Century) signed a document which justifies American occupation of the Middle-East, irrespective of threats from Iraq or Iran.
"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein...
From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve; retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."(pg.17 - Rebuilding America's Defenses - *1)
This forces me to conclude that either the author has resorted to `cherry picking' of evidence or he suffers from selective amnesia.
    Some of his reasoning, analysis and analogies seem to be too naive. When explaining military action, one cannot justify it by saying, "When you have a hammer, all problems start to look like nails". The author speaks about the nation's (US's) willingness to go to war simply because it has the ability and the capacity to do so. Without discussing a need or providing concrete reasons for the use of aggression, the author seems to be content in justifying use of force, simply because one has it. One important aspect Kagan leaves out in his analysis are the political and economical aspects of the ongoing US-Europe feud. While I have discussed some economical aspects later in the review, one must note that Kagan does not mention the Kyoto Protocol (apart from Clinton's negotiation of it (pg.45)). The US withdrawal from the Protocol had created serious problems and divisions between the two giants (www.climnet.org - *2). While there were many other issues that further fanned the growing fire, disagreements over the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty for example, which Kagan conveniently sweeps under the carpet, needed to be addressed if one is discussing transatlantic relations (www.bbcnews.com - *3, 4)

    For a book which covers issues from the pre World War II decade (occasionally going back to ancient philosophy) to the present issues, 72 citations, from which many are simply extended explanations (for examples, see supra notes- 19, 20, 22), seem to be alarmingly low, especially with the absence of some important ones and not to mention, certain citations which wrongly allude to historical facts. Kagan mentions, "As `some' Europeans put it, the real division of labor consisted of the United States making the dinner and the Europeans doing the dishes" (pg.23), yet he does not refer to any source for this cynical statement. He says, "The vast majority of Europeans always believed that the threat (if any) posed by Saddam was more tolerable than the risk of removing him" along with other alleging statements like, "The rehabilitation and reintegration of Saddam Hussein's Iraq is precisely what they(Europe) sought" (pg.44) , and again gives no source for the origin of these beliefs. Strangely, he supports one of his claims by stating in his supra note.20, pg.30, "for that matter, this is also the view commonly found in American textbooks". One might not generally expect to see such puerile purporting evidence in a scholarly analysis of transatlantic relations. Kagan at times jumps back to Athenian times and has injected strong philosophies in his essay. He mentions a number of times how Americans see the world from a Hobbesian perspective while Europeans are followers of Kantinian policies. Kagan seems to have overlooked the fact, that though Hobbes had described the state of nature as that of "all against all", the only reason Hobbes justifies a sovereignty is to ensure peace on earth. Kagan conveniently cites Hobbes (Hobbes theory itself was flawed as later philosophers termed it as `Hobbes Dilemma') to justify American aggression, but no where in Hobbes' theory is aggression justified by the sovereign (Leviathan - Ch.17).

    There are some conclusions Kagan draws which seem to be beliefs of an American idealist living in a world where politics is as pure as religion. He concludes that while the US was providing "free security" to Europe after the Cold War, "...America's great power and willingness to assume responsibility for protecting other nations..." (pg.34) has given Europe the opportunity to build up economically. Kagan further asserts his point when he says, "Given America's willingness to spend so much money protecting them, Europeans would rather spend their own money on social welfare programs, long vacations and shorter workweeks" (pg.54). These are inaccurate presentations of facts, which are more of subjective, bias ideologies. I would like to put forth two points in order to accentuate the conspicuous fallacy of these two statements. First, America's interest in Europe was not to provide it with security whether before or after the Cold War. One must not confuse the fact that measures taken to restrict the Soviet advance was purely for selfish motives, rather than for the benefit of nations which were under the watchful eye of the communist empire (Kagan himself acknowledges the fact when he says, "With the check of the Soviet power removed, the United States was free to intervene practically whenever and wherever it chose..."(pg26)). Second, when Kagan acknowledges that Europe which has a "$9 trillion " economy is in a comfortable position to support its welfare programs along with increased military spending; attributing the fact that Europe spends more on welfare, as he calls them "free-riders", results in a faulty analysis.

When I had mentioned earlier that Kagan chose to omit and ignore certain facts, the example of the Balkans, which the author has cited many times in his book would seem most relevant. Kosovo is one of the primary issues he discusses to bring forth US benevolence and European incapacity. "American involvement in Kosovo or Bosnia was not based on calculations of a narrow American `national interest'...While Americans had a compelling moral interest in stopping genocide and ethnic cleansing,... the US had no `national interest' at stake in the Balkans"(pg.50), this is how Kagan sees it. Indeed stopping genocide was a concern, but was it the only concern? While Milosevic had very much agreed to station NATO troops in Kosovo to stop the conflicts, none seem to have been interested in his offer; they rather wanted complete access and control to all of Yugoslavia. The Rambouillet Accord, to which the Contact Group added an Appendix B on the last day of the conference held at Paris, one must note was the primary reason for rejecting NATO troops, as it demanded Yugoslavia to surrender its autonomy and sovereignty. Yet, he does not mention of Milosevic agreeing to station NATO troops in Kosovo (http://wsws.org *5).
    Some thing missing from Kagan's entire book are the words "Latin America" and "Africa". As seen above, Kagan believes America was spending its money protecting Europe and Europe alone from all the threats around the world, before and after the Cold War. But what baffles me to quite an extent is that not once does Kagan mention about any American intervention in Latin America (official or not), Africa or the Far East for that matter. Those who are well aware of the world around them, will be aware of America's support for dictators and other corrupt regimes throughout Latin America and the far East, Indonesia for example, which were for self serving purposes alone or is it that the author is implying that the Latin American and African countries were a threat to Europe, hence the interventions and no mention of them? (A complete timeline by Steven Kangas can be found on multiple sites *6, 7, 8)

    There is one severe `defect', as I put it, which undermines the entire argument of this book. Kagan's tunneled vision approach, which refers to the word `power' only in terms of military strength and capabilities, ultimately results in a false dichotomy, which is the stumbling stone for his thesis. Kagan believes the world and in particular, Europe, is left with two options, that either they follow the US or be a tacit audience. The reason he reaches this conclusion as I previously put it, is due to his convergent view. "Rather than viewing the US as a Gulliver tied down by Lilliputian threads", says Kagan, "American leaders should realize that they are hardly constrained at all, that Europe is not really capable of constraining the US". He reinforces this claim throughout his book (see pg- 33, 37-40, 59, 62, etc). The author's abysmal ignorance about hard-hitting, highly valid and relevant facts has rendered severe blows to the validity of his claims. Kagan has committed serious errors here, by ignoring Europe's strength, not military but political and economical indeed. With a population of 456,953,258 (the CIA Fact Book *9) and still growing, the EU, leave aside Europe, cannot be simply overlooked or brushed aside as a dead competitor or a bygone culture. Europe is economically strong enough to trouble the US as and when it wants to, the recent problems over the genetically altered meat, banana dispute, steel industry debacle, Airbus-Boeing clash and many more, have all proved that Europe's economic strength is much of a concern for the US.  While I must point out a rank deletion, I believe this is `the' single factor which is capable for arguing against all of Kagan's thesis and arguments, and that is the American Economy. Not once has he mentioned the deteriorating state of American economy (2001), even though problems did exist when he wrote this book. He seems to be blissfully ignorant and persists that America can sustain its exorbitant defense spending, "...the US can sustain its current military spending levels and its current global dominance far into the future". Strangely, the growing inflation rate, rising unemployment, stagflation, trends the economy was showing of heading towards a recession, were I believe dismissed as myths by the author (for statistics see - www.bbcnews.com; http://wsws.org *10, 11). Also, Kagan's final solution suggest that, "The obvious answer is that Europe should.... and build up its military, even if only marginally", leaves me with a conundrum. Is Kagan implicating that Europe has no military at all or is it that he wants to begin a new arms race, this time Cold War II? Kagan must understand he is writing this book for international publics and not simply those, whose ideologies are in tandem with his. Hence, I doubt most would disagree that the world should get into an arms race here, as we all know, there is no stopping to this evil if it once starts.

While I have already discussed the effects of trade and economics (which Kagan ignores) on the US-Europe relation, there is something I must point out before I end this review. Kagan, rather conveniently digresses of the topic, which is transatlantic relationships, to justifying US hegemony in a neo-conservative fashion. While most Americans themselves would probably not agree with Kagan's ideology (as the public opinion and faith plummets - see polls from various news sources *12), leave aside Europeans or rest of the world, Kagan writes almost 15 pages to justify it. This was a rather disappointing conclusion to his book, where he thinks the only solution to the ever widening divide is "Adjusting to Hegemony". When Kagan says how many (statistics seem to abandon him) Americans believe that by advancing their interest, they advance the interest of humanity, he sounds exuberantly jingoistic and to drive the point home, he quotes Benjamin Franklin as saying - "America's cause is the cause of all mankind" and again I must bring to the author's notice, the recipient of these remarks is an international audience, which is diverse, has its own culture and heritage, religious beliefs and ideologies and has no reason to believe why their culture or beliefs are inferior to any other.  An author of his stature must realize that it is transatlantic relationships and not a primary grade bully that is being discussed. While he seems to take pride in saying that America has a "go it alone" attitude (pg.39, 99), it does not abide by the UN Security Council (pg.40, 99), takes action unilaterally irrespective of international laws (pg.45, 61, 99), is justified in adopting `double standards' (pg.62, 99), he fails to fathom the gravity of the current day (or rather the day when he wrote this book) situation and the growing unpopularity of American foreign policy around the world. While he sees Europe as an obstacle in the path of America's imperialistic goals, a neutral observer would be more than justified in pointing out that may be it is the US that hinders progress and efforts of the EU to establish a world which respects international laws, human rights, collective public opinion and most of all - peace. He fails to give an impartial, if not a complete solution to rid the world of this wedge as he weakly concludes his essay by saying, "...a little common understanding can still go a long way". While many have nothing but words of praise, as a one line summary by Francis Fukuyama calls it - "Brilliant" (a co-architect and signatory of the Rebuilding America's Defense Project) and according to Dr. Henry Kissinger, [against whom innumerable charges of human right violations have been levied, who ironically, Kagan terms as a "quintessential realist". See - http://en.wikipedia.org(for cases) *13; http://www.thenation.com(for list of crimes) *14] the book is a "seminal treatise" which would "shape the (US-Europe relation) discussion for years to come"; I do not particularly endorse it it. As I have already put forth immense supportive data to show why the book lacks a concrete argument, sane reasoning or supportive evidence, though its lucid prose, easy comprehension and its articulate linking makes it a good read, it barely digs deep into the problem or the solution, apart from scratching the surface, `the military surface'. Indeed the book did create waves in the political arena, which was probably due to its impeccable timing, but I cast serious doubts on the claims that it would be "discussed for years to come".

*1   - http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
*2   - http://www.climnet.org/news/march2001.html
*3   - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1383385.stm
*4   - http://212.58.226.30/1/hi/business/2052405.stm
*5   - http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/yugo-a14.shtml
*6   - http://www.atrocities.net/
*7   - home.att.net/~Resurgence/CIAtimeline.html
*8   - www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm
*9   - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ee.html
*10 - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/us-d30.shtml
*11 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1263211.stm
*12 - http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php
*13 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger
*14 - http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3 pid=17


Fast and Loose
	I suppose every author in this genre comes to the table with an agenda.  That being said, in this book, Mr. DiLorenzo seems to play fast and loose with the facts (or at least with his conclusions).

The flyleaf of this book promises "extensive research and meticulous documentation" but at least one other reviewer has already pointed out some problems with this author's historical research.  That should raise a red flag to anyone reading this book.

Consider this:  The author claims Lincoln was more interested in building an American "empire" by centralizing Federal power than ending slavery.  This implies Lincoln was premeditated in what he would do as President.  I challenge anyone who believes that to read Lincoln's actual words and, more importantly, examine his actions.

This we know:  Abraham Lincoln was a complicated man and, as a thoughtful person, his views on slavery changed during his many years in public life.  He came to believe that slavery would not die out on its own.

I do recommend purchasing and reading this book since it is so different from the mythical view we have of Lincoln today.  However, when it comes to some of the "facts" and conclusions expounded in this book be very careful what you believe


Haunted
	Yuk!!! Worst Book I've ever read - I read alot and with alot of variety. This book stinks (too farfetched, retched, disgusting and plain weird).


Great stories, good humor, bad narration voice
	The book is brilliant, no question about it. His stories are great, his humor dry and culturally insightful. The problem is that, like all audio books, the voice of the narrator can make or break the experience. And in this case, unfortunately, the voice of the author fails the material.

Sorry, Bill, but your voice is just too droning and monotonous for an audio book. It's hard to get past the first few discs as his voice tends to lull you to sleep. I wouldn't recommend this audio book for listening while driving or in traffic (as I did, and almost got into an accident).

If you want this book, get the paperback


Well intentioned advice for men; women not included.
	Dr. Gray must be a wonderful lover.  As a woman I read his hints and suggestions for a man's love making technique and marvel at his insight.  I truly could not have imagined a man so aware of what a woman really wants in the bedroom.   However there are no corresponding ideas for a woman geared to improviing her skills as a lover.  By maintaining a position of gallant "ladies first" mentality he, in truth, is demeaning the power of women's sexuality.

There is much to be gained by men reading this book.  Attitudes can improve, skill levels can rise and even the articulation of loving feelings can be created and/or grow with the help of this book's suggestions. Women are unfortunately reduced to being receipients of, not participants in, in bedroom activity


It's a CRIME that this book is still for sale.
	The publishers should be sued. Maybe we should get a class-action together.

Imagine taking an instruction manual for the very first Apple computer and putting a new title on it "How to use your new home computer" and selling it in bookstores today. This book is doing EXACTLY that!

Also, it is highly doubtful that the tactic ever worked in the first place. The author's website vanished years ago. In a thinly traded NYSE stock if you try to repeatedly front the specialist with 2000 share orders he will simply move the price 50 cents against you immediately following your next purchase. Game over.

[...


Ego Visible
	I had high hopes when I picked up this book because Styron is a terrific writer and I was interested in the subject. By the time I was done I nearly threw it across the room. Admittedly, Depression makes for a tough topic, but that's not good enough.

There's more to Depression than staring at an empty page, unable to muster the courage to write one single word. The dark places of the soul also have their fires, their drama, even if they are played out in secret.

I will grant that the writing is spare and elegant, as you would expect. But I would have traded all the insider literati name-dropping for one paragraph that gave me a visceral sense of how he felt, something that put me there with him. I have read instruction manuals for appliances with more passion and conviction.

Styron is candid about his descent into alcoholism, but the self-destruction inherent in alcoholism does not imply the elimination of ego, frequently it heralds the triumph of ego. In Darkness Visible, Styron maintains egomaniacal control of his subject through aloof detachment, showcasing a carefully polished veneer, never inviting the reader in.


Gimmie A Break!
	Not that I don't like Shakespeare's works, but his tragedies are terrible, especially this one. I can't understand the language real well, so I have to grab one with the contemporary language so that it'll be easier to understand. I just can't understand this love tragedy at all! Here are some things that confuse me:

*How did this feud really begin?
*Why can't this story end in happily ever after?
*Why does Lady Capulet have to be so stuck up on everybody?
*Why couldn't Shakespeare have written in a language we could all understand?
*Why does everybody have to jump to conclusions?

I simply can't understand why people love this play so much. It's ridiculous! If you want a true love story, try reading "A Midsummer Night's Dream". This one absolutely SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!


More than a disappointment!
	I wanted to cry when I put this book down because I miss the Danielle Steele that wrote 'Thurston House', 'Family Circle' and others.  For years now I have felt that she is simply putting out books because she is contractually obligated to by her publishers.  I really feel like her heart just isn't in it anymore.  She has become very idiosyncratic and predictable.  Every book has her main character 'being honest.' I keep reading because I am a loyal Danielle Steele fan and I write this in hopes she'll read it and either decide she is writing because she loves it (like she once did) or decide to retire and let us love her through her earlier works.  This book was just awful.


Self-laudatory nonsense, and insulting to anyone with half a brain.
	I received this book as a gift.  I was skeptical upon reading the praise for the book on the back cover from such political wonks as Bob Novak and Sean Hannity.  Haven't any well respected catholic theologians or scholars approved of this book?  No.  And with good reason.  It's not a history book, it's a poorly researched piece of garbage designed to bilk "the faithful" out of their hard-earned dollars.

I did read several chapters of the book to be fair.  When Crocker describes the Papal forces during the Albigensian crusade as "soldiers of God, overcoming all the odds to destroy the wicked oppression challenging the authority of the church."  I wanted to puke.  And how about the Inquisition, where Church authorities sanctioned physical torture against "heretics?"  Well, Crocker concedes that torturing someone might stray a little bit from Christ's original message of tolerance... but hey, they threatened the authority of the righteous Catholic church, so they got what they deserved.  Uh, yeah, amen brother.

These considerations aside, the book isn't even well researched, which immediately destroys its credibility with me.  For example from the Albigensian crusade, Crocker states that the armies of the heretics numbered over 100,000, yet with only a few thousand men, the Pope was able to defeat them, as they were filled with the "glory of god" or something like that.  Curiously, in his footnotes he cites nothing to back this claim up.  Maybe because it isn't true.  And any cites to books that have been critical of church policy, like, say, endorsing Mussolini, are derided as "unresearched," "politically motivated" and "shameful"

Ironically, that's exactly what "Triumph" is to me


More branded product masking as substance
	Yet another offering from the Kinkade art product assembly line. Pass on this -- Read real books and buy real art instead


Highly Literate Sophomorism
	This is a well written but ultimately sophomoric disquisition on the concept that if you don't have faith in the supernatural, you have no reason for hope.

According to this book, the rational world is such an unpleasant place that, if you are not religious as Schaeffer defines religious, "[t]he only way of escape lies in a nonrational fantasy world of experience, drugs, absurdity, pornography, an elusive "final experience," madness... ."

Piffle!

Throughout history, a great many people found life to be good without resorting to either madness or Schaeffer's brand of religion. And indeed, religion and rationality need not be foes, as frequently demonstrated by scientists and science writers, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould. Reduces our choices to "religion or madness" is just silly.

Schaeffer in this book champions not religion or spirituality, but authoritarianism with a clerical face. His fans won't like that characterization, but my job as a reviewer is to tell you what's in the book; if you seek comfort in authoritarian religion, this book's skillful wordcraft makes it is a good place to start


Is there a lower rating available?
	As a Certified Information Systems Security Professional, I can definitively state that this book does not cover everything that needs to be covered or in any depth whatsoever. I got this book based on the glowing reviews I found here, and I'm at a loss as to why these reviews would have recommended it.

The most aggrevating part about this book is the subtitle "An Integrated Approach to Security in the Organization." The book not only lacks effective security integration techniques, it doesn't seem to address the entire organization where it tries its half-hearted integration.


Waste of time
	Sorry, but I found this book a total waste of time. I never did like the main character - I found HER boring! I laughed out loud when I read another reviewer say that "this person escaped her life to be a secretary?" - good point! It was just so unbelievable a woman would leave her children without any thought really - and to continue this "new" life without really taking time to search her soul. Instead she befriends even more boring people than herself.As far as the ending of the book goes - I couldn't have cared less what happened to her anyway! After reading it (book on tape) I felt I had totally wasted my time. What a disappointment


From Christianity...To 'Churchianity'
	The author comes off as a whining, unhappy camper about having to grow up in what he considers a 'stifling' church environment; further apalled by the Church Founder's belief, in that it (the Worlwide Church Of God) was God's True Church through the ages, right on up to the present 'end time'. Feazell spends a good amount of time giving his negative opinions on Herbert W. Armstrong,the Church's actual teachings, and a general trashing and somewhat of a misreprentation of the general denomination as a whole, labeling it a 'cult'...and further damning its Pastor General as a "heretic", despite the Church's humanitarian works, publishing, Colleges and international outreach for world peace over the past seven decades under the leadership of H.W. Armstrong. Since Armstrong's death in 1986, Feazell and his cohort Joseph Tkach Jr. seem to be having a field day jumping up and down on his remains, and writing books on how great it feels to be loosed from having to keep the apostolic Holy Days, sabbaths, ten commandments (which, in his estimation are now the 'ten suggestions') and general lifestyle of this 7th Day Church Of God denomination. Mr. Feazell apparently does not speak for all the Church membership, as over 100,000 members left and formed various smaller independent Church Of God conferences throughout the United States...and continuing the legacy and apostolic, traditional Christian system of worship restored by Herbert W. Armstrong in 1927.
Recommended reading: "Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong"; "Mystery Of The Ages"; "The Incredible Human Potential"


Its complete crap
	This is yet another book where anyone who passed a high school bio class will know is crap. [...] he seems to have found a devoted crew of morons who believe that he really can cure all.   If you ever go to one of their conventions, you'll know that its AMWAY for stupid soccer moms with allergic kids.


Too long, boring, badly written, not exciting, etc...
	John Katzenbach is an accomplished author and I had previously read and enjoyed another of his novels (The Analyst), so I was surprised at how bad The Shadow Man was.  The premise of the plot is that four very old Jewish people, survivors of the Holecaust, believe they have seen the "Shadow Man".  The Shadow Man was a Jew who joined forces with the Nazis to find Jews that were hiding to avoid certain doom in concentration camps.  These four old people feared the Shadow Man more than anything.  When one of them is killed, a retired police detective named Simon Winter looks into who the Shadow Man is.  Meanwhile, the Miami police are also investigating the death of the elderly Jewish woman and have young gangster as a suspect.

Eventually, Winter and the police and the District Attourney join to hunt the Shadow Man, a man of pure evil.  As the book villian, it was hard to fear a villian who was a killer 50 years ago but was now in his 70s.  Also, this book barely touches on WWII, yet purports at times to be a novel about WWII.  I've read a lot of great WWII novels, and this book would have been great if it had been set in the 60s.  But setting it present day with senior citizens and the main characters wasn't too exciting.  It wasn't exciting primarily because I wondered where had the Shadow Man been all these years?  Why was he starting to kill now?  The Shadow Man had no motivation to kill.

Finally, I realized I didn't like this book when I was skipping paragraphs at a time during the last 20 pages.  The entire book was like this with each character prone to long rambling inner thoughts that really added nothing to the story.  If you take away the WWII angle, this novel is bad.  The WWII angle adds some excitement, but there are probably thousands of books out there that relate the horror of WWII better than this one does.

The review from Publishers Weekly printed above summarizes my thoughts and deserves to be repeated..."Katzenbach (Just Cause) has some good Holocaust and WWII vignettes and pretty good cop-talk here, but the book is burdened by flat characterization, a slow pace, an odd, unsatisfying ending and a serious need for editing.


Is it ethical to sell this book
	This book was written in 2000 from events occuring in 1998!!!  Totally out of date! Useless!! Wondering why it is still for sale.  The author, contacted by email responded but did not address the questions asked, simply giving excuses and mentioning that he wrote another book much better than this one...  Outrageaous!  Spread the word and if you own the book, get your money back


Incredibily unpleasant read
	I have been a huge fan of the Anna Pigeon mysteries.  The hard truth about Hard Truth is skip it.  It is a very unpleasant experience.

The graphic representation of child abuse and cruelty in this book still makes me ill.

What I've loved about the Anna Pigeon series is that I felt like I got a good sense of the national park where the story took place with an appreciation for the natural beauty of the area.  I doubt Anna spent more than a night in Rocky Mountain National Park.  Not only does she completely miss the unique character of the park but the park has no necessary link to the story.  The whole thing could have taken place in urban Chicago.

I have been picking up Nevada Barr books as fast as I could find them.  This book, however, was truely repulsive.  I'll be much more cautious about investing a part of my life in her next book


Dr. Narby's Wild Ride
	Jeremy Narby's The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge, started out decently enough with Narby reminiscing about his days doing field work in the Amazon Basin and from there he goes over some interesting ideas regarding DNA and Serpent Myths but then all goes down hill as he suddenly becomes a follower of Intelligent Design and makes an all out attack on Darwinian Evolution and Science itself.

A number of Narby's ideas regarding DNA and Shamanism are intriguing enough but he has apparently decided that all Shamanism is based on Molecular Biology, while he freely admits that he is being very reductionist on this point, I still see many problems with his view that Shamanism is based on Molecular Biology at heart. His argument mostly surrounds the symbol of the Serpent/Dragon which is present in many different mythologies often with connections to water and associations with twins. He decides that this is in actually a representation of DNA as viewed by Shamans and believes that all serpents in mythology and shamanic visions are actually DNA. Since DNA emits photons and this has been shown to possibly play a part in cell communication (along with the traditional chemical communication) Narby believes that in shamanic trances the shaman becomes able to see the light emitted by DNA (which often show up as snakes) and the shaman communicates with the individual bits of DNA (which is conscious) and the entire linked network of DNA based life. As justification for this argument he points out that some groups hold that spirits are beings of pure light, to him this is almost literally correct as the spirits are actually DNA and communicate through light as "spirits".

From there he goes on to say that all ladders, staircases, and ropes in shamanic quests are representations of DNA and when the shaman uses them he is travelling along DNA and similarly when the shaman goes to the underworld he is sinking down to the world of Molecular Biology (although since one can apparently work with and see DNA in the middle world one must ask why one would need to shrink down). While these views might make for some interesting theological discussion about some shamanic practices, Narby seems to have ignored the psychological aspects of visions and quests and any elements other than snakes or other things that just happen to be long and thin. Given Narby's view of spirits as DNA one must ask what spiritual helpers/allies are? Is someone's spiritual guides DNA in some bacteria on my hand? Will I kill Yahweh by washing my hands with anti-bacterial soap (hey maybe that's why Jesus decided that washing one's hands was bad!)?

A lot of his proof is like the proof of Erich von D�niken except that where D�niken saw aliens and spacecraft, Narby sees DNA and Molecules. Take for example this D�niken-esque proof from the book:

"The second was a rock painting of the Rainbow Snake. I looked at it more closely and saw two things: All around the serpent there were sorts of chromosomes, in their upside-down "U" shape, and underneath it there was a kind of ladder!" (p. 79)

By Chapter 10, entitled Biology's Blind Spot, Narby has decided that Evolution is Wrong and all of Science must be toppled. This bit seems to have come out of nowhere like someone spliced a Pro-Intelligent Design rant into a book where it didn't belong and as with all Pro-ID and Creationist literature we get the same old faulty attacks again and again. Attacks such as Evolution being based on a Circular argument because the most fit species survive to spread their genes and therefore are more fit. Yes, that is the definition of fitness, and sometimes the basis of things start as tautologies such as the Theory of Gravity but like Gravity Natural Selection and evolution is justified and testable by looking at it's predictive power. Population genetics and mathematics shows clearly that natural selection is very predictive and has so far not been falsified. Similarly, we can also look at the fossil record in geological strata for evidence of evolutionary change over time.

After that attack Narby then attacks the Central Dogma (Which is how transcription of DNA to proteins works) by misinterpreting what Francis Crick meant. Crick never meant the word Dogma in Central Dogma to be taken in the sense it is used in religion instead he meant it as a joke name for a grand hypothesis that he had at the time little actual experimental evidence for. Narby misinterprets Crick's joke to argue that evolution is apparently Faith based, since this argument has no basis in reality it falls flat immediately.

He then argues that ants and other animals are fully conscious because they do amazing things that seem to require forethought and they tap into DNA like shamans to do things. Higher animals are smart and may have consciousness but ants are pretty dumb. One is reminded of Edward Selous and others' ideas about thought-transference to explain how flocks of birds move and how ants and termites build hives, as it turns out birds flocking behaviour operates on simple instinctual rules (clustering, maintaining speed, and appropriate distance) and so are Ant Nesting behaviours. One proof of this is to put food just out of the reach of ants, and some dirt underneath, while they understand how to move earth and tunnel they will never purposely move earth to build ramps, bridges, or tunnels to reach a goal. The birds who flew in flocks and the ancestors of ants who had developed nesting behaviour managed to survive better and so these behaviours somehow became instincts and persisted.

Now Narby makes the extremely tired argument that life is too complicated to be determined by chance alone, and he is correct on this matter. Too bad there is more than chance guiding evolution, we also have Natural Selection guiding the process, to quote Richard Dawkins: "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." The combinations which work survive and prosper and are kept in the population. Narby argues "How can a small telephone directory of information emerge from random processes?" (P. 142) to answer this I wish to quote a bit of Michael Shermer's 25 Creationists' Arguments and 25 Evolutionists' Answers which nicely illustrates how natural selection can produce Shakespeare's Hamlet quickly from random letters:

"Natural selection is not "random" nor does it operate by "chance." Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. The eye evolved from a single, light-sensitive cell into the complex eye of today through hundreds if not thousands of intermediate steps, many of which still exist in nature. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet's soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 to the power of 13 number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the process operates much faster. How much faster? Richard Hardison constructed a computer program in which letters were "selected" for or against, and it took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the sequence of letters TOBEORNOTTOBE. This takes the computer less than 90 seconds. The entire play can be done in about 4.5 days!"

Narby also tries to argue that gaps in the fossil record such as in whale evolution and other places where there are few or no intermediate forms indicate that evolution has not occurred. This however just means that in this instance there are gaps in the fossil record because the fossils have not been found yet. Narby also points to the seemingly rapid appearance of species in the fossil record as an argument against evolution. Apparently Narby has never heard of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Narby stunningly also tries to argue that because large portions of DNA is identical over many different species that this somehow indicates design, unfortunately for Narby a lot of these identical sequences of DNA code for the basic processes of life. A human who couldn't cope with oxygen or a fox which could not metabolize energy would not last long in this world. The fact that these sequences are identical is actually a point for evolution because the same processes have been preserved and we even see similar basic skeletal structures in animals even when it is not efficient or useful such as digits in the fins of dolphins or the appendix in humans.

Finally, we come back full circle to his argument about Natural Selection being a form of circular logic and he ties to paint Evolution as unfalsifiable (No, we can test it's predictions in such fields as Genetics and Palaeontology) and being denounce by an increasing number of scientists (not at all true).

All in all while Narby has some interesting nuggets of information and ideas in The Cosmic Serpent he ultimately seems to squander these ideas by jumping around in random directions and to strange conclusions based on very little evidence


Too Out of Touch Herself
	She wastes the first chapters, and my time, going to extremes with kooky consultants that only someone who doesn't deserve to be hired would use.  It adds to the drama and despair I suppose, but it comes off as contrived, and as an attempt to pander to her extremist/pessimist reading coterie.
I don't think Babs could have possibly put more words in quotations.  Her OCD with quotated words and terms is a distraction that ultimately drove me nuts. I can't believe she's an accomplished writer.
Her writing style can best be described as unsmooth and read-stoppage inducing.
Oh well, her intentions were good


Read the first  2 chapters...
	...and dump it...great advice given in a previous review.

I think the "shame" about this book is that it glosses over some very interesting ideas with (in my opinion) some wholly unsupported and mostly un-related crap.

Talbot is to the theory of the Holographic Universe what Mark Furman was to the guilt of OJ Simpson.  Whatever truth there is to it will be hidden by his presentation of "false evidence"


Utterly Silly-GWTW's Legacy is Safe.
	The author has her narrator("Cinnamon") spend most of her time comparing herself to the fascinating Scarlett,in a game of wish-fulfillment one-upmanship. Even though she's calling the shots,as it's her book, Scarlett still comes out miles ahead. Perhaps it was only that way for a certain strata of society,but there WAS once a beautiful world of chivalry and gallantry and bravery and even some idealism-even if misplaced-just as there has been throughout the ages in other societies,such as "Ivanhoe" presents.The story may have been one-sided,but it's the side MM chose to tell,and there's kernel of truth in the "myth" of the Old South,as in all myths.

 Margaret Mitchell has nothing to fear from this silly so-called "parody",which is really a subconscious-or not so subconscious,in fact-effort to knock from her pedestal,that epitome of heroines-Katie Scarlett O'Hara and the wonderful Melanie Wilkes.As if Rhett would ever give any other woman a serious thought-he was obsessed with Scarlett.That's why he turned to women like Belle Watling.And to imagine Mammy killing the male babies,when she had been devoted to Ellen O'Hara from Ellen's childhood.Thank goodness this book isn't a pimple on the fanny of the classic GWTW,because what it is a a travesty-and not even a well-written or engaging one at that.GWTW will still be read and loved for all time,like the classic it is,when this book is selling for a quarter at garage sales.I didn't even pay that,thank goodness-the woman gave it to me,and I read it and burned it with the rest of the trash.I'd give it a negative star if there was such a rating.Ludicrous and laughable-try again,Ms Randall,and try to get over the jealousy of Scarlett and Co. Again,Margaret Mitchell need not fear,LOL


Genetics:  From Genes to Genomes
	I found this book extremely verbose and unorganized.  It would serve as a great reference book for a lab researcher or grad student.  But it's way too technical and dense for an introductory genetics class.  The authors do a poor job presenting the material in a comprehensible way to an undergraduate genetics student.  Not recommended


Not enough substance
	The author makes a good case for index mutual funds but there are
too many digressions about the author's extracurricular activities.
Do you really want a pumpkin pie recipe in a book about mutual funds


Manifesto of Liberal Pseudoscience
	For someone who spends his career attacking politically-motivated science, Stephen Jay Gould does a pretty good job combining scientific research with politics in this book. Gould rambles on and on, attacking giants of modern science like Samuel Morton and Francis Galton, and never putting up any serious scientific conclusions of his own. Gould presents fabricated objections to serious research and selectively excludes studies that make a clear correlation between intelligence and brain and skull size as well as differences in brain size between the human population groups and correlations between brain size and class. Gould only ridicules the most outlandish claims of scientific racism and refuses to pick on findings that have been proven correct. For anyone who has no knowledge of biology, this book will give them a very distorted view of the entire science. Stephen Jay Gould is a paleontologist; evolutionary biology is an amateur field for him, and it would be best if he, as well as all other crypto-Marxists who wish to blend science and politics, stay out of it


Sophie's Choice Gone Wrong
	This is the story of Stingo, a 22 y/o aspiring writer in NYC in 1947 who meets a pair of lovers, Sophie and Nathan, at his boarding house and is drawn into their dysfunctional relationship, falling in love with both and witnessing their self-destruction.  Nathan is a mentally deranged and drug-addicted genius.  Sophie is a haunted Polish survivor of Auschwitz.  Her story unfolds as she confides to Nathan the awful truths of her unwillingness to join the Polish resistance, her eventual capture over a small infraction and her heart-destroying choice when she arrives in the camp--she must decide which of her children will live and which will be sent immediately to the gas chamber.

While Nathan and Sophie are both fascinating, fully-realized characters with terrible obstacles, Stingo, the narrator, is about as imbecilic a person as ever an author has entrusted his narrative to.  Despite his thirty or so years of perspective on the events of '47 which he is relating, he seems to possess little or no wisdom about them, no intriguing viewpoints about his life or his friends' tragedies, and his actions and attitudes at the age of 22 are so immature and superficial as to be almost unbearable.  The novel is far too long--it could be nearly cut in half and only benefit.  The narrative style is foolishly ponderous, far over-written, especially in the first half.  And in the end while the structure of narrator/observer seems like a fine choice in the abstract, the specific narrator and his terrible lack of wisdom only interferes with the heartbreaking story of Nathan and Sophie.

In the end, the narrator never even approaches the key question in my mind:  why did Sophie so quickly choose Eva to die rather than Jan?  A lack of true understanding of what would happen to the girl?  A blind panic?  A preference for her son, the sort of harmless preference many parents may harbor that is never important because we are never asked to choose?  It is this having chosen which seems more than the other tragedies to have really destroyed Sophie, and yet it's glossed over in the narrative.  In fact, it's followed by Sophie and Stingo having an endless night of 'fu---ng' as the novel would put it.  Really?  Almost hard to believe Sophie could get it together to have peremptory sex after her drinking and her terrible revelations.  She uses sex to escape with her lover Nathan, but it's hard to imagine this all-night sexcapade Stingo relates.  Could it be that Styron only knows how to connect people through sex?

How this could be considered one of the greatest American novels of all time is a mystery to me.  The potential is there, but only a truly talented, dedicated editor could have rescued the book from itsmany structural and linguistic failures


Awkward writing makes a bad story even worse.
	Middle-aged Gracie is a typical Hollywood wife, right down to her botox injections and designer wardrobe.  When her husband dumps her after almost ten years of marriage, Gracie finds herself without love, without friends, and most importantly, without status.  (But at least she's still got the money!)

Actually, most of what I know is from the dust jacket since this book was too torturous to finish.  The plot is predictable and uninteresting and is littered with so much name-dropping that sometimes it's hard to follow.  The characters are taken straight from Stereotype 101 and are so badly written that they're impossible to relate to.  The writing is ponderous and lumbers along awkwardly, lacking polish, wit, or interest.  Especially irritating is Grazer's insistence on using Gracie's name as much as possible.  For example:

"Gracie thought about it; they'd never been to marriage counseling.  Gracie had gone to counseling in the beginning of their marriage - there were many issues to overcome.  More or less her personality issues - the fact that Gracie had too much personality.  Gracie said and did pretty much what Gracie pleased, in the beginning.  Before Gracie learned The Way of the Wife" (p 38).

I lost interest after about 20 pages, plowed my way through 40 more, then gave up.  It's very obvious that this is a poorly-veiled autobiography (Grazer/Gracie) and that as a Hollywood wife, Grazer DOES have the connections and clout her protagonist lacks or this book would never have been published.

Definitely not worth your time


Poor Form - Lacks Original Research
	As the reviewer from Jackhorn, KY stated, this book lacks original research.  If you read the section on the "house church movement" and then go to the website for The Homechurch Homepage, you will see that Mr. Wolfe hacked away at many of the articles on the site to obtain his "research."  For the many quotes he used from the website, not once were any of the authors contacted by Mr. Wolfe in order to do any original research.  If he had done so, he would have come away with a different take than he wrote in his book


aweful
	bought book flipped through for 5 minutes, found good use starting a woodfire. all the info contained can be had for free on the internet. if youve been trading more then 2 days you already know more then the scope of this boo


Reinharts disappointing hyped coffeetable bread book.
	As a professional, certified chef and baker, I am also an avid baking and cookbook collector. After seeing that this book won and the James Beard and the 'IACP Cookbook of the Year' awards -both prominently displayed on the cover of this book- and after reading the 'too good to be true'-reviews on Amazon -some reviewers sound so exalted and in trance as if Peter Reinhart is the Jesus Christ of Bread- I finally decided to buy this expensive book.

What a dissappointment! For all those blindly following Reinhart as he were the Saviour of True Bread, wake up! Reinhart's book is simply flawed. Compared to other bread books, it's even a quite average book. But one that is luxuriously packaged. A lot of hot colorful expensive air. And it's expensive not because of the info and exlusive bread knowledge in it, but because of the super luxuriously editing. This is a book for book enthousiasts, not for bakers, professional or home.

I see baking and cookbooks mainly as working tools, as information and inspiration. Not as eye candy. If you want nice pictures, buy an art book. A book on baking bread with these awards behind it, should give you tons of new info about ingredients and techniques, original insights, an appetite for baking, factual info, the newest and tested developments in technique... What you get here is a fluffed up egotrip. 47 formulas and ample bread info packaged into a shining 30-40$ publishing hype.

Don't get me wrong: this is a beautiful, expensive book. But one you don't use in the kitchen, and certainly don't smudge with butter but put on the coffee table in the living room to impress guests and have polite conversations about. But as a source of new information or enlightening up to date bread knowledge, giving pointers about using new bread ingredients combined with old proven bread baking techniques, as a working tool sweating near the hot oven at home or at a bakery, compared to other bread books, this book fails miserably info-wise. But it has a snappy lay out.

Jeff Hamelmans 'Bread, a Book of Techniques' and Rose Beranbaums 'Bread Bible' give the readers much more practical info and insight into bread baking. They talk more about the subject 'bread'. And not about themselves like Peter Reinhart clearly relishes. Mr Reinhart clearly sees himself as so important and interesting a person that we read in this book about his wife and their sightseeing in Paris. How about the bread info, the kneading, rising, baking, ingredient- and techniques info? I honestly prefer industrious bakers who pass on their baking knowledge clearly without having to read at which hotel room they stayedin. Bakers with such big ego's that think that readers of a Bread Baking book are more interested in the shopping experiences of the wife during 'a learning trip' to professional bakers on which she accompanied him, than in another bread formula's, should work in shobizz, not in a bakery or a culinary school. Big ego's with more talk than substance galore in the food industry. Reinart is, judging by this book, sadly also one of them. I don't see in a 1000 years Rose Beranbaum in one of her books rambling on about her husbands prefered color of ties or Jeff Hamelman writing in a bread book about the time he spent with his wife in Paris. Mr.Reinhart: your readers forked out 30-40$ for bread info, not your personal travel experiences. As you as a teachers no doubts sometimes say to a pupil: Stay with the subject! And the subject of this book, for which I paid is 'Bread and Baking. If we want to know about your personal life, we'll read an interview in People, if they find you interesting enough.

Peter Reinharts 'The Bread Baker's Apprentice' as a 'Bread Book' is simply a marketing creation. Smartly edited, but way too short on substance. There is not much new information on bread. Worse: there is not much info at all! In total for 30-40 $, you get exactly 47 formulas on 307 pages of which 2 color photo pages are simply ads for other books by Ten Speed Press, the editor or this book. Compared to Beranbaums 640 pages, Hamelmans 400 plus pages, that is a big difference for a big price. With Reinharts book, you get a lot of shining white surface that in other Bread books is filled with bread info. As a buyer of this book, you also pay for full page black-and-white and color pictures that are pure filler. See p. 3, 6, 26... And why is the beautiful model Fumie on the cover of a bread book and not mr. Reinhart himself or even ... bread alone? With Reinharts next book they will no doubt put Kate Moss in an apron and a bakers vest. Package the air attractive enough and the readers will swallow it and fork out the 30-40$. Never mind the content.

Let's talk a bit about the formula's. That should be an important part of a baking book, right? And they should be original and fine tuned, right? Sadly to say: nothing new or original here. Some aren't even fine tuned. And baking is all about fine tuning. Worse, almost all the formula's can be found in other bread books. And, most insulting for a buyer of this book, a lot of the mere 47 formulas (Reinhart uses this expensive word because 'recipe' propably doesn't fit into the marketing of this baking book) in this book are rehashed or directly derived from Reinharts former book 'Crust and Crumb'. Clever marketing and ba-da-bing! By the way, 'Crust and Crumb' has been reedited in 2006. At a fair price, I admit. So if you want your dose of Reinhart at a right price without the pomp, sc�nes of a marriage, without Peter Reinharts comment on the Eiffel tower so to speak... buy 'Crust and Crumb' and leave this luxuriously edited egotrip on the shelves. But before I buy I would also first flip through Beranbaums and Hamelmans bread books in the bookshop or in the Amazon shop. As for this book, you should ask yourself: 'Do I want a serious bread book or a nice coffeetable book?'.

Taking in consideration all the egostroking in this book and in reviews, as a baking book for the world market, this book is almost worthless. The universal accepted working standard in worldwide baking is metric weight. Like it or not, but that's a fact. You weigh your ingredients carefully by grams, kilo's etc. Reinhart visited French top bakers Poilane and Gosselin, clearly admires them and aspires to reach their level of baking. I don't think that Poilane measures in cups and ounces! But even then, let Reinhart measure in cups for the home market. But then have the decency to add the metric equivalent in the formula's itself for the rest of the world. This guy goes on and on about his wish to bake authentic European inspired bread like ciabatta, fougasse... About a Worldwide Bread Revolution! And then he refuses to use the most important tool to make these breads: the same language, the metric weight system. Rose Beranbaum places the metric equivalent next to the cups/ounces. It's a simple as that. Bread is a world food, so use the world standard for baking. If not, market your book mainly to the USA market and be honest and upfront about that. And don't give us that inflated hot air babble about a Worldwide Bread Revolution without using the worldwide accepted working standard, the metric wieght system! This big flaw makes the book almost useless for bakers outside the USA. The Worldwide Bread Revolution won't be for tommorrow if we have to use this book worldwide!

Next point: Reinhart advocates instant yeast over fresh pressed yeast. Every baker worth his salt (or yeast) will tell you that fresh yeast gives a far better taste, volume and texture. Yeast is a living organism. As 'instant yeast' it has been dried and put on the shelves for God knows how long. It's like you force a just woken up coma-patient, that has been dormant for months, years... to run a marathon. Fresh, pressed yeast is still alive and its taste and texture are a world of difference compared to 'instant' (aka dried) yeast. Try the difference between fresh yeast and instant yeast for taste and texture and fully developed rising at home, and judge for yourself. To place fresh yeast on the same level as instant yeast is preposterous for someone like Reinhart who spends days on his pre ferments! For scientific back up, you can always read the recently translated book of world renowed food scientist Herve This 'Molecular Gastronomy, Exploring the Science of Flavor' (Columbia University Press 2006).

And it gets worse. Reinhart frequently uses shortening instead of butter or olive oil in his breads. If Poilane hears this, he'll drop dead! Every baker knows that even a small amount of butter gives a much better taste and texture than shortening. Shortening produces a rancid/metallic taste and a slimy, unpleasant mouthfeel. Not to talk about health. Most shortening is choc full of trans fats which are much more unhealty than butter fat. Read Harvard's nutrition professor Walter Willets book: 'Eat, Drink and be Healthy' (Free Press 2001). New York has already picked this info up. Professional food writer and teacher Reinhart hasn't or doesn't care. For instance, Reinhart proudly declares -not as a joke- that in Italian bread you can use shortening instead of olive oil. In Italian Bread! Come on, let's be serious. And this guy teaches at the Culinary Institute of America! It's like he is advocating spam to put on the BBQ instead of beef! If that is the standard of baking that Reinhart uses, he'll have to wait a long time to reach the standards of a Poilane.

Then there is Reinharts Hygi�ne Problem. There is an international standard for basic hygiene in food called the Hazzard Analysis of Critical Control Points (HACCP). Reinhart as a professional tutor and teacher must no doubt know the HACCP by heart. The first thing in hygiene that an apprentice baker learns, is that before even touching ingredients, he must remove all the rings on his fingers. Because the place underneath a wedding band for instance, is the place where the filth gathers and bacteria feast. And kneading dough with all that filth underneath a wedding band that you keep on, is not only very dangerous for the health of customers, it is simply not done for a baker. I like my bread without filth baked in, thank you very much! In the school where I earned my diplome in baking, if a student had a ring on during practical class, he had to leave the class immediately and he lost important points for his exam. Yet we see professional teacher and Bread Book Author Reinhart kneading dough WITH HIS WEDDING BAND ON! See p. 36-37, 82-83, 255, 245... Unforgivable in a 'professional' baking book. And all the more in an expensive book that won the James Beard and IACP awards! Has anyone of the juries of the James Beard Foundation and the IACP, any basic knowledge of food hygiene? Has nobody seen this cardinal sin against food hygi�ne in a so called 'professional Bread Book'? One other thing, for a bread book that pretends to be world class, there is no word about gluten-free bread. Not one formula. And this while more and more people are allergic to gluten (protein in wheat flour).

To end on a positive note, one thing I found acceptable in this expensive coffee table book, was his 55 pages with the 12 stages of bread. But, fellow reviewers, you can find all this info and more, and explained more clearly, more detailed and to the point, in Hamelmans 'Bread' and Beranbaums 'Bread Bible'. And it doesn't take 55 pages of expensive high quality shining white paper. Peter, take out all the white empty space, learn to write more clearly and to the point, and you can say the same thing in 20 pages. Which leaves you 35 pages for more formula's for example. But if you haven't any formula's left or are preparing a new book, then, yes, by all means stretch the 12 stages of bread to 55 scarcely printed pages instead of 20. Why make it simple if you can make it seem difficult, impress your not so knowledgable readers and in doing so stroking your own ego?

So despite all the hoopla, hyped reviews, near hysterical praise and important awards, this is simply a too expensive, show off-book. It's like the tale of 'the King with no Clothes on'. Somebody has to yell: 'Hey, wait a minute!'

If you want good books on bread baking: buy one by Jeff Hamelman, Rose Beranbaum and Bernard Clayton. You don't get a model on the cover, but the content is all the better. And in a bread book, isn't content more important than packaging


History of the Dictionary
	"This has been a story of an American soldier whose involvement in the making of the world's greatest dictionary was singular, astonishing, memorable and laudable - and yet at the same time wretchedly sad." - Prologue.  Well, that certainly could have been the story.  But what it was was a history of the dictionary (as in "the history of the horse") with W.C. Minor's contributions finally gotten to on page 116 or so.  Winchester, the author of several other books I'll avoid, also seems to suffer from the common malady - or unwillingness - of not knowing how to end a book.  So the last fifty pages sink the poor reader into...the history of insanity/dimentia/Alzeihmer's, whatever you want to call what Minor suffered.  Whereas I should have shed a tear when the main character - assuming it wasn't a dictionary - was laid to rest at age 85, I was fairly glad to see him go.


Good book but in the wrong way
	As a romantic comedy, Star Wars is a failure.  As a science fiction film, the Annie Hall is a complete disappointment.  Whatever other merits these movies might have, there are definitely areas that they are lacking.  Which brings me to The Rough Guide to Cult Movies:  as a reference book, it is highly suspect.  What's notable is that Annie Hall fails as sci-fi because it doesn't try to be that genre; The Rough Guide fails at the very category it aspires to.  Which is too bad, because it is often an interesting read.

The failure starts at the beginning of the book with a definition of cult movies that is so broad as to be meaningless.  We then a series of chapters representing various "genres", some of which are valid (science fiction, westerns, horror), some of which are ridiculous (Animals, Food, Nuns) and some of which are not even true genres (dubbed, independent, straight-to-video).  After this, we get various miscellaneous topics that are thrown in without rhyme or reason, such as a list of top movie grosses followed by presidential movie trivia.

The movie descriptions are often amusing, although there are numerous errors (such as misstating Geoffrey Rush's role in Pirates of the Caribbean), even more omissions (every reader will find his own; one example is that Unforgiven is missing from Westerns) and plenty of movies that are really miscategorized but seem only placed in a specific genre to fill it out.

What saves this book is, even though it fails as a reference book, it is nonetheless entertaining.  I am therefore giving this two stars instead of one.  It's a rather useless book, especially if you want to learn more about movies, but if you do pick it up, it is probably the most entertaining two-star book that you're ever likely to read.


Irrational hatred with authoritative sounding documentation
	Another farce to feed irrational hatred with authoritative sounding documentation... If you dig that sort of thing... there are tons out on the market...Unfortunately they don't come with disclaimers. like one would get when reading a book on the occult... People tend to go for books that support their bigoted view, and this is a fine example... it is a lucrative business in the united states to see what is en vogue and write a book of it.... It is a living. When the Da Vinci code was written it was a craze everyone had to write the idiot's guide to the code, how to interpret the code etc etc.... I am not surprised of a book like this and certainly there is no accounting for integrity or lack thereof... people write for years even for the NY times before others discover their plagiarism.... or in this case the secret agenda.... before long we will all be drafted to support capitalistic oligarchies err democracy abroad...


your head will split open and ooze goop after reading this
	All I can say is pass me some aspirin. This is a dozy of a bad novel. As it says on the dust jacket, a Supreme Court law clerk grabs a petition and ends up becoming deceased. Its up to the brother to uncover the truth by finding the real killer who had let a poor black man rot away for a crime he did not commit. At the same time the brother contends with mysterious bad guys out to get him and stop the unearthing of the evidence. Not only does he deal with his family, but his brothers friend, a sexy young law clerk herself and the duplicity on the bench she works for.

And that's only the start of the plot.

Its really pretty bad, it descends into mired pretensions and goofy resolutions. The characters are so shallow that you are left with little notion of who they are except for a faint nasty after taste over their conceded ways. Baldacci is along with James Patterson and Dean Koontz one of America's worst authors. If you want an author who writes on a similar vein to this, try one of Harlan Coben's last four or so stand alone thrillers with out the character Myron Bolitar in it. Or for a more sophisticated read, look for Denis Lehane, he wrote the amazing Mystic River, but his PI series located in Boston is pretty good as well.


Confused Apology for Japanese Militarism
	I must say that after reading this book, I am more confused than ever as to the origins of the war between Japan and the US.
The book starts in 1936, although most knowledgable people know that the march to war really began with the Japanese seizure of Manchuria in 1932.  The author continually repeats the refrain that "Americans don't understand the Japanese mentality and culture", and it was this "misunderstanding" that led to the war.
It is true that Toland defines the Japanese term "gekokujo" as being some sort of "insubordination" that led to the Kwantung Army to feel it could move, presumably without orders from Tokyo, into Manchuria. However, Toland does not explain how this could happen. There is little description of the power structure in Japan, we do know that there was some attempt to create parliamentary democracy, but there were also the giant oligarchs who had much power, plus the military hierarchy.  Somehow, the military took control in the 1930's, but Toland doesn't really say how.   He describes in detail the "2/26" Uprising of young officers in 1936, and how they were willing to kill without compunction, and how fanatical they were, yet we are then told that they OPPOSED expansion into China, and that the repression of this coup attempt would lead to an expanded war in China.  I must say I don't understand this at all...Toland potrays them as militaristic fanatics, yet they seem to be "the good guys".  Weren't those who supported expansion into China also militaristic fanatics?  This is left totally unexplained.
Toland then goes on to describe the fatal "Incident at the Marco Polo Bridge" in 1937 near Peking (Beijing) which led to the full-scale invasion of China.  Toland says the government in Tokyo, again, had nothing to do with it, in fact both the Chinese and Japanese commanders on the spot tried to calm things down, but some undefined "hotheads" (possibly Chinese Communists) kept inflaming the situation. Somehow (without Toland telling us how), a decision is made by someone (not necessarily the "peace-loving" Japanese Prime Minister Prince Konoye) to mount a full-scale invasion of China.  An impression is left by Toland that the Chinese, particulary, the Koumintang government of Chiang Kai-shek was provocative and unreasonable.  All I know is that
that Marco Polo Bridge is within China, and it is understandable
that the Chinese would resent the Japanese military presence there.
After this, we move on to the atrocities of the "Rape of Nanking", which again, according to Toland, "somehow" happens, (Toland does admit that there were atrocities and between 200,000 and 300,000 Chinese were butchered by their "brother Asians" who claimed to be liberating them(?)). Toland says the Japanese commander at Nanking did not order any such behavior, nor again, did the government in Tokyo.  How then do thousands
of supposedly disciplined Japanese troops suddenly get it into their heads to do such things?  Toland doesn't give us a clue, other than his general statement that "westerners don't understand the Japanese". Toland also, in a way, tries to claim that Western opposition to Japanese expansion into China was "hypocritical" because of Western Colonialism in East Asia
(US in the Philippines; Britain in Hong Kong, Malaya, Burma, India; Dutch in East Indies; French in Indochina), however, by the 1930's the US had already agreed to give the Philippines
independence and the British were beginning to wind down the Raj in India was setting up an autonomous Indian government, so it was
apparent that Colonialism was already on its way out before the war.
All this makes me wonder about the various things he says in the book, and I would look for a better source on the tragic history of this period. I have read his books on the end of both World War I and World War II which are much better, so that adds to my disappointment


Repackaged Database Marketing
	The book is chock full of examples and anecdotes but really has no new worthwhile conceptualizations or insights to make it worth reading.  If you don't know anything about database marketing, then you will get something out of this book.  If you are familiar with the basic concepts of customer database analysis, loyalty programs and relationship marketing, there is nothing new here.  In fact a much better introduction to all those concepts is The Loyalty Effect by Reichenheld or Customer Connections by Wayland and Cole.  The subtitle mentions the dot com world, but the book has little to say about the Internet.  The book really does not cover CRMs (as oppsed to database marketing) in that it fails describe how CRM systems work and what database, modeling and communications platforms are required to implement them


Where are my red slippers?
	Oh.... my.... God!!!! There is another Patricia Kennealy running mad through the streets and shouting about high schoolish love fantasies that exist only in her mind. I thought one Patricia was enough. But after reading this book, I am faced with the frightening realization that there are TWO of them!

Also, what I find very disturbing is that this version of Patricia may be even daffier than the original version. After reading just 6 or 7 pages of this hallucination horror show it was evident to me that the author is suffering from a case of Patriciaitis and a dose of Kennealyism.

By the 40th page I was searching for my red slippers so I could click them together and get back to Kansas. Or anywhere else, as long as my copy of this book didn't make the trip with me. A pack of lies and a waste of paper and time. I would rather read Mary Poppins than wade through this endless journey of rubble.


Second rate reference book
	A rather toothless attempt at rewriting Strunk and White, or Chicago into  quot;fun. quot; Reference books shouldn't waste this much space on casual conversation. Get to the point--get Elements of Style, Elements of Grammar, and Chicago rather than this handbook


Poor parsing of concepts and confusing diagrams
	This textbook is more useful for the flashy (and admittedly very good) teacher's ancillaries. But this review is not for the ancillaries. It is for the text itself.

The text's treatment of proofs is very cursory and not rigorous enough. The diagrams for the algebraic problems are too confusing, compiling numerous different concepts into one problem. While I agree that students must learn to differentiate one property/theorem/rule/postulate from another, it doesn't make sense that most, instead of some, diagrams are over-complicated. Personally, I don't like the format with the examples, mainly because it downplays the necessity for students to become LITERATE in math, not just a good "example comparer." The text has little actual TEXT to speak of.

I have not been teaching HS for very long, but I do not like this book. I am not a textbook dependent teacher, but I do (woefully) recognize that students have poor study skills and don't reference notes all the time. I do not teach out of the textbook and I spend many hours planning lessons, lecture notes, my own examples, etc. I had many complaints that the problems were confusing, included too many ideas at the same time, etc. Some may be successful in "teaching themselves" from the examples, but I am very disappointed that textbooks no longer have TEXT. I may be a math teacher, but I understand the importance of reading and how it helps a person to process the material.

On the other hand, the teacher resources is a great set of worksheets, study masters, note taking guides, etc. Perhaps the authors spent more time on those resources instead of the text.


Was this a novel or a horticulture manual?
	The prologue of this book lead me to believe this was going to be a very touching love story of a woman losing the love of her life and finding love again.  I was disappointed, soon after, when it turned into a gardening manual and a tale about ghosts, with a sort of haphazard romance thrown in the middle-and then even that was disappointing.  I mean Graceland for a first date?  I noticed a lot of similarities between Roz and the mayor in Northern Lights, and Logan and Nate from that same book.  None of them can talk in complete sentences.  And Stella, who comes across as this loving mother, who puts her kids before anything else, works from sun up to sun down and is so smug that she thinks the whole business is going to come crashing down around everybody if she isn't there to oversee everything, even though the place has been successful for years.  There is no addressing the issue of moving on with her life after the death of her husband, she just does it. Unless, of course, it was in the last 50 pages which I didn't bother to read because I just couldn't torture myself any longer.  And I'm a big fan of Roberts.  I love her Quinn brothers books and a lot of her other work.  But this just stunk because I could really care less who the ghost is going to turn out to be.  I'm certainly not going to suffer through the last two books to find out.


DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY
	This book has taken photo after photo straight out of the Ikea catalogue! Obviously, the authors have decided that they have nothing to offer and opt instead to refer to Ikea's design and storage ideas. This book actually put me in a bad mood. Listen up folks, THE IKEA CATALOGUE IS FREE. Do yourselves a favour and pick one up, because none of these so-called "organization" books have anything to teach you that cannot be found at your local Ikea store. These authors should be fired. Shame on both of them


You're kidding me, right?
	Not insightful, not even humorous. I am willing to admit that maybe I just don't get his writing style, whatever that might be. I hope Mr. Rakoff gets into a new line of wor


Forget it.
	Ridiculous, convoluted and unresolved plot with main characters that have become predictable and boring.

Did Cornwell even write this one herself? If so, she missed a glaring discrepancy when she proofread: On page 216 Marino remembers Mrs. Paulsson greeting him at the door "wearing jeans and a soft pink sweater", but later when he tells Scarpetta what happened during his visit to the house he describes her as having worn black books and a camouflage shirt when she opened the door.

Perhaps it was the author's attempt to let readers think Marino only imagined the pink sweater scenario because he was too ashamed to remember what really happened. However, to this reader it comes across simply as a mistake the author forgot to go back and correct


Don't answer it
	When I reviewed THE STREET LAWYER recently, I mentioned that I've never put down a Grisham unfinished and that we should throw the man some props. For that book, certainly. For this one, nope. I read four chapters, 41 of its 391 pages, and gave up totally unengaged and uncaring about any of his characters or his plot. I hope he just had an off day or something, and that what he wrote later got back to what makes him so readable.


Most Boring
	I liked most of Jo Beverly's books.  In fact, she is one of my favorite romance writers.  That's why it's hard to believe she could write something so boring and contrived.  The premise -- saving an opium addict--- is good.  One could expect a lot of turmoil between the lovers.  But no -- it's all pretty smooth. The passion is tepid and not much else happens.  A series of "Rogues" from previous books is paraded before the reader without really adding to the story.  And the conversations are so boring that I simply had to skip them.  I guess this may be enjoyable to new romance readers who do not know better or hard core Beverly fans


poetry in Riis' How he oher half Lives
	How the Other Half Lives was written over a century ago as an expose' of the appalling living conditions in the tenements of New York City. The author speaks with a crusader's zeal and with so much detail that the reader can visualize these tenements, these streets, and these people as if they were living today. This is a grim and moving portrayal of the lives of the men, the women and the children that inhabit these loathsome neighborhoods of New York City in the late 1800s.  He so graphically describes the filth, the sunless and airless rooms, the crowding, and the starvation that these places palpably exist for the reader and bring a chill to any heart.  Riis has a genuine concern for the tenement situation and understands these people's plight. His pictures are touching and meant to vividly show their misery. He, for the most part, blames the money-hungry landlords for these crowded conditions: "How shall the love of God be understood by those who have been nurtured in sight only of the greed of man." (p. 266). He laments that the tenement is three quarters responsible for the misery of the poor. Then, after his extensive discourse, he offers three concrete cures for these dreadful conditions, something that many authors forget when they are enlightening readers.
Riis states his purpose for writing this book himself on page 297 when he says, "If this book shall have borne ever so feeble a hand in garnering a harvest of justice, it has served its purpose." The author apparently succeeded with his purpose, because in the flyleaf of this book the publisher tells us: "This book helped bring about new revisions in the housing codes of the major U. S. cities."
How does this book relate to adult education? By moving chronologically from the founding of America to the slums of NYC in the 1800s, are we to understand that education took a back seat to the accumulation of money during those hundred years? Certainly Riis posits that education is one of the solutions to this problem while at the same time implying that wealth accumulation and the lack of education has been the cause of this problem.  "Thus the whole matter resolves itself once more into a question of education, all the more urgent because these people are poor, miserably poor almost to a man." (p. 147). He does not forget that this "education" is not only for the poor people, but also for the wealthy landlords. "Clearly, it is a matter of education on the part of the landlord no less than the tenant." (p. 270). Riis' almost missionary language exhorts us to never allow greed to override a compassion for humanity.  "It is a fight in which eternal vigilance is truly the price of liberty and the preservation of society." (p. 233). The relation of this book to the other units of study in this course could be explained as an example of how low mankind can descend if education is not considered one of the major cornerstones of a society.
Although this book was exhaustive in its detail, it was easy to read while at the same time enlightening. I found myself enjoying the ranting tone and the fascinating lists of neighborhoods and the labels that Riis used for the different races. In a sense it reads like a Ginsberg poem; constantly hitting the reader with melodious lists of places and people from another era. Read these geographic names out loud and feel their rhythm:
Jewtown, Bandit's Roost, Double Alley, The Bowery, The Bloody Sixth Ward, The Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Wards,  Blindman's Alley, The Bend, The Battery, Little Italy, The French Quarter, Hell's Kitchen, The West Side, Bottle Alley, Frog Hollow, Poverty Gap, Murderer's Alley, Gotham Court, The Old Brewery, Old Africa, Potter's Field, Blackwell's Island Asylum, Rogues' Gallery, Penitentiary Row, Chinatown. The list goes on. To someone reared in rural America, this chant sounds like a song about another country.
Riis also has something to say about all the races of people that live in the tenements of New York City:
Chinaman (he can't be taught), (Chinese (coolie--laundry business), Polish Jew (coops himself up in his den with his thermometer at boiling), Russian Jew, Jew (money is their God), Bohemian (poor, but thrifty), Blacks (like to gamble, but they are clean), Greek, Hebrews (tailors, all of them), Dutchman, Irish (like to drink and have expensive funerals), German (order loving), Swiss, Pasquales, Russian, Italian (a born gambler; lighthearted and gay), Swamp Angel (thieves), Street Arabs (army of homeless boys), Tramps and Toughs (the world owes them a living),and the Celtics. I was enthralled by the street lingo and the colloquialisms and Riis' comments about every race.
I noticed one interesting similarity between the late 1800s and the present day. Riis says that the gap between the social classes is widening everyday. I hear people talking about the growing differences between the rich and the poor often these days. Does every generation think that is happening in their time?
Not only should this book be used by people researching New York City`s tenements, but it should also be read by everyone seeking a blueprint for social change. It is a reminder to show us how hopeless the human circumstances can become when man's greed overrides his concern for human dignity.


Damaged book
	The package the book came in was smashed. The book appeared as if it had been used. It took over 2 weeks for it to arrive. I wouldn't order any books from amazon agai


Inadequate
	Spend your money elsewhere. For someone who supposedly lives in the vicinity of Yellowstone he knows and sees little. To anyone who steps outside of the sealed up world of their car and even casually looks, the senses are all brought to life with sights sounds, smells, temperatures, textures and colors.  Cahill does not inform. He is not even a very good writer, for if he were, he'd do the same thing I did, huck the book into the trash. Go to Yellowstone yourself and hang out the windows of your car and even that simple pleasure will tell you how inadequate this book really is.


The binding is very bad.
	Got this book for my oldest daughter about a week ago and she reports the binding is very bad. Pages are falling out


Slow paced
	I recently read "I", "K", and "L" in succession.  Compared to "Innocent" and "Killer", I found Lawless to be slow paced (even though this edition finds Kinsey spontaneously traveling across the country) and the plot twists less surprising.  With others I've read in the series, I am usually hooked relatively early in the story line.  I was 1/3 of the way through this iteration before becoming mildly interested in the outcome.  Even the subplots were not overly attention grabbing (Kinsey has little contact with immediate family, ergo she substitutes others in her life--Henry, Rosie, Pitt family, the criminal elements in this book--as her family...).  I also found it hard to believe that some of the characters that appear in "L" could be so dim-witted on one page, and great possessors of vast knowledge with incredible powers of deduction on the next.  Anyway, there are others in this series I would recommend more highly ("M" being one of them)


Not a good book for a beginning geology student
	I had to read this book for an Intro to Geology course, and although I find geology to be fascinating, I had a very difficult time following this book.  The author uses a lot of technical vocabulary and is rather repetitious.  Although I understood what McPhee was talking about most of the time, I think it would have made a better film documentary than a book.  The author constantly went off on tangents and the overal organization of the book did not appeal to me at all. . .it would be more readable if written as a field journal because I could not even figure out when one day turned into another.  But the book did a decent job of presenting the bigger picture


I didn't like it
	Samantha seems a lot like Becky.  A young woman whose life is very out of balance and doesn't know how to face up to the consequences of her decisions.  Instead of staying at the firm and working out her "mistake," she runs away.  This is just like Becky hiding her bills.  And then she gets a totally implausible job, because she can't tell the truth - again like Becky.  Samantha doesn't tell the truth until the very end when the media coverage forces her to.

I agree that the firm would never have taken her back; they probably would have viewed her as a former lawyer who had a nervous breakdown and was in need of psychiatric care.  Samatha, like Becky at times, seems somewhat manic, in that she's frantic somtimes and makes major life decisions on impulse in a state of agitation.  just like Becky when she rushes after her sister on a hike for which she is totally unprepared.  Lithium, anyone?

I don't have an opinion on the housewife/lawyer "controversy," but I do think Kinsella's protagonists need to grow up


Too psychologized
	This is the first book I've ever returned. While a lot of what she does is admirable and does work (the "You" form instead of "Lord/He" works very well), two things make it unusable: constant use of "Beloved" for the word "God" or "Lord" becomes irritating very quickly, and she subjectively pops out the word "enemies" wherever it appears and puts in "fears." I wouldn't dare tell someone with AIDS or a refuge or whomever that their only enemy is their own fears, and even for others such overpersonalization doesn't work. The classic 137th Psalm was unrecognizable -- where did the dolphins come from


Just plain Awful
	Bad paper, Old advice. Just plain awful and a waste of Money.


Morrigan's Cross
	Just not my cup of tea.  Well written but as I said not my cup of tea..I will not purchase the others in the series


Better than you Sean
	Three things make me better than Sean Hannity:
1) I was actually in the US Military
2) I graduated college, unlike Sean
3) I don't believe that everybody who votes a certain way is a loser, or hates America.
Sean Hannity is a bunch of hot air. Just watch him on FoxNews, or listen to him for one hour. He is yet another of the current line of conservative commentators who believes that all people who vote Democrat hate their country and hate all Republicans.
Sean - stop labeling everybody. Every American has their own opinion


Dressed Up Postmodern Metafiction
	The first book of Auster's New York trilogy was originally published in 1985, and in 1994 was adapted into this graphic novel. I've never read the original (or any of the other parts of the trilogy), so I can't comment on Karasik and Mazzicchelli's adaptation. However, I can say that since I'm not particularly fond of existentialist or postmodernist literature (those two terms being the most common critical shorthand for Auster's story), this really didn't do anything for me at all. The story is basically an exercise in metafiction, and if you like that stuff, great -- I do not. It is dressed up (at least initially) in the mystery genre, but that's just window dressing. (There's a long legacy, especially in France, of cloaking novels and films of ideas in genre trappings (for example Alain Robbe-Grillet's two books The Erasers and The Voyeur, or the films of Jean-Pierre Melville.)

The story begins fairly straightforwardly: a reclusive writer of potboiler mysteries named Daniel Quinn lives in New York on his own since the death of his wife and son. A complete stranger calls him and thinks Quinn is a private detective named Paul Auster and begs him to to take his case. (The writer Paul Auster, and his family, shows up for one scene -- it's that kind of book.) Quinn meets with the strange man, who was raised in rather harrowing circumstances by his professor father, who was seeking to discover the true language of God. The father has been released from jail and Quinn is supposed to keep an eye on him and report. Everything starts to derail when he loses track of both the old man he's been following, and his clients. He spends several months watching the building and going crazy. Once he realizes they've disappeared, he finds his own life has disappeared as well. Obviously this is all somewhat about identity, but it's more about fun stuff like language, representation, and other tiresome postmodern subjects (as are the other two parts of the trilogy, which involve a man spying on someone, and yet another disappearance).

It has to be said that the artwork does an admirable job of treating the bizarro world Auster has thrust his characters into. The simple, heavy black and white inking is a perfect match to the material, especially when the representations become less literal and more symbolic. However, if your taste runs more toward things like plots and characters, this is probably not for you. Fans of Auster may enjoy this, but fans of the graphic novel form are probably going to be much less keen.