Datasets:

katossky

/

multi-domain-sentiment-books

like 0

Susanna Rowson's "Charlotte Temple" is not the first novel and certainly not the last to deal with the topic of the morally fallen woman. Poor, pitiful Charlotte finds herself in the midst of an immoral and unforgiving world where one transgression sends her on the road to permanent ruin. Rowson encases her heroine Charlotte Temple within a world of virtue and vengeance. Charlotte has no possible means of escaping her inevitable fate because the author/narrator makes it clear from the onset that she has written this story as a lesson to young woman. She has no real interest in Charlotte as a dimensional character. Charlotte simply serves as a symbol of lost virtue and symbols do not have real emotions or feelings. "Charlotte Temple" was written in 1794 and became one of the first best sellers of the newly formed America. A morally abhorrent woman who pays for her sins almost always guaranteed a best seller in the eighteenth century and now "Charlotte Temple" has been rediscovered and published in a Scholarly Press edition. Was this reclamation of Charlotte really necessary? In the past twenty years, feminist scholars have rediscovered authors and texts that have gone out of print or been totally ignored by the literati. Authors such as Anne Plumptre, Frances Burney, Aphra Behn, Sarah Fielding and Charlotte Lennox have been dusted off and given new literary lives. Feminist scholar Cathy Davidson has taken Charlotte Temple in hand and aims to join Rowson to the above list of rediscoveries. Unfortunately, Rowson does not warrant such treatment. Rowson has a flat, humorless approach to the fallen woman story. Unlike Burney's "Evelina" or "Camilla," Rowson does not imbue her narrative with needed levity. Her pedantic iron-fisted preaching smothers the modern reader in a moral morass that confounds rather than illuminates. In many of the fallen women stories, authors would use the genre as a subversive technique to criticize the patriarchal structures. Rowson does engage in such subversion within the novel. She seeks to preach to the young women who may fall victim to the unscrupulous man -- in England and America, it was not considered altogether lady-like to read a novel, so Rowson would be preaching to young women who had already transgressed. Rowson does not criticize men within the novel. She does not censure Montraville for taking Charlotte as his mistress, impregnating her and abandoning her for a wealthier woman. When he believes that Charlotte has becomes his best friend's mistress, he does not believe that she would soil her reputation even though she has ruined her life by engaging in an illicit affair with him. He aims to enact revenge upon the friend for acting "dishonorable" against her. Yet if he had not acted dishonorably towards her, she would not have been reduced to a penniless, pregnant ex-mistress scrounging the streets for food and shelter. He never takes responsibility for his role in Charlotte's downfall. Rowson had the perfect opportunity for savage criticism of the patriarchy with Montraville but she fails to take it. Instead, Rowson places the blame for Charlotte's ruin on the women within the novel. When Charlotte leaves the safe bosom of her morally upstanding family, she enters into the deviant world of the female who fail to protect her from licentious men. Madame Du Pont errs in judgment by hiring the morally loose Miss La Rue. Madame Du Pont sets Charlotte's downfall in action. Rowson does not punish the ignorant Madame Du Pont by killing her, she ends up an hysterical mess after the Montraville/Charlotte "elopement." Miss La Rue, the woman who pushes Charlotte into the arms of Montraville, must be punished for being a promiscuous woman. She ends up poor and begs for her last scrap of food. She ends up dying painfully as Rowson takes the opportunity to lecture her readers on the improper behavior of loose women. Why would modern readers want to read this? I do not think any intelligent would reader would want to subject themselves to the depressing experience of reading this novel. At 125 pages, it seemed to progress at such an excruciating pace. No character has any shadings. There are no subplots to divert the attention from the static Charlotte. Rowson does nothing to keep our interest. Unfortunately Rowson has become a heroine to feminist scholars for her feat as the first American woman to have a best-selling novel. That accomplishment is noteworthy as literary trivia, but it does not make for engaging reading

Turn of the century continues to serve a most useful purpose, months after I gave up on it. I have a door that rattles if it's not wedged open and T-o-C is just big enough and heavy enough to do the job on its own. I struggled, oh how I struggled to try and even begin to understand some of the characters. I stirred the pages wildly while I waited for the plot to thicken. I fought against closing eyelids while the book became heavier and heavier. I searched my abridged guide to good grammar to see if I had missed a couple of chapters explaining that sentences after all don't need a subject, a verb and an object - or even a permutation of two out of three. I left it on the front doorstep hoping somebody would steal it. I offered it to my neighbor so he could jack up his car. I considered lighting the fire with it. I wondered whether, if I took just a few pages a day, I could eat it and get rid of the evidence. I offered it to my mother-in-law for Christmas. I took it scuba diving with me instead of a weight belt. And then, eventually, voila! The rattling door! What a fine tome T-o-C is. Another few hundred pages [...] and I could have used it as a sea anchor for the Titanic

I didn't see the other reviews until after my copy arrived. Having now wasted a weekend reading this book, I have to agree with everyone. The topic sounds great, the book isn't

This book (I believe) is one of Lem's earlier stories and it reads like so-so pulp sci-fi. Fiasco (a true 5 star science fiction novel) picks up the idea of contacting a new world and does it so much better. I suggest reading this only if you are a Lem completist (I've read all of his stuff except 2 books)

It's a long read, the characters are boring, and the ending makes no sense at all. It is neither funny nor thrilling. It's just plain dull

"Tourists are learning that the image of the terrible Turk is false, created to a great degree by it unfriendly neighbors. Turks are quick to remind visitors that, surrounded by Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Greece, they're not living in Mr. Rogers' neighborhood." This is a direct quote. It sounds like they're trying to say that the surrounding countries are painting an incorrect negative image of Turkey. Which is amusing, since he listed both Greece and Armenia there, which were both targeted by Turkey. Either this writing staff has no idea what they're writing and is just happy to sell books, thinking no one will double check the info, or they're Racist and opinionated. Either way, I wouldn't trust the info in here even as a rough guide on where to go.

This book offers more information about Santa Claus than it does the gods/godesses associated with the Winter Soltice. The craft projects are cheesey and the recipes terrible. Save your money and do a little research yourself and if you want recipes or craft projects pick up one of those special Christmas magazines for ideas you can adapt for a pagan holiday theme.

I did not enjoy this book at all because it was writen in a very distracting fashion. While it was unique, it was too hard to get into. I also really hated the story, it was also too confusing to follow, to strange to enjoy, and to boring to care. I totally hated this book and it was near torture and a waste of time to read. The only reason that I read this was because it was for my book club. The reivews, by the way, in the club were 50/50. Some loved it, the rest of us hated it. There was no in-between. I would only recommend this book to someone who is into odd literature or to English majors, I'm not sure who else would like it

I admit that I tried to read this twice and failed both times. I got to around page 20 or so. I'll probably try again. However, if you're an adult who has already read other philosophies I would suggest attempting to read it just so you'll know what Objectivism is about. I wouldn't suggest it for teens that haven't had any prior readings, though. Objectivism is about the self and about "reason", and it can be heady stuff for someone who has no real experience in anything else. The strange thing about the tone of the writing is that it comes across as venomous. I assume that's in my head, but judge for yourself. Her caricatures of "The Witch Doctor" (who controls others from a spiritual perspective) and "Attila" (who controls by brute force) are actually interesting. Wrong, but interesting. Since Objectivists rely on reason alone for their survival (or think they do, anyway), it's rather surprising the lack of logical thinking early in the book. My suggestion is to attempt to read it without dismissing her out of hand (she's not wrong on everything), or swallowing it all without using your own critical thinking skills. Judging by previous reviews, it seems there were plenty of both kinds of readers. If you buy into it, you can get a feeling of superiority over others in a kind of pseudo-intellectual way. If you don't buy into it, however, you're evil (either the Witch Doctor or Attila) and probably just too stupid to "get it". Why I didn't finish it yet... I just couldn't get past her ignorance of history, frankly. If you're writing a work of fiction, the historical innacuracies don't matter, but this isn't supposed to be fiction. I like history and most people don't, so it probably won't bother most people. Also, while she denounces religion, Ms. Rand has no problem hopping up to the pulpit herself. Like all other religions and cults, the world is messed up basically because people don't think like she does.

Good book on deal structure, but if you want a valuation number, check out "Unlocking the Value of Your Business"

Nothing in this book was usable for me. Okay, very little. If I was trying to write the next _Ethan Frome_, then this book would be perfect. Instead I write sci-fi and fantasy. I was looking for tips to improve my description of things; this book recommends describing different things. Too much emphasis on metaphor (which is a wonderful tool but a tad obvious). If you want to write in a way people might actually communicate, this book might be a waste of your time. HOWEVER, poets and pure-literary writers might find it more useful than I did

Should Martha Rules have included any information regarding her going to prison as a "business decision"? I would have been interested in reading about the pr strategy used in this "criminal spectacle" designed to make the question of Martha/Mdiddy's innocence a moot point. Are honest business practices being pushed to the side? By normalizing, generalizing, and minimalizing Martha/Mdiddy's crimes, are we loosing our morality? How important is integrity to a leader...former CEO of a company? Be "thoughtful

Sorry, this guy's voice gave me the creeps. He sounds like a preacher. Who can meditate without the ability to respond positively to the leading voice

I am not going to repeat other reviewers discussion of the lack of character development. My issue is with the lack of basic research. One incident has Hawke's Zodiac being fired upon by a French Patrol Boat's missile. Bell uses the Harpoon missile as the weapon. The French have their own very effective ship to ship missile in the Exocet. Very unlikely that the French would use an American made Harpoon. Later in the novel, Hawke is taking off from a carrier deck in the latest VTOL aircraft, the F-35. The catapult fails and Hawke is put in grave danger. My problem, this is a VTOL aircraft, which the author goes to great lengths to mention and describe. Why would there be a "cat shot" at all. VTOLs are designed for vertical takeoff and then transistion into level flight, which, again the author describes. Also this scene has nothing to do with the story. Just another "Saturday Cliff Hanger" episode. This is my second attempt at a Ted Bell novel, ASSASIN being the first. There are too many other writers out there than give a sense of believability for me to waste my time on this type of thriller. I believe the author has the ability to create a very good novel. I wish he would cast aside the unbelievable and go with something a little more creditable

Doesn't this author know that peanuts are notoriously high in Omega-6 fatty acids? How can you base a book on a high omega-6 food when we already have 20 times more omega-6 than we are supposed to? This is yet another fad diet book--aren't we tired of these yet

I love dogs but if I had wanted to know the ins and outs of dog obedience training, including the different levels snd sub-levels, I would have bought a manual. I wanted a mystery with fully fleshed out characters and a plot that kept me guessing. I got neither. The characters were neither likeable nor substantive. Except for the cop next door, I have no idea what they even look like or what, if anything, they care about besides dogs. The plot was predictable and the action stuck in first gear. Maybe the series inmproves after this book. I'm not taking that chance

I'm on page 110 of this book. The book has 220 pages. I'm half way done and the author has not as of yet given me 1 valuable peace of information to help me forgive the person I am angry with. I bought this book because I have a lot of anger in me and the preface and reviews from other well know authors sold me on it with the belief that this book would help me. But, it is having the opposite affect. I feel I was duped into buying it (because of the promises in the introduction and the glowing reviews). Part 1 tells us what a "grievance" is. It tells us, and tells us again, and again, and again. The thing is I ALREADY KNOW what a grievance is! I KNOW I'm angry at someone, and I know it's not healthy, I know to forgive would help me.... I didn't need that to be explained to me over and over again for 59 pages. All that reading did was make me dwell and think MORE about the problem AND increased my anger because of the book itself. When I reached "Part 2", entitles "Forgiveness" I thought FINALLY.... but all Part 2 has done is repeat what is in part 1 and what is in the introduction - how great the study was and how much it will help me. There are some great reviews of this book here at Amazon and if this book helped some people that is great. But so far I can't agree with any of the positive comments. I have a great degree of respect for Stanford University, I went to high school across the street from Stanford and have taken classes there, but it pains me to have such a great school's name attached to this book. Is it fair of me to write a review of a book I have not finished? No... but I'm afraid to continue reading it. I'm already angry and to buy a book that I thought would help me, only to find it frustrating me, I don't feel is not all that fair either......

This book devotes from 4 to 9 pages to every American president. Each individual section includes a brief summary of the president's successes and failures while in office. The "secrets lives" aspect includes a description of his temperament, character and personal habits. For example, John Adams is said to have been vain and irritable, while Frankin Pierce is depicted as an alcoholic. Also much oddball trivia is mentioned, such as that George Washington had dentures made of hippo bone rather wood. The biographical information is at least somewhat educational, especially on the lesser known presidents such as Millard Fillmore and Zachary Taylor. But most people who study history will already known much of what is written here. The truth is that O'Brien is not an actual presidential historian with scholarly credentials. But rather a freelance writer who apparently just read a few books, such as "The Reader's Companion to the American Presidency," and then gathered together the bits he thought would be the most scandalous and entertaining. Also O'Brien provides no original research and some of what he reports as being factual is still subject to debate among scholars. However, what I found most disturbing about this book is O'Brien's tone and attitude. His so-called "humorous style" is basically a series of lame wisecracks and insults directed against the various presidents, especially those he dislikes. For example, he jokingly suggests that Andrew Jackson had "some unknown frontal lobe damage". I have no problem challenging the policy decisions of a particular president. In fact, I disagree with much of Jackson's presidential agenda, especially his bigoted policies directed against American Indians. However, I also think it is possible to have political disagreements without resorting to the sort of cheapshots that O' Brien uses. Overall, I found the book to be juvenile, mean-spirited and overly negative. There are many better researched and well written books on presidential history out there. So don't waste your time on this one.

This book has a volume number - it is one of a series of monographs that have been published. I am looking volume 231, but since you don't mention the volume number I don't know if this is the volume I'm seeking. I will go elsewhere for my purchase

I was eager to read this book, but after reading it I was left completely flat. The rest of the iceberg? Hardly. Smith barely gives us more than what we could get from reading Sports Illustrated, or any Minnesota sports page. He admits he's not a fan of football, but for the majority of the book leisurely describes the most basic parts of his football career. This book is touted as: his full and complete story. So we learned he was watching Ren & Stimpy during his NFL Draft. Wow, are these the types of meaty stories that we want to read? How about telling us more of the inside details... How did Smith deal with people who wanted to be his friends or girlfriends only because he was a star football player? Who were his friends that he could trust, and when did he need that trust? What thoughts enter your mind as you look to hire an agent? What was he doing when he was "goofing off and missing class all summer" which led to one of the most covered stories of his time at Ohio State? When, and why did he begin using pot? If football is not "smart" enough for him, why doesn't he study and break down some of the coaching process that is more mentally challenging? What happened to plans for medical school? We know the stories of football; those are the parts of the iceberg that have already been documented. I also felt Smith wrote this book as if he is defending himself from all of America. Who is attacking him? Why does he feel the need to explain why he was paid so much? Highly paid athlete stories are, sorry for the pun, a dime a dozen. He tries to compare his sitting out for more money to a scenario for the average guy. The truth is, many people will take a job for 5% less than a co-worker because yes, they value things other than money, and yes, they are happy to have a job. Leaving the grammatical errors to the other reviewers, it felt like I was reading an average high school creative writing project. 'I did this, I did that, I went to bed, next day.' Half of his quotes are from the wellspring of deep philosophy: pop music. Smith notes "less than 50 percent of Americans read at a 10th-grade level". Well, this book certainly won't tax the reading ability of too many people. One lesson from this book is that Smith had opportunities to swallow his pride, take some coaching, and come up with a better solution. This book is another one of those times. He should have hired an editor or writing consultant who could give guidance. Build the characters; help us feel their stories. Instead, Smith felt it necessary to go alone to get to the raw emotions. Sorry, but compared to other autobiographies, this was not an emotional book. I'm sure Smith is all the things that Mike Gutter says he is, such as: thoughtful, honest, trustworthy, dependable, passionate... but I felt that some of the best stories that would demonstrate these characteristics were left out of this book. Instead, we are still looking for the rest of the iceberg.

Someone gave me this book as a gift -- why, I have no idea. This book is about as intelligent as a TV sitcom, about as funny as a TV sitcom, and generally at the level of a TV sitcom. I found it neither funny, inspiring nor interesting. It is, in the final analysis, proof that any book that purports to be about "strong" or "outrageous" women will immediately sell thousands of copies, regardless of the piffle between the covers, and is thus a triumph of marketing over everything. Probably best for teenaged girls who don't read much. It's no worse than TV, I guess

This story should have and COULD HAVE been really good. It presents a great concept, but the story is just so poorly crafted. It is VERY sexist, the prose is stiff, and the plot is dull. I will concede that it was interesting at times; it kept me reading, but I really didn't get much out of it. I can only praise Heinlein for including the "intelligent conversation" which takes place after the press conference, where there is a great explantion on why the English language is so difficult to learn. The whole story is just very odd. Do read it though. It's a title to read if you wish to be considered "well read." Despite its faults, Valentine Michael Smith will be a character in literature that will never be forgotten, just as we will never forget Atticus from "To Kill A Mockingbird."

One of the Spotlight Reviewers says that by combining two great characters--Sunny Randall and Jesse Stone--Robert B. Parker has doubled our fun. Quite the reverse. He has cut it in half. The characterizations of Sunny and Jesse are enormously feeble; and the the rest of the characters are no great shakes, either. Sunny's Irish Mafia uncle is a cardboard cutout. Suitcase Simpson has three funny lines and is heard from no more. The villains--Buddy, Erin, Missy, Gerard, Moon--are little more than vague names and stereotyping. Spike is relegated to a scene and a half. Oddly, the only interesting character is a very minor one: Eddie. But he only stays around for 10 minutes Even the plot is tissue-thin. The love-story is lame; the sex-scenes boring. Worst of all, who should appear but (Christ!) Susan Silverman, from the Spenser series: one of the dampest and most wooden and least interesting characters in fiction. As with "Cold Service" and some others, Parker is just coasting with this one. He is capable of far better.

Despite the fact that Hanegraaff's name is the bigger of the two on the front cover, only the first 40 pages of this very small book are worth reading, and they are the writing of Paul Maier. His research is helpful, but so limited in scope that you wonder if he wasn't given a week-end to write it and come up with as much as he could. Every topic needs futher information. A lot more could be said, and Maier seems to be the kind of scholar who could have done a lot more. Hanegraaff contributes 29 pages of defense of the historical Jesus which is an even more surface-level reworking of information covered much better elsewhere. That said, I would give this book to someone who isn't much of a reader but for whom The Da Vinci Code has raised some questions. It isn't much more than a collection of scattered soundbites, but that may have been a good marketing strategy when there is already such a proliferation of secondary literature on what was only a piece of pulp fiction

I can not stand this book. I can't even finish reading it. Kevin J Anderson can not write original Star Wars books at all. The only thing I have ever seen with his name on it that was entertaining was the Dark Lords of the Sith comic book. Everything he writes is unoriginal and lacking in story. He seems to have some obsession with Death Stars and world destroyers because all he seems to put in his books are those. Darksaber, Jedi Search, Dark Apprentice, Champions of the Force, heck even the IG-88 story he wrote for Tales of the Bounty Hunters had the Death Star tied in (IG-88 transfers himself into the Death Star...what the heck?) Seriously, this book is not worth it. Try Timothy Zahn or Michael Stackpole. At least they don't always use Death Stars. And while Zahn's last 3 books are based around Thrawn, the original Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising and The Last Command, when Thrawn first appeared, was not him dry humping the same concept over and over

I simply do not see any point in mixing Crime Fiction with Crime and Punishment.

I was the commander of my highschools AFJROTC Rocket Club so my godfather bought em this book it is very informative but if you are just building basic este kits then this is way to advanced for you as it was for me and the other cadets in the club but if you are really into rockets this book is for yo

The humor is definitely not in the book - reviews and summaries use the word "hilarity" however, I did not come across any situation that I would classify as even funny, not to mention hilarious. I thoroughly enjoyed her first novel, Pink Slip, however, this one seemed depressing. The two main characters appeared to have no respect or show any outward love toward each other until the very end of the story. The plot seemed to be very SLOW - the whole story took place in a matter of days, but really, nothing took place in the book. All in all, they bought a house. I would pass on this for better reads elsewhere

Unfortunately, for all the name brand that this book conveys, I think the cover seems to be the most intriguing part. There are much better ways for book peddling and the fact that a firm such as McKinsey allowed their name on the title of a book for the sake of a few sales, boggles this readers mind. The subject matter seems to be along the lines of the bull session with all bull and no session. No actual quantitative analysis is used throughout the book, and if anything more than an encyclopedic definition is learned from this book, I would be astounded. Save some money and go search online for some basic books on beginning valuation. By the way, those giving 5 stars either can't read English very well or are shills for McKinsey

If you can learn to dance by reading a book whose recommendation was to hold your partner and "move to the music", then you may find "Kaizen Event Implementation Manual" useful. This book talks about the history and terminology of lean manufacturing and does go into detail about team member selection. After that, this book shows blank forms of some of the data analysis forms often used during a kaizen event, but tells you nothing of how to complete the forms and analyze the results. Nor is there any "road map" or guidelines for conducting a kaizen event itself. There is information about how to contact the author in the event that you decide to hire him to "fill in all blanks" in person. The book is simply another info-mercial where in this case, you are paying for the advertisement

City of the Dead can't really be called a zombie story. It's really a cheesy action novel that just happens to have beings called zombies in it. The zombie aren't really undead like in the Romero movies, but are corpses possessed by demons. I really didn't find any part of the novel scary and it doesn't seem like the author was trying to make it scary. He seemed to take the route so many Hollywood scary flicks take and just tried to gross out his readers through descriptions of the decayed bodies of the demons. The action is clunky and not very exciting. His hero's are constantly stopping to argue about things like how Jim's ex-wife raised their son while being hotly pursued by hundreds of demons. There are too many parts that require suspension of disbelief: a military Humvee could never catch an Explorer SUV, the hero's escape a fire by climbing across a ladder to the neighbor's house with the demons somehow not noticing, they're being chased by dozen's of demon vehicles on the road but second's later after crashing they have somehow lost them. And I have to ask why Keene included the descriptions of Necrophilia in the novel. In the end City of the Dead reads more like a cheesy Schwarzenegger/Stallone/Norris movie than a horror novel

I have an Amazon bookmark that advertises Ludlum's book "The Sigma Protocol". It says "In Ludlum's latest, an ordinary man battles a global conspiracy." Well gee. That's the plot of THIS book as well. Come to think of it, that's the plot of every book by the man that I've read. A 'vast right wing conspiracy' is set to take over the world. They have small armies, a lot of money and a plan. This time around, a group of military men (naturally) plan to foment terror, and use the chaos to implement their vision of the world (laugh not - millions in the Middle East and far Left believe 9-11 was something along the same lines). Enter "ordinary man" Joel Converse. He's a Vietnam vet and P.O,W. who thought he had left that life far behind. It's up to him to save the world. He will survive certain death several times (the bad guys always seem to think they need him alive, and they just HAVE to explain their conspiracy to this total stranger). He will find love, and he'll visit several European cities to boot. Of course, a suspension of disbelief is essential for many novels (how else would you believe that a Nazi and an Israeli are on the same side?), but Ludlum's cliched stories are further worsened by the fact that he just couldn't write. His dialogue writing is always tedious, and sometimes just painful to read. Action scenes are generic. The only thing he could do right is character background, but that's not enough to save this. "The Aquitaine Progression" might make a half decent TV movie, but to endure 700 pages is just too much

The information is sketchy and factually incorrect in some places, and the book would appear not to have been proof-read - for example the botanical names are mis-spelled in several different ways. There are much better books on the subject available

Ugh. I did not even try to finish the book. It is full of sexual content. Not recommended for anyone who likes clean literature

What should have been a fascinating book, at the very least as a voyeuristic experience, fails to deliver largely due to its poorly written pages. The text stumbles along from incomprehensible link to allusive derailment, making the mistake of huge chunks of repetitive material which inevitably detract from the fascinating subject matter. Perhaps more of an editng disaster than an author's failure.....at the heart of which lies a story deserving a more coherent telling

Herf applies a very simplistic test to determine the Nazification of both Germanies: did they side with Israel in the Middle East version of the Cold War or did they not? The trial against Paul Merker in the East, which had as its background East Germany's reluctance to pay reparations to expropriated Jews, serves as his prime evidence for the continuation of things Nazi in the GDR. But both of these arguments completely ignore the Marxist ideology underlieing the rationale of the East German leadership and bypass more complicated issues of political allegiance. Moreover, they totally eclipse the East German cultural discourse on the Holocaust, a discourse that was decades ahead of discussions in the West and still proves to be more sophisticated than most that is being written in Western academia.

this joke book suks. if i can give it any star i want, i would give it a -10 stars. i never actually bought it, but i borrowed it from a friend. i needed a joke book for my anouncements on the intercom every morning, and it only lasted 3 days and i ran out of good jokes. some of the jokes arnt appropriate and most of them dont make sense. if your gonna buy a joke book, dont buy this

This book was written in the '80s was copy written in 1990. It has a folksy tone and some technical information. Unless you are buying your church's sound system at a second hand store, this book is going to leave you wondering what might be available today. For example: "CD recorders are under development".

This book is the worst book ever. I didn't know there could possibly be a book this bad. If you are required to read this book like me, i feel bad for you. Do NOT read this book for pleasure because it is not a pleasant book. It is painful to read. If you are STILL thinking of reading this bad book, DON'T READ IT!! take my advice.

Yet another historical novel into which a lot of research and work was clearly put, but the result is dissatisfying largely because the author doesn't know how to write. My single biggest objection to this book is the constant and annoying use of the author's alternative grammatical rules. Comma splices and run-on sentences are not, and never will be, acceptable to me. Occasional use can be overlooked, but Shaara peppers every page with them, tacking four or five or more predicates on to the same subject. The effect is so glaringly obvious that it becomes difficult to continue reading. The following example is made-up, but it is a good imitation of how Shaara writes: "He turned in the saddle, rode toward his headquarters over the ridge, refused to look back toward the man receding in the distance, focused instead on the day ahead, forced himself to confront the bigger problems at hand." One often finds whole paragraphs composed of several run-on sentences in a row like this. The result is a book that reads like a rough draft, or maybe not even that; it reads like a collection of notes preparatory to writing a rough draft. I don't understand how authors get away with publishing such half-finished work, and I don't understand why readers put up with it. Another problem is the lack of convincing characterization. Everyone is vaguely noble here, with the exception of a few complete cads. Washington loves his wife and longs for peace and home. Cornwallis loves his wife and longs for peace and home. Greene loves his wife and longs for peace and home. I think you get the picture. Few characters stand out on their own. Even Lafayette is just another young officer. The author assumes that we already carry our own perceptions about the major characters and will plug them in at the start of the book. And Shaara's attempts at making his characters witty never work. The result is a cast of characters that is tedious and dull. Beyond that, I'm doubtful about the author's device of switching focus among the various characters in each chapter. It's fine when we leap across the Atlantic and jump into Franklin's mind. But the rest of the time, it doesn't work well. I find that I sometimes have to flip back to the start of the chapter to remind myself who has the focus. Either I'm a lazy reader (and I'm not), or the device isn't working well. In addition, this device constrains the author to keep the narrative focused almost entirely on Franklin in France, and Washington, Green, Cornwallis and Howe in America. That means that we get only glimmers of the happenings in Parliament and the royal court in England, and the continental congress in America. In effect, this novel is really about Washington's military camp and Howe's dinner table, which makes the narrative unbalanced. Some aspects of the story are interesting. I enjoy reading about Washington's maneuvers, and the repeated frustration at coming up with an empty bag and finding that the British have eluded him. I learned a fair amount about just where the various forces were, and when. But I wish now that I'd just bought a decent beginner's history on the war. Most of the book, as literary fiction, left me cold

Having so much enjoyed the first two volumnes in this series, I was not prepared for this turgid list of self improvement. Yes Clive is well read, English and Italian, yes he does know the difference between a Donatello and a Michelangelo, but do we need to know every book he read in the two years, every painting he saw and how it moved him. The simple answer is no. Unfortunately it takes 250 pages to find out. The story of how a drunken extemely funny youth becomes a sober mildly funny old pseud

"Dark Tort" was inoffensive and certainly not painful to read, but for a novel that's supposed to be part of a quirky, light mystery series, I found things a bit leaden. The book took forever to get past the opening scene where the body was discovered, and when we finally do move beyond that scene, a huge tangle of clues and suspects quickly built up that slowed things down even further. I do admit that it also doesn't help that I'm one of those people who can't suspend disbelief and have to ask, "...so she's an off-site caterer yet she continually runs across dead bodies whose murderers need to be identified?" But, that's just me. Oh, well... many of the recipes did sound good, though I doubt I'll get around to making any of them. This is one of those reviews where it's probably best to just say that if you liked the previous entries in this series (which I personally haven't read but suspect aren't much different than this one), you'll likely enjoy this installment, too. The rest of us can just wait for the latest Robert B. Parker "Spenser" novel for our light mystery fix.

I know that no book can cover every topic, but this book left a lot out. It went into great detail about what I should do if I got some pretty rare diseases, but barely touched on the subject of Morning sickness, which is much more common. And some of the information was just plain wrong. I trashed the book when it made me freak out in the 20th week because I couldn't feel the baby move. It advised that I should call the doctor. When I did, I found out most women don't feel it move until 21 weeks. Unfortunately I found this out after I had cried my eyes out thinking something was wrong. I would not suggest this book to anyone

Having been a fan of Antonia Fraser for many years, I highly anticipated her biography of Queen Marie-Antoinette, but have been very disappointed in that she often chooses the sensational over the factual. She depicts Marie-Antoinette's mother Empress Maria Theresa as heartless and calculating for sending her daughter to France at age 14 to get married, but arranged marriages were the norm; the empress was not doing anything out of the ordinary. What startled me most is that Fraser not only insists on Antoinette having an affair with Count Axel von Fersen, of which there is little concrete evidence, but goes onto maintain that Axel used condoms to keep the queen from getting pregnant. It seems to me that Marie-Antoinette loved children so much; she came from a family of sixteen where children were valued and her more liberal sister Caroline went on to have eleven children or more. She was also a devout Catholic and using such devices were unthinkable, unless one was a prostitute or dealing with prostitutes. In this case Fraser is applying the morals of some British aristocratic ladies to a queen of France. If Marie-Antoinette had been caught in adultery, it would have been considered treason; she would have been sent to a convent and had her children taken away from her. With all of her enemies at Court, that was not a risk she would have taken, if she had been so inclined. On a smaller scale, Fraser makes ridiculous assertions about Marie-Antoinette dyeing her hair - in all the pictures that I have seen of her, her hair looks grey from either powder or premature age; I have never read any first hand accounts of her dyeing it. Not that that is a big deal; but it makes me wonder where Lady Fraser's life ends and where Marie-Antoinette's life begins. I found it offensive that at the end Fraser interprets Marie-Antoinette's death as some kind of sacrifice for the cause of democracy, when she believed in monarchy and wanted her little son to be king. Especially, since Marie-Antoinette's murder was followed not by democracy but by dictatorships and Napoleon crowning himslf emperor. Sadly, there is a lacuna of decent biographies of the queen in the English language. One can only hope that the works of Bertieres, Chalon, and Delorme will soon be translated and published in English. Fraser's book does have some interesting details (aside from those which flow from her imagination) and it is much more sympathetic to the queen than Lever's travesty

This book places too much emphasis on spending money instead of eating...well if we all had money to burn that would be a wonderful lifestyle. Read "The Fat Fallacy" instead, it provides much more practical information

Same old GW bunch of ridiculous opinions. I thought this one might be better, but no... Now even pine isn't good enough - it has to be 100 year old pine

There's a ton of paper in this book, overboard, in my opinion. Wading through the pages in search of a hike is downright laborious. I've taken quite a few of the Sierra hikes and the information hasn't been detailed enough to really give me a feel for what to expect on the trail. They miscalculated the mileage and sometimes the elevation. I think it would be a better book if they chopped out half of the listings and concentrated on the truly best hikes in California

This book is a small bundle of common knowledge wrapped up in an insulting amount of hyperbole and hucksterism (and very bad English). Just how many times can you claim a technique will improve your workouts "by a factor of ten" or is the most valuable breakthrough "in history" before you lose all credibility? In the first 30 pages, winnowing out the fluff, I read this: 1) Fad diets, bulimia, and steroids are bad for you. 2) Gaining muscle and losing fat are biologically distinct processes, so they require two classes of exercises. 3) It's good to concentrate your attention on the particular muscles you are using during weight-training routine. 4) Creative visualization and self-hypnosis can help you reach your goals. (OK, I'm a bit skeptical about this one.) In other words, this book has taught me nothing of value that I didn't already know. Looking ahead in the index, I can see much more of the same. I'm afraid I've been had. I bought this book on the strength of Amazon reader recommendations. Please don't make the same mistake. Look, to gain muscle, lift weights every other day and eat lots of protein; to lose fat, do cardio on off days and watch your total calories. If you're already doing those things, don't bother with this book. I was looking for more specific tips, but I didn't find them here, and neither will you

I must agree witht he reviewer who commented about the book being written by committee. The narrative is choppy and lacking not only key details, but also historical background. Because it's an autobiography, I don't necessarily think that it's fair to damn the book for being self-centered; it IS about him. I do feel, however, that the book needs better editing and a bit more self-examination. It's an okay addition to one's list of books about Everest expeditions - which I must admit, I've developed a morbid fascination with after recently re-reading "Into Thin Air". I wouldn't, however, use it as my primary source for information or impressions

The writing was very disjointed in my opinion. I had to read and re-read many sentences to figure out what the author was trying to say. It was a struggle to read. No likeable characters. I made it to the part where it was introduced that Madeline slept with the ex-husband and current wife. Give me a break! I moved on immediately. Too many good books waiting for me to waste time on this absurd tale

The premise put forth in the title is supported by some keen insights into "leadership by Calling" and comparisons to it with "modern leadership theory." Les Csorba writes about the danger of pursuing results without compassion; a point with which I agree. Unfortunately, some of the examples he chooses are questionable... After warning about the danger of weak character in powerful leaders, Csorba chastises German Chancellor Schroeder for turning back on some promises to George W Bush regarding the war on terrorism and then goes on to deride him for his four wives. Meanwhile he praises Jack Welch for going from Neutron Jack to a gentler Jack (which Jack says he would abandon if needed)while still making the "tough" decisions that got the "results" for the shareholders. Jack can change is mind and go back to compassionless results... OK. Also, there is no mention that Jack was getting results with his personal secretary whilst the wife was at home... Unfortunately the theme in Csorba's examples becomes one of bashing the mistakes of Democrats and forgiving the sins of the Republicans. He does sprinkle in some condemnation for a few wrong-minded Republicans in a meek attempt at balance. It's a shame that he turned this into a politcally tainted work. It started off so well. It started off well even though it will turn off readers who are not people of faith as faith is central precept to this book. It also started off well even though he chose to make George W Bush the role model for how to be a trust-able leader. Unfortunately this conservative/political bent turned an even harder right from there and kept going. It kept going to the point that I could no longer plan on sharing this book with some folks I know who really need it. They would simply say its a Bush-ie/right-winger book and dismiss the valuable and otherwise soundly argued premise. Too bad. Csorba almost had a classic instead of a politically tainted leadership manual. I say this even though I am Republican, am one of the few folks who would admit they were voting for Bush BEFORE the election, am a person of faith, and tend to find the Dems an easy target. But this book was supposed to be about so much more than Republican politics. Too bad

Easily the worst textbook I encountered during my undergraduate years. Unfocused, sparse, and almost completely lacking example problems. Riggs touches briefly on lots of topics and treats none of them completely, leaving the reader lacking any notion of how process control actually works in real life. I'm not a big fan of the book by Seborg et al. either, but if you have to choose between the two, go with Seborg

This is a very popular book, which is sad because it's highly biased. She provides evidence, but only uses the 10th that corroborates her story. Christian study maybe, Christian fact, VERY loosely

OK, I know I'm going to get hammered for this; once again, there goes my reviewer rating. But I just HAVE to be honest: this is a terrible story. OK, being that it's Shakespeare, it's prettily told, but it's still a HORRIBLE story, and I can't imagine why otherwise sensible people like it. Perhaps they feel that Shakespeare is telling it tongue-in-cheek (it IS a comedy, after all) and poking fun at the system of fathers marrying off their daughters without any concern for whether they want it or not; that would almost make it tolerable, if I could believe it. But given that it IS a Shakespearean comedy, we must assume that the ending is supposed to be a "happy" one, and the situation at the end is far from pleasant. Or perhaps people believe (I've heard this claimed in all seriousness) that Kate has actually "triumphed" at the end, having figured out how to manipulate Petruchio so as to get her way subtly and underhandedly. Even if this were true, I'd hardly consider it a "happy" anding, and personally, I see little evidence of it. No, what we actually have here is a story of a strong woman (some people seem to like it simply because there IS a strong woman to be found in it) being married against her will to a scheming golddigger who "Tames" her by blatent if indirect spousal abuse (he doesn't beat her, simply starves her and sleep-deprives her, as well as forcing her to wear muddy rags until she behaves exactly as he wants, up to and including winning him a bet by lecturing her contemporaries on their duties as obedient wives. Her spirit may or may not be broken, depending on how the part is played, but the fact remains that she's forced to BEHAVE as if it is, and that's not a message that should be bruited about in a "comedy". This is absolutely the WORST of Shakespeare's plays

Bill, when will you just die? if you read this feel free to email me [email protected]

I only glanced through this book, yet my first impression is that it is a hodge podge of unrelated research without any attempt to analyze or comment on the results or even the quality of the research conducted or of the tools applied. I can, however, write about one of the editors, Mike Shaw, who made no attempt whatsoever to 'find the evidence' when assessing us as parents. He works as a Consultant Child Psychiatrist in London, England and seems to specialise in offering his services as an 'expert witness' and trainer in the legal aspects of applying medical recommendations under the Mental Health Act. We had our children taken away on the grounds that they were "at risk of neglect". Mike Shaw was called in as an expert witness to interview us and make recommendations. Yet the reports that he submitted to court were unbelievably sloppy and ill researched. Under cross examination, he was vague and inarticulate and could provide no concrete evidence to support his assertions and recommendations. Luckily for us, he was so glaringly incompetent that we were allowed to repeat the process with another expert psychiatrist. I don't know about his co-editors, but if his work is anything to go by, the material that he collated in this book can only be equally sloppy and prejudiced. Here are some extracts from the psychiatric report that he submitted to court. Judge for yourself whether you can take anything this man does or says seriously. Evidence-gathering. "On 9.8.02, I interviewed Mr & Mrs Orman [2 hours] "On 21.8.02, I met the family at Trent Park where I spoke to Mrs Orman alone [40 mins], witnessed contact [1 hour] and spoke to the children without their parents [20 mins] [and] I interviewed the foster carer [2 hours]. Observations. "Mr & Mrs Orman were friendly and co-operative throughout.[...] Mr Orman showed insight [... but] wasn't concerned that his actions may have disadvantaged the children. The couple were very robust in refuting the [welfare's] account, which they claimed was full of misunderstandings and misinformation. "Contact took place in the park[...]The parents and children seemed happy to see each other; they chatted in animated style. [...] I wasn't aware of either parent criticising the authorities in the children's presence "[Interviewing the children] The children seemed attentive [...] but answered "don't know", fell silent and looked at each other when I asked them questions [...] Erin related [a Simpsons episode where] Homer [...] had lumps coming out of his head because he kept his anger inside. I found myself wondering whether this was an oblique reference to concern about Mr Orman's temper but guessed that such an interpretation would be dismissed. [Note. This is submitted in court as an evidence-based legal document!] Conclusions & Recommendations "[...] I observed Mrs Orman as shy and anxious while Mr Orman was very pleasant but forceful. [...] "Mr and Mrs Orman say they have an easy affectionate bond with the children. So it is surprising that the foster carer finds the children uncomfortable with physical contact. [...] I think there is some insecurity in the children's attachment to their parents. [Note how this directly contradicts his own observations in the park.] "Were Mr Orman to be caring for the children on his own, I would be concerned about his sensitivity to their needs. [...] Asked whether he had any regrets, Mr Orman didn't take any responsibility for the deprivation and disruption suffered by his children going into care. [...] Erin [who was 8 at the time] needs a parent who can stand up to her without losing their temper, and support and advise socially. I suspect Mr Orman would find this difficult. "My concern about Mrs Orman managing the children on her own would be a recurrence of her illness. [...] I wonder whether Mrs Orman has the strength and patience to handle these very challenging [sic] children. "[...]The children seemed very happy and natural with their parents during the contact I observed [sic] and the contact records make reference to the children wanting to go home. "[...] returning home is likely to further retard the children's social and emotional development. [...] "These children have very little capacity to protect themselves from what is essentially emotional deprivation and possibly abuse. [...] it is most unlikely that either parent can protect the children from any harm that the other parent might cause. I also find very plausible Ms [Charlotte] Curran's suggestion (... [in] her [written] statement) that Mr Orman dominates his wife. "The children did not express a wish to return home when they spoke to me, but it seems safest to assume they would prefer to be at home and would be alarmed if that was not possible. [..] I believe the children need a long-term placement away from home with experienced foster carers. [...] contact should be gradually reduced." Mike Shaw's answers under cross-examination painted a dire picture of our mental competence and subsequent parenting abilities, but he was unable to point to any specific evidence that he had acquired in his 6-hour investigation. Yet he remained adamant in his conclusion that the children should be removed from the family indefinitely and contact gradually reduced until no further contact be allowed, so that the children could lead a normal and happy life. He could not comment on government statistics that show that 70% of all children placed in long-term foster care end up as delinquents. Our children were eventually returned to us after we underwent a convoluted process to prove our competence as parents beyond a reasonable doubt; and the case was eventually closed. So much for the scientific and critical appraisal of our family by a man who regularly provides expert legal evidence and trains psychiatrists in making competent medical recommendations that supposedly satisfy basic human rights conventions

I was disappointed in this book. The art and techniques illustrated are of the type one might expect to see on a TV Craft Show. I would instead recomment Robert Wade's watercolor book.

check out page 67 of the book for a basic reason why this book is useless: an entire page of a ftp session downloading openldap. huh? How is this helpful? getting the right version of BerkeleyDB and installing it, or installing and configuring OpenSSL would have been far more helpful to me. This is another book composed mostly of cut 'n paste from the man pages, header files and varous scripts you can find with google. Discussion on basic topics such as replication skips over key steps, examples for many issues are not provided or are hidden in the book. I use LDAP at work and I used the O'Reilly book to instal, configure and use OpenLDAP. I have yet to find a question that Deploying OpenLDAP can answer that I can't get faster with google

Good, but it simply wasn't actionous enough. I don't mind having no action in a book (otherwise how else could I love Foundation so much?), but Children was a book that NEEDED to have action in it. Unfortunately it didn't really. Too much philosophical babble that I had to re-read to get it. Slightly reminiscent of Card's later Shadow series with the sheer amount of internal monologue. Too much about Jane, not enough about the pequeninos and barely anything about Ender, which annoyed me. To my shock Ender's death did not really impact me in any way, beyond--"Huh? Wait...Ender is dead?", so little was his role in the book. He probably talked for only about twelve pages altogether. EDIT: From now on I am never giving a book that I halfway like two stars again because each time, I receive the urge to change my rating to three stars. Just keep in mind that while it says two, it means three

As I read this book, When Madeline Was Young, I felt as though I was lost, wandering through a forest, searching for something - a beautiful butterfly, a perfect flower, a mystical cottage. But there's nothing there. It's just a forest full of a confusing tangle of leaves and vines and nothing mystical at all. And that's how this book is written. It is a tangle of thoughts and words, spread from the first page to the last. Nothing special at all. I've read all of Jane Hamilton's books. I loved The Book of Ruth. Adored A Map of the World. They were both wonderful and I will always have positive comments for them, but I doubt I will ever buy another book by Ms. Hamilton. It's not that I want a "formula" book. But I do want to read something that I can relate to and I don't relate to this at all. I don't like Mac, the narrator. His mother is just plain strange and not endearing or believable at all. I can't stand Buddy, his cousin. The rest of the characters I barely know and, quite frankly, don't want to get to know. Perhaps I've changed since her first book came out. Perhaps the author has. But whatever the differences, my love of Jane Hamilton's books has ended. Sadly

This book was fun to look at, but not really usable. Lots of stylized drawings and self-aggrandizing tales by the author and not a lot of realistic how-to. Also, the explanations about skin care were clearly not written by anyone with a science or medical background.

This is a complex and detailed history chiefly of Cuban exiles in South Florida and the influence they have been able to wield regionally and internationally with and without the help of various U.S. administrations. In that sense, it is the story of two cities - Miami and Washington - and two peoples - Americans and Cubans. I have an objection, though, with the stone-hard style in which this volume is so meticulously, even gorgeously at times, written. Didion strives to be so achingly academic that there is little real heart to this book and, worse, the result is a cold, humorless, colorless story that is at times an unappealing example of ideological abstractions and alphabet soup. The author, in her conspicuously clean and parenthetical prose, apparently is so charged by the subject of her research that she has forgotten there are people on the other end - readers. It is, in that sense, a boring little disaster of a book.

This book was on a very interseting topic. The author took time in studying this topic. It was about the impending world oil shortage. That is the time when we, the world, will run out of oil. It tells you about Hubbert's analysis of the time or year when the world will run out of oil. They then talk about a lot of other things like where oil comes from. Then they talk about where oil is. They also talk about drilling for oil. They say it takes people over 20 drills to find oil. sometimes it will take even more time then that. Then they talk about the size of oil fields. They also reexamine Hubbert's analysis later on in the book. Rate plots is brought up because the more people driving the less oil we will have in the future. They talk about the future to fossil fuels and discuss elctricity and natural gases. They also talk about how much we already have so when oil runs out we need to think about all the stuff we already have. Hubbert was a brilliant man. some gas companys tried to make him stay quiet but he didn't want to he told everybody. The author was ver knowledgable and I could tell he knew what he was talking about. I wouldn't recommend this book to anybody unless they are very smart and want to know about the impending world oil shortage. I say again the author took time in studying this topic but that was his downfall in that he went into to much depth and made it boring. When you read it you can tell the author knew what he was talking about but he got to much into detail which is very boring. I gave it a low rating because I have a short attenion span so it was hard enough for me to make it through this book

Blind Items has the same writing style as at least one of Rettenmund's other books (Boy Culture). He goes on for pages and pages to describe something that could have been said in two paragraphs. Kind of reminds me of the articles you read in the Sunday magazine section of your newspaper. If you like this writing style, Rettenmund's books may be for you. Personally it drove me crazy and I set the book down after the first few chapters

Updike failed to hold my attention throughout the story both because of its utter lack of suspense in any dimension and the inconsistencies in his character development. As other have stated, you know from page one that the final page will involve an Arab, a truck and a bomb. The lack of anticpation must therefore be compensated for by something else - perhaps excellent writing, interesting character development or original insights. Updike fails to deliver on all three counts. One particularly slipshod literary technique Updike uses is the phrasing he gives the title character Ahmad. When Ahmad speaks, it is in the voice of an intelligent, thoughtful foreigner. His phrasing captures very well the cadence, vocabulary and grammar of a well spoken non-native speaker of English. Curiously, Ahmad IS an American, raised in New Jersey by a thoroughly American mother. So, what influences created this stilted phrasing? Updike is trying to somehow comvince us that a Jersey teenager speaks like a Pakistani or Egyptian immigrant. There is no need for the technique and its inconsistency with the character's life is grating. Updike also relies heavily on ethnic/religious stereotypes. Sterotypes often have some basis in fact but generally make for uninteresting literature. However, in Updike's case, the stereotypes make little sense at all. For instance, a high school counselor's entire personality is attributed to his "Jewishness" both by himself and by others who opine on his personality. This is particularly curious given that the man was not raised as a Jew and, in fact, his family had rather adamently turned away from the religion two generations earlier. So where does all the Jewsih influence come from? Likewise, Ahmad's mother's personality is often linked to her Irish heritage. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that her Irish background (which could have been many generations ago) has influenced her one bit. The reader is left once again to wonder what motivates the stereotype - other than simply poor writing and careless character development. Another out of place literay technique involves the inclusion of fairly lengthy passages from the Korna in Arabic. Obviously, few Western readers will understand Arabic and it seems meerely pretensious for Updike to include the original language rather than paraphrasing or translating the passages. What comes across is an attempt by the autohr to show he has done his research. If that is truly the point then the reader must wonder why the passages are reproduced in Western script rather than Arabic script. After all, the Koran is not written with Western phonetics in mind. Ultimately, the book leaves one wondering why such a lightweight, poorly constructed piece was released by such a skilled author

I was so disappointed in this book. I don't find a closeness to God in the pages. Instead it seems intellectual. It contains beautiful sounding prayers that are more like poetry than speaking with God face to face. Even though it contains prayers from across the ages it seems to keep me distant from the personal God I seek. And though the author's prayers are included too, I feel the same about them. I expected more from Richard J. Foster

My paperback copy fell to pieces after ten days! It is full of nice photographs but when the individual pages are lying in a chaotic heap on the floor it hardly matters how pretty the pictures are or how intelligent the text is, does it

The worst book I've read (actually, I was listening to the audiobook). The characters are completely unbelievable and the book is so repetetive that I found myself YELLING at the tape player, "I KNOW, I KNOW ALREADY". I couldn't stand the torture anymore, I didn't even finish it. I have enjoyed some of DS's earlier work, but will not buy another

A generation before there was a Left Behind, there was The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey and C. C. Carlson. This is the book that broke the dispensationalist view of the end times into the consciousness of America. A phemomenal best seller, it was a watershed event in the growing Christian publishing industry. For many Christians, their first reading of this book was an energizing event that shaped their future. A generation later, many of its former supporters now see in its pages a complete misreading of Holy Scripture, sensationalistic attempts to correspond Biblical prophecies to current events, and an unhealthy enthusiasm for seeing the world obliterated. So why bother with what can easily be written off as paranoid millenarianism? Well, while many have outgrown its simplistic approach to world events, it still resounds for much of the Church and this is shown in the continued audience for books by Lindsey and other "prophecy pundits." While it is certainly true that Tim LaHaye has replaced Lindsey as the popular voice of dispensationalism, it cannot be denied that Left Behind was made possible by this book. Part of the commercial success of both authors has to do with their placing the dispensationalist view in a popular book form. For LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, it was the pulp novel. Back in 1970, Lindsay and C. C. Carlson did the same with a popular genre of their day - the sensationalistic expose. Like most books of this type (e.g., The Bermuda Triangle, Chariots of the Gods?, The Philadelphia Experiment, The Population Bomb), it is written in a breezy soundbite style that is long on conjecture and short on facts. Like most of these books, it was a peculiar period piece of American life at a time when the fabric of the nation seemed to be coming apart at the seams. Like most of these books, it is laughable in retrospect. If the book were out of circulation and I were reviewing this for historical purposes, I would almost be tempted to give it a free pass as a kitschy period piece...sort of a fundamentalist lava lamp. The original was so over the top and written with such enthusiasm one could almost have forgiven the fact that the authors got everything wrong. After all, it was the 1970's when wild conspiracy theories, distrust of any traditional authority, and predictions of impending disaster were all the rage. When viewed within a time frame that produced predictions of a soon to be ice age, a UFO invasion, a famine around the corner, and California falling into the Pacific Ocean, the authors' claims of the coming Armageddon look downright trendy. However, in the intervening years, the revisions of this book just kept piling up. Make a bad prediction? No problem, edit the book with the old gaffes removed, add a few trendier predictions, and release it as a new book. Lindsey, now well into middle age and hurtling towards his golden years, still clings to the long discredited dispensationalist hypothesis (Carleton's contribution is more stylistic) despite his failed scenarios. Lindsey's original view was that the end times events would take place in the 1980s (he even wrote a book The 1980's: Countdown to Armageddon trumpeting this belief). Well that didn't pan out, so he then jumped on the Y2K bandwagon (another of his books was Planet Earth 2000 A.D.: Will Mankind Survive?). Oops, wrong again. First communism was the main source of evil in the world but more recently it is Islam (a more recent book is The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad). When one bogeyman falls, he is quick to insert a new one in its place. Between the failed predictions, the hilarious misreadings of the original languages, the bizarre correlations between apocalyptic symbolism and modern military technology, and the hysterical pleading for contemporary events fulfilling the Biblical prophecies "right before our eyes", it is not surprising many of those energized by this book became convinced of the imminent end of all things. This trend continues to this day for the many followers of dispensationalist worldview as they are perpetuated in the many novels based on dispensationalist beliefs - notably the Left Behind series of novels. If you can find a copy of the original version from 1970, it can be interesting in much the same way as a Brady Bunch episode - not for its merit but as an example of a particular moment in the consciousness of the fundamentalist subculture at a particular time. Just as many Catholics have vivid memories of nuns and the Baltimore Catechism, fundamentalists of that era will never forget this book and the movie A Thief in the Night. However, for the reedited version here presented as a guide to interpreting biblical prophecy, it is best to pass. For all its success as a cultural marker, its usefulness in properly understanding Biblical prophecy is basically nil. For this, its original purpose, The Late Great Planet Earth is completely worthless.

It was amazing when i read this, how self centered and morally wrong this man was. It makes me sick to my stumach to read it. This was nothing more then glorifing his looting and murdering in cold blood. If you have a chance skip this one and read somthing like "Company Commander" or "Band of Brothers" somthing worth while

Alright, so her childhood was a bit different than your average white middle-income childhood. Should this motivate anybody to write a completely non-imaginative, devoid of any insights book? Don't be fooled by the exotic side of it. A poor writer can ruin a story, regardless of the exotic locale. If you were expecting to find an "international" jewel like Jhumpa Lahiri's "The Namesake" or Zadie Smith's "On Beauty", you will be greatly disappointed. If you are into Africa, read something that has more than the exotic place to say for itself. Ben Okri's "The Famished Road" (booker prize winner) or The Palm-Wine Drinkard and My Life in the Bush of Ghosts (Paperback) by Amos Tutuola will be much better choices.

This is a nice book but it does not contain Provencal style interiors! I am not sure how the author came up with that title since anyone who is interested in French country will not find it here. If you are truly looking for Provencal decorating ideas-this is not the book for you. CONFUSED!!

That so many people gave this book five stars really concerns me. Luckily, I bought this book used, otherwise I might be kicking myself for paying full price. Between her utterly uninspired "devotional dances" to things such as sex, wisdom, and the "Sticky One" (a term she made up for the astral body), and her constant blabber about masturbation and rubbing your juices all over everything to "anoint" it, I was unimpressed, to say the least. However, driving on a trip a friend and I got a lot of laughs out of flipping through this book. It's very, very amusing if you don't take it seriously. The thing that makes me sad is that she's just using her sexuality to sell a feel good waste of paper with absolutely no depth. There's nothing evolutionary about it, unless you consider being a wanton, idiotic freak "evolutionary". If this is what humanity is evolving into, I am frightend

Ed Klein is really so desperate in his attack that he can't find any one person who will use their names in the attacks against Hillary! What a lot of misinformation and outright lies. To actually accuse Marian Wright Edelman of using children for her own ends is short of criminal, and to insinuate that Chelsea was the result of a rape, even though on the next page he discusses their fertility search to become pregnant, is disgusting. I should have known what to expect when the first two words in the book were Monica Lewinsky!

Noam Chomsky has thrived greatly in this great country of his, yours, and mine - the United States of America. He has made millions of dollars teaching, lecturing, selling his books, and investing. His world-wide fame in psycholinguistics is well-deserved. His infamy is merited for his lack of loyalty to his own Jewish ethnicity and the U.S., in spite of the fruits he has received by being a citizen of the United States. He has repaid this country in bile with his incredibly biased analysis of American foreign policy. He goes way beyond a balanced multiculturism, when he always ranks the U.S. and Israel as foremost among the terrorist forces in the world now, and even in history. His distrust of any authority, benign or otherwise, is reflected in his dogmatic and unexamined support of the "underdog," even if that underdog is a suicide bomber or a major terrorist organization such as Al Queda or Hezbollah. Yet since 1955, hypocrite Chomsky has worked for the "overdog" Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which has actively and enthusiastically participated in the development of weapons of War and mass destruction, and continues to this very day. Chomsky trumps his own potential for gifted analytic objectivity with his simple hatred of the United States and the Jewish State. If he were not so attached to the freedom of making money, earning the adulation of the American Left, and freedom to express himself, he might be able to give more direct and personal support for our enemies and his friends by taking up residence in North Korea, Iran, or Syria. Let us hope he retires outside of our homeland that he hates so much, the United States of America. God Bless America, which will continue to give Chomsky the right to speak, teach, and make lots of money. Raybo

One of the blurbs I read on the book jacket compared this book to Into Thin Air and The Perfect Storm. No way!. Those two books were edge-of-your-seat reading experiences. This account of a kayaking expedition is just plain boring. The action doesn't start until about halfway or more into the book and even then, the cliched writing and deification of Balf's subjects make this book very hard to get through. Unless you are a serious kayaking fan, I would not recommend this book

I read this short novel because I greatly admired Shaara's Pulitzer Prize winning "Killer Angels," and because I'm a baseball fan. The novel feels more like an outline or first draft than a completed work about an aging pitcher. It's a bit shallow and predictable in its plot. The characters are what one expects in all too many sports novels and short stories. The feel or atmosphere just isn't quite there. Any baseball fan will see flaws in the book right away, flaws that distract and damage the work. Shaara sets most of the novel in Yankee Stadium with the Hawks playing the Yankees. Why the author chose to have one real team against a fictional team is unclear. The Hawks apparently are from Atlanta, but an Atlanta team, Braves or Hawks, whichever, would not be playing the Yankees interleague on the next to last day of the season. Finally, when a visiting pitcher goes out to warm up before the game, he does so in the semi-hidden bull pen down the left field line in Yankee Stadium--not on the mound on the field. This book was published posthumously and Mr. Shaara perhaps never had a chance to polish his prose--prose that was excellent in "Killer Angels." It's unfortunate. There are glimmers of interest in the book, but not enough to recommend it to baseball fans or fans of the author's other book

Sedgwick's character is a perverted boring loser. Worst book I've ever read--well, almost read. Talentless. End of story

I bought this classic novel on cd thinking it would hold the interest of my 2 grade school boys, who enjoy books on cd while driving to and from school. They did not like the narrator's snobby french accent nor could they understand many of the words. This is a great cd for high school or adults but not children. A bust for us.

Disappointed. As an English teacher, I expected a more compelling and less hokey use of Whitman. The first story, of the deformed Whitman loving boy, was utterly unbelievable and the continuity was incredibly challenging

Does not show you techniques rather it just shows pictures! After buying this book- I was very disappointed since I thought it will show me makeup tips and tricks, rather it just shows displays of women's faces. You will waste your money on purchasing this book

I agree with a number of previous reviewers. Grimassi stretches a poor understanding of historical context to fit into what he bounces between "wicca" and "witchcraft". Wicca is not an old religion, indeed it is not much of a religion at all. It has always lacked definite theology (what is the saying about ask three wiccans what they believe and you'll get four answers...) and Grimassi does more damage than good by presenting historical materials is non-scholarly lights. In fact, the book is poor on all accounts. From confused terminology to "chopping" of source materials. This is a waste of money

I have yet to use an actual phrase from this guide, but... it is good for re-charging my batteries when I have to write a review and feel uninspired. After reading through some ideas in this guide, I usually find I can then find my own words to say what I need to convey. The fact that all the phrases are positive, I see as a good thing because I feel it's important to have a positive attitude toward the associate you're reviewing. If there are challenges in the persons performance, the manager should have been working with the associate on that throughout the review period. I would recommend this book but only as a way to inspire the person writing a review to come up with their own way of phrasing... rather than use the phrases in the book. The people we manage deserve more than "copy/paste" reviews.

The advice in this book is solid and appropriate for most kids. However, the writer's attitude is judgmental. If you are buying this book, it's probably because your child's eating has not gone as smoothly as you'd like. For most of us, a lot of our parental self-esteem is wrapped up in this issue. So it just makes no sense to act as if it's usually the parent's fault - why alienate and beat up your target audience???? Plus, while I'm sure that some parents contribute to kids' eating issues, plenty of kids are just born more sensitive! If you can read between the lines and get to the take home message without letting her attitude get to you, more power to you - otherwise, go elsewhere.

This is definitely NOT one of my favorite books about stocks. The title of the book is a little deceiving, the author talks a lot about option instead of stocks and half the book is about stock splits. Chapters 1-4 are about general info, such as you must buy and sell to make money, don't hold for a long time. You must research the stock before purchase, EPS must increase every year. I didn't find anything in those chapters that I didn't already know. Chapters 5-10 is all about stock splits and when to purchase the stock as well as when to sell. Once again, the author talks about the obvious; buy when you hear that stock is splitting and sell after the split before the after split dip. Chapter 11 gets into more advanced trading techniques, the bull put spread. This is not something that I use or will use in my trading. Chapter 12 is the concluding chapter

I really feel stupid about ordering this book. Why did i do it?. The story is that Stacey is moving Back to New york

This book was written in 1982, updated in 1995. It has a whole section on cameras, which isn't useful since most of them are outdated. Doesn't even mention digital cameras. Since it specifically discusses the mechanics of cameras, I found this book to be disappointing.

Ok, this book IS funny, THE FIRST TIME YOU LOOK THROUGH IT!!! Overall, i would not recomend this book because it's one of those books, that you'll just look through one time, and one time only! Yeah....there are a lot of positions, but they are all repeated in the book like five times, with different names! And another thing, there are a lot of positions that are not even posible, and some only with a giant swing, or how about a horizantal or verticle pole...yeah many people have those in their houses. BUT SERIOUSLY, THE ONLY POSITIONS THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO, ARE THE ONES THAT YOU KNOW ALREADY! !

I respect the message of "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce" but it seems rather odd to call the ramifications of divorce "unexpected." Those of us who have been through the hell of divorce know full well the problems our children face as a result. Staying together for the children is one of the most damaging concepts of all times. The author knows this and does present it in a way that eases my frustration a little bit. I know many people who have divorced and not one was due to not being ecstatically happy all the time. They fell apart due to abuse, infidelity, and just plain incompatibility. What I feel matters most for children is for them to feel loved and cared for by their parents. When you have two parents who both love and share in the lives of the kids, most hardly notice whether or not they live in the same house. When you have a parent who refuses to makes the children a priority, who constantly disappoints, hurts, and replaces the kids, there will be damage, no getting away from it. However, is it better for this type of parent to have daily access to the kids, seemingly with the other parent's approval? I hardly think so and will challenge anyone who differs in opinion. It is impossible for any of the children of divorce to know if their lives would have been better had their parents stayed married. This is a major flaw in the research. I didn't see any statistics for custody or parental involvement which makes a huge difference. I don't think divorce is the answer for every marital problem but when it happens, you have a responsibility to make your children a priority and alleviate their fears. When you put your own personal interests ahead of the kid's, whether it's divorce or starting a new life afterward, kids will suffer. I don't like 'studies' like this, they're misleading and potentially damaging.

I find it difficult to give a self-help book much credibility when it is filled with spelling errors, grammar errors and printing errors. I would think that someone who cares enough to write a book to help people could at least care enough to check her work

For the most part, these people whom the author thought are prominent Jews are either ignoramuses as regards to Judaism and our heritage (especially the 2 Supreme Court Justices, who probably never heard of the concept of tzeddek) or are not even Jewish at all. A waste of time

"American Buffalo" was recommended to me by a fellow thespian because he thought this was raw and fantastic. It is indeed raw, but not at all fantastic. The dialogue is very choppy and I felt out of the loop with it - as if I missed some great detail. Perhaps this is a play that needs to be enjoyed when seen performed, rather than just read. I do not recommend

I'm very disappointed in this book, although some information IN it is valuable, it will take a long time to read the entire book cover to cover. It is an excellent Textbook but not a handy guide to flip to on a regular basis and find ideas for what you need. Although broken into sections, they are not readily found or visible. One must search the information needed as in a research assignment. The reproducibles are MAINLY for elementary grades. This was not stated in the very short and brief summary of it's contents, on-line. Although the price was reasonable, I'm not pleased with the way the book is organized & printed

This is a first person account of a trip to the arctic in the 1860's narrated by a Civil War deserter. Within the first few pages, our hero enlists, pilfers letters off battlefield corpses, deserts, is injured in NYC draft riots, ends up in New Bedford, MA and signs up on a sailing ship without ryhme or reason or knowing where it was going. The book was downhill from there. Page after page described ice and the crew's interminable struggles to get through. Getting through the book was nearly as interminable. The reader never gets to know the narrator enough to empathize with him, or really understand him at all. Thus, his struggles ring hollow and he evokes no sympathy during his struggles. There are elements of fantasy in the book. Not enough to make it a fantasy, but enough to steer a reader off course. The scientist on the mission is after a warm Garden of Eden in the middle of the Arctic. He is mad or it's fantasy, it is hard to know until the end. There is a fantasy interlude when a character who has three hands (the most likeable character in the book) describes how he got his third hand. From that yarn comes the title "Rope Eater". The title really has nothing to do with the book, other than rope eaters and the crew members suffered pain. Besides the tedious turning of the plot, the characters lack any development. Only the three handed man and the captain, both tangential characters, had any depth whatsoever. This book seemed to be an attempt at adventure, but not enough happened between the interminable accounts of ice to build much tension. It never developed the aspect of the deterioration of the characters - mentally and physically - it just happened. Although the reader knew the characters must be suffering, it never came through the over-writing. As one might expect, the crew's mission to find the warm Garden of Eden in the arctic was pointless. So was this book. It was a disappointment.

I'm a fan of Dave Barry, I enjoy his column, I enjoyed some of his books in the past, and I bought this one with great anticipation. Boy was I disappointed! The story is meaningless, the characters are not interesting, the events are mostly dumb and the dialog is uneven and unfunny. Do yourself a favor, do not read this book! I can't believe anyone recommends it

There was nothing in this book that our association hasn't covered nearly every week. I was very dissapointed. It offered little tidbits like "a postgame review can help you learn from experience". Don't we ALL do "postgame reviews", even if it is simply going over the game in our head on the drive home? I certainly do. No, I'm not he best umpire in our association. I would rate myself as somewhere in the middle. The book offered me nothing new, nothing that our association doesn't talk about constantly. Buy a Childress, or save your money

Book contains many useful lists / charts / comparisons to define giftedness. Many helpful hints about raising a gifted child. Main criticism is that the book is more about raising children in general -- and may push those with "normal" kids into thinking they have gifted ones and down that track -- when they should not. Gifted kids are the exception, not the norm as this book makes it seem

Yuck. This book was totally boring. Well, maybe you'll like it if you're, like, 7 or 8 years old or something. Not only is it totally boring, but poorly written. Which surprised me because Ann M. Martin is certainly not a bad writer! I'm really glad she left the BSC and started writing a new series about them. The BSC books are soo boring and childish. Please- a hard to handle babysitting adventure is when the dog runs loose for 2 seconds. Don't waste your time reading the BSC books. They are all pretty dumb

I am so sorry that I bought this book. It is unfortunate that you do not have a Penguin or Everyman's Library edition. First of all the book is too large to read in bed. Secondly, whoever did the proofreading should be fired. There are so many typographical errors that it really upsets and disturbs the reading. If the postage were not so expensive from Israel, I would return the book to Amazon

This is the worst book of Shakespeare criticism I have ever read. Bloom makes no attempt to link one paragraph to the next. It reads like 30 years of lecture notes piled together haphazardly, handed to a graduate student, and entered into a computer over a weekend. He contradicts himself several times. I donated my copy to the library as soon as I was done reading it, so I cannot cite the pages where the contradictions occur; but several times I recall reading a passage where Bloom had just said the exact opposite a few pages earlier. To make matters worse, he even says the bard contradicts HIMself. He points to supposed paradoxes regarding Hamlet's age, stating that his seeming age does not jive with textual evidence that would put his age at about 30. Apparently the point is that if Shakespeare contradicts himself, so can Bloom. Bloom ignores the obvious conclusion that Hamlet is a slacker. He has not grown up yet. That is why his parents tell him to come home from school and not to waste his time as a professional student when he should be learning how to run a kingdom. Some of the book's observations are interesting, but they are glossed over and presented as a random jumble from Bloom's notes. Interespersed between the passages scribbled down from Bloom's lectures are outbursts where Bloom reminds us that Shakespeare is without any question whatsover the greatest writer, in verse or prose, who ever lived. Bloom is a great critic when he still tries, but in this book he was not even trying