Sondheim and Lapine wrote an excellent musical about the pointillist painter George Seurat. I really started to love the musical when I read Marc Bauch's "Themes and Topics of the American Musical" (Marburg: Tectum Verlag, 2001. ISBN: 3828811418), which I recommend to get to know how intertextually Sondheim worked. Bauch put Sondheim in the tradition of the American Musical with reference to his themes.

This show is like a work of the main Character Georges Seurat. Point and point are putted together to a great piece of art. Stepehn Sondheim who recieved the Pulitzer Prize for this astonishing work of American Musical Theatre puts all the points together to one brilliant composition of story and storytelling his co-author James Lapine who wrote the book while Sondheim wrote the lyrics does a great job, too. It is the most beautiful kind of lyric I ever had seen in this masterpiece: Children and art. I really enjoyed to read this book and it is essentially for everybody who is interested in the Musical Theatre.

This book is essential for the library of every scholar of American constitutionalism. For those who have studied the subject, the superb selection of essays on different aspects of American political thought is enlightening. Those who are simply interested in America's founding may however be at a loss and overwhelmed by the wide range of arguments put forward in the different essays even if Gary L.Gregg did an excellent job in the introduction giving an overview to the reader of what he should expect in each essay. Thus, since all and even the American constituiton and its origins is a matter of perspective, this book can only be enjoyed after a thorough study of American political thought. For constitution freaks however it is not only useful to have, it is a real joy to browse through the essays.

There is a palpable fear that America has lost its way, and perhaps even been untrue to itself. Examples of this loss abound, from school violence to a youth culture nihilism. "Vital Remnants," a collection of essays by some of America's top scholars in history, philosophy, political science, and law, shows, with remarkable clarity, the ways in which contemporary American society has radically altered the course upon which it was originally set. To be sure, our century looks at America with a different set of assumptions than that of our ancestors. "Vital Remnants" gives us clues by which we might stay the course for the benefit of generations to come.

If you are the type of person whose spirit gravitates to the simple (not simplistic, but simple)answers to some of the most complex and seemingly unrelated questions, and those answers desired consist of the type philosphers, poets and artists/scientists have been looking for (with varied success) for millenia, then you just might enjoy this book. Camile Paglia's SEXUAL PERSONAE, heavily indebted to this and the major works of Freud by her own proud admission, is what led me to this pretty staggering work for its time. It is relatively easy to make someone's brain hurt with a lot of scholar talk, where one is saying nothing; this book is great because it is *sensational*, in the truest sense of the word. This is one of the first of the many books about religion and the history of man that put my stomach up in knots, as it simultaneously gave me the power to look beyond the fabrication of ancient Greek philosophical society and Judeo-Christian heritage as the summit of man's knowledge. (Not that that was ever a problem for me consciously, but unconsciously I doubt anyone without reading a book like this has moved beyond it.) This is one of the books that made a new approach to the understanding of man and a paradigm shift as to how we have mentally, emotionally and spiritually developed not only possible, but inevitable.

What could keep this monument from receiving five stars will be fairly obvious to any reader: the prejudices of his time. It is actually hard to look at what he says objectively in that context; before him I doubt anyone put two and two together to come up with what he did during a time when his racism and trivialization of non-Euopean peoples, and for more than the past fifty plus years after him, anyone who has read his work has had that tempered by the embarrasing revalations of Nietsche and Freud. That, along with the egocentrism of Victorian Europe that he projects onto ancient and prehistoric man, serves to keep the book from being perfect (and are sometimes annoying), but do not serve to really take away its importance and incredible effect.

If you are a Joseph Cambell fan, you will be powerfully challenged by this book. Frazer was not attempting to come up with the same conclusions for myth and ritual that Campbell, though influenced by him, was. But you will love it, and respect it highly because of it. In a way, where Campbell seems to say "this is what it all means," Frazer says "this is what it all IS," letting the wonder of unexpected knowledge allow you to come to your own conclusions. This book will start you on a great spiritual journey if you never read anything of its kind before, and this edition is a very good one to have.

Sir James George Frazer (1854-1941) was a Scottish anthropologist; and this book, originally published in 1890, as the two volume, "The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religions", his best known work.

A short example of his writing style follows:

"On Midsummer Eve people in Sweden
"make divining-rods of mistletoe or of four different
"kinds of wood, one of which must be mistletoe. The
"treasure-seeker places the rod on the ground after sundown,
"and when it rests directly over treasure, the rod
"begins to move as if it were alive...."
(pp 367, with reference notes at the bottom of the page.)

This particular edition is the only unabridged, and illustrated re-printing of the classic, and while some modern scholars refute some of his conclusions, it is a Must Have for any student of folk-lore and magick.

This book, however criticized and unaccepted for its main conclusions, is still the major contribution to the understanding of our evolution of thought. I find it essential reading for anyone who has read or is reading either the newer revelations of freud and jung, or the works of plato and other ancient philosophers.
I notice that many readers are immediately offended by Frazer's apparent disdain for the 'uncivilzed savagery' of non-European cultures. However, this is a superficial conclusion to bring from this masterpiece. A little mulling over of The Golden Bough will show us that the savage's culture that Frazer so often refers to is none other than our own western culture. Frazer reveals to us our own social, cultural, and religious blindfold, which is none other than a pretty rendering of the ancient magics and superstitions explored in The Golden Bough.

For anyone interested in how opposites attract and presidential campaigns are won or lost, "All's Fair" is one of those "must-read" books well worth the time spent in its somewhat long 478 pages.

With able assistance from Peter Knobler, America's favorite political odd couple of James Carville and Mary Matalin explain how they kept their relationship together while simultaneously working against each other's professional goals.

As you may recall, the Democratic Carville helped manage President Clinton's successful bid for the White House in 1992, while Republican Matalin was a major figure in the reelection campaign of President Bush. The two have since appeared frequently as commentators on NBC's "Meet the Press," and even in an antacid commercial

In this account, however, Carville and Matalin avoid most of the pitfalls of the typical partisan memoir by using an even-handed "he said/she said" approach that usually provides equal time for these two very different people. Although the subtitle is "Love, War, and Running for President," those looking for intimate, melodramatic details of their weird alliance will be disappointed. Both Carville and Matalin do an admirable job of maintaining their individual dignity and conjugal privacy. Indeed, 80 percent of "All's Fair" is about the difficult business of public life. Only 20 percent concerns their personal feelings. And yet, that 20 percent gives this story a human dimension often lacking in more conventional election histories.

This book makes several other things clear:

* Carville may be the more colorful and quotable media critic (he has very valid points about pack-journalism, polls, and press self-indulgence) but Matalin is far more astute and perceptive about how the editorial news-gathering process operates. She understands how reporters try to be fair; he jokes darkly about "feeding the Beast."

* Matalin tends to get bogged down in political minutiae. At least in the '92 race, Carville had a better gut instinct for how the average voter feels and thinks.

* Women still are not getting the freedom and respect they deserve in their careers. It's obvious that, at the office, Matalin had to deal with the stigma of her association with Carville to a much greater extent than Carville ever was questioned about Matalin. There is definitely an unfair double-standard in effect.

* Maybe the best chapters are those that cover "a day in the life" of each organization. It's there that you really get a sense of the fears and hopes all those civic-minded campaigners had as they struggled to sort out a daily flood of information overload.

* If this brilliant husband-and-wife team can ever agree on a candidate, watch out! He (or she) will win in a landslide.

James Carville and Mary Matalin (with a rather large assist from Peter Knobler) take the reader behind the scenes of the Clinton and Bush 1992 Presidential campaigns.

The incredible behind-the-scenes details are great, and, as a Clinton supporter, it's nice to relive the highlights (Bush being followed by a guy in a chicken suit, Pat Buchanan). I don't know if Bush supporters will enjoy this book as much, although they might enjoy the Matalin sections.

The only sour note comes from Matalin herself, who refers to the Clinton campaign as "Clintonistas" and continually harps about the media's (alleged) distortions of Bush and his record, and genuinely, truly seems to despise Bill Clinton. By contrast, Carville is generous to the Bush campaign.

All in all, a political junkie's dream.

James Carville and Mary Matalin are always entertaining to watch on television, no matter what they're talking about, so there was no way this book could have been anything less than massively entertaining. It works outstandingly on two different levels -- first of all, it's a blow by blow of the 1992 presidential election, with a lot of the background scuttlebutt and the inside information. You get a real sense of how disarrayed the Bush campaign was, how amazingly the Clintonistas got over some of their hassles. Secondly, though, it's a profoundly in-depth look at the way in which two people who supposedly could have nothing in common develop love, and in that sense it's very touching. James Carville's puppy-dog slavishness to Bill Clinton reads a little off-key now that Big Bill is coming to the end of his eight controversial years (Monica was still in the future when this book was written), but all in all this is a wonderful book.

David Halberstam masterfully weaves the story of the evolution of post-cold war American foreign policy. He begins with the Bush years, leading into and ending with the Clinton years. Bush, he points out, was in love with foreign policy and, for the most part, excelled in its execution at the sacrifice of his domestic duties. Clinton was elected largely for his commitment to domestic issues in a time when we all thought that foreign policy was less important after the cold war...a time of peace. However, even given Bush's love of foreign policy, the confusion of the post cold war era made it difficult to determine where the issues really were. Iraq was easy for Bush. In his mind, a clear cut case of good versus evil. Bosnia, on the other hand, didn't draw as much interest and he ignored a situation that ultimately led to genocide. Enter Clinton, who early on professed that foreign policy did not matter. Only when it threatened his presidency did he finally act. Beyond Clinton, the conflicting viewpoints of other key players such as Tony Lake, Dick Holbrooke, Colin Powell, and Madeleine Albright come clearly into view in Halberstam's excellent analysis.

Hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy to find fault in retrospect. What becomes clear in this book is how muddied the post cold-war era has become. The possible paths for our foreign policy are more complex than ever, with no clear arrow pointing the way. What is certain, however, is that there is no avoiding the need for a strong American foreign policy.

Now, more than ever, all Americans should read this book to better understand why we are once again at war in a time of peace.

David Halberstam's War in a Time of Peace is a massive look at American foregin policy in the 1990s, through the presidencies of Bush and Clinton. Bosnia and Kosovo are the centerpieces but the book also touches meaningfully on Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti. The thumbnail biographical portraits of all the leading American figures is a great joy and asset of this book. Foreign policy can be a confusing issue, not least of all because of its lack of intelligible coverage in the media or on campaign trails. Halberstam makes all these complex issues and myriad personalities shine through clearly. His critiques of the media are particularly important and compelling and this book is a refreshing antidote to the sort of journalism television has thrust to the fore. This is a valuable book but, most of all, it is a enjoyable and fascinating read.

This is an excellent behind the scenes look at the processes, and lack there of, that took America through three post-Cold War "Teacup" wars: Mogadishu, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Halberstam shows that, while George Bush did well overseeing the end of the Cold War, his administration was not prepared for the tribal/ethnic upheavals that followed near the end of his term. More significantly, the author demonstrates that Clinton remained behind the power curve in this arena throughout most of his presidency.

With Clinton focused on his domestic agenda, his administration was divided among themselves regrading policy in East Africa and the Balkans, the president did not take charge, and the pentagon opposed the administration and, at times, its own field commander.

Halberstam's review reminds us how NOT to run wars, and that, regardless of how much an American chief executive wants to concentrate on domestic matters, foreign policy will pull him in. A U.S. president ignors the affairs of the world at his own political peril, and often at the world's real peril. After all, as the Slovenian foreign minister once said, "...the political will of the free world begins and ends in the oval office."

Reading "The Spy Who Loved Me" is like being trapped with a dull guest at a bad cocktail party. While you're waiting for Bond to show up, the heroine has you pinned in the corner, away from the drinks, telling you all about her sad childhood and her leaving home. While your eyes are scanning the room, she is telling you about her love life, her sexual exploits, the men who have used and discarded her, and a lot of other stuff you don't really want to hear about.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what else she talks about, because my attention started to wander. Instead of making an excuse about going to the bathroom, I began skipping chapters, looking for Bond. He showed up a third of the way through the book, wiht an excuse involving a case he'd just finished. This was by far the most excruciating part of the book, because, by this point, the contrast between the interesting exploits Bond recounted and the painfully dull book itself is just heartbreaking. Of course, by that point in the book, "A Field Guide to Birds in the West Indies" probably would have read like "Goldfinger."

Eventually, the book decides to take up the, um, plot. It's not worth the wait. Let's just say that, for a guy who's singlehandedly averted world war on more than one occasion, Slugsy and Horror -- yes, those are the villians' names -- must seem like a doozy of a step down. I won't spoil whatever surprises the book has by revealing their plan, but you can safely assume it falls just a tad short of stealing a nuclear warhead or destroying the gold in Fort Knox.

In short, this is, by far, the worst of the Bond novels. There's a reason why the movie has nothing to do with the book. You should do likewise.

It's been said that Ian Fleming was not fond of his book, "The Spy Who Loved Me". Since he placed a note at the book's beginning, claiming someone left the manuscript on his desk, one can guess that this might be true. Whatever the author's feelings were, "The Spy Who Loved Me" is an enjoyable novel, although it does differ from Fleming's other Bond novels.

"The Spy Who Loved Me" is unique for a James Bond novel, in that the story is told through the eyes of a "Bond Girl". Vivienne Michel recalls her travels, her new job at a motel and the danger she encounters one night at the hands of a couple thugs. Enter James Bond, who is more heroic than ever as he fights to be her savior.

In recent years, the Ian Fleming Bond novels have gone in and out of print. Don't hesitate to pick up "The Spy who Loved Me" and the other Bond books or tapes before they become impossible to find!

It's been said that Ian Fleming was not fond of his book, "The Spy Who Loved Me". Since he placed a note at the book's beginning, claiming someone left the manuscript on his desk, one can guess that this might be true. Whatever the author's feelings were, "The Spy Who Loved Me" is an enjoyable novel, although it does differ from Fleming's other Bond novels.

"The Spy Who Loved Me" is unique for a James Bond novel, in that the story is told through the eyes of a "Bond Girl". Vivienne Michel recalls her travels, her new job at a motel and the danger she encounters one night at the hands of a couple thugs. Enter James Bond, who is more heroic than ever as he fights to be her savior.

In recent years, the Ian Fleming Bond novels have gone in and out of print. Don't hesitate to pick up "The Spy who Loved Me" and the other Bond books before they become impossible to find!

The debate about what constitutes value has been tackled numerous times, but this may be the most humorous and interesting take on the subject. JSG Boggs shoves the question of value into our faces by drawing money and trying to pass it off - not as real money, but as real value. The book follows Boggs as he takes his "what is value" sideshow on the road, and into several court appearances. By the end, you'll see money in a whole new light as Boggs rides into the sunset with a pocket full of "cash."

The book loses its touch (and its uniqueness) when Mr. Weschler wanders into a generic discussion of the history of money. Overall, the author's treatment does just what it should - get out of the way and let Boggs paint a marvelous story.

It's honest, dispite the quasi-legal aspects of Mr. Boggs livelihood...the proof that the barter system still exists for intellectual property!

The story told in this book is fasccinating -- of a man whose art directly addresses the questions: what is money? what does money mean to us? how does money work? Boggs is an artist who creates beuatiful work, and does it in a way that it also drives to the heart of the American monetary system. The transactional part of his art is fascinating, and is told in an engaging amnner in this book.

The book suffers from being an enlargement of a fascinating article on the same subject. The borders between the original material and that added to make it a book-length piece are sometimes glaring. The book would have been more successful if the text were limited to the original article, and the collection of images were expanded.

This book, by the editors of the Washington Post, does a good job of describing the events which led to the deadlocked 2000 Presidential election. In addition to detailing the paths which led to the deadlock, the book discusses all the post-election issues in a very readable format. Surprisingly, the books editors seem only slightly tilted towards Gore (especially considering it is the Washington Post, which is noted for its liberal bias), so no matter who you voted for, there is much to be found here for anyone with an interest in contemporary politics.

Two things struck me while reading this book, the first is that I doubt there is a book out there that is truly balanced and not somewhat biased. The second thing was that Gore really got the shaft, not so much by the recount wars, but by the election official that came up with the Butterfly Ballot. In the history of the USA this decision ranks up there with new Coke and the XFL, what a mistake. As far as the reporting in the book it was not bad for a review of all the articles they had in the paper, but it did not really dig into the particular issues very deeply. I wanted more detail and behind the scenes with both the candidates. I also wanted more details on the court cases; I felt like the sky-high overview of the issues of the cases did not do such an important issue justice.

In reading the book I think a little bit of a democratic bias comes out, just a little, but enough to notice. I also thought it interesting that they had far more details of the Gore group then the Bush camp, it follows the perception that the Post is somewhat liberal in its views. The book is an overview that came out almost 10 minutes after Gore hung up the phone on the second concession call so there are a few more details out now that they did not get in the book. Overall it is a good effort and a readable book, but not the end all be all on the subject.

Deadlock: The Inside Story of America's Closest Election is a workmanlike and emotionless recollection of the events surrounding the most controversial election of the past 100 years. It is a well organized, easy to follow and not visibly biased view of the relevant events leading up to and following the November 7 Presidential election. Seemingly accurate and double checked to a fault, reading this book left me with the impression that I had just read an excellent 275 page newspaper article and not much more. With almost no humor, lacking any sidebar comments, it is a book Joe Friday would be proud to call his own. While I am a Texan and Bush supporter, I much preferred Jake Tapper's Down & Dirty: The Plot to Steal the Presidency. I guess this means that like most people, when push comes to shove, I'd rather be entertained than informed. I do regret this intellectual weakness and like some of the votes in Florida I may change. But probably not in the next 36 days.

I found this book to be a very enjoyable book to read and if helped fill in a few spaces left about the great names of the Civil War before they became Generals. I have always enjoy reading accounts of the war with Mexico and seeing how the future enemies of the American Civil War fought together, saved each others lives on occassions and learnt the common lessons of war. This is a very interesting and well presented account although I found the battle scenes lacking in depth but I would suppose that was not the authors main focus but more on the people involved. I think it may have helped to have added a few maps of the fighting in Mexico and the Valley as if you have no prior knowledge of these areas you really do not appreciate the efforts involved in moving from one point to another. Overall this is a decent book and most people should enjoy immersing themselves in this bit of history.

This is one of the best Civil War books, I've ever read. John Waugh brings so many of our Civil war Generals, both North and South, back to life. We learn so many interesting details about their lives at West Point. This book had me laughing, with their antics at West Point, it rather reminded me of my own "boot Camp" life in the military 25 years ago. I can still see Thomas J. "StoneWall" Jackson, sweating at the blackboard, to try and solve problems,walking at the same pace, even when the others hurry to get out of the rain. The Fight that almost broke out, in the Church at West Point, between two future leaders.

One of the things, John Waugh does, is very emotionally grab you by the throat, as he describes StoneWall Jacksons dying, his wifes and Lee's reaction, and the funeral. I literally, had to put the book down and wipe the tears from my eyes. I've read about this incident, many times before, but Waughs version, really got to me.
McClellan, A.P.Hill, Pickett, Wilcox, Stoneman, Darius Couch, Sturgis and many others are brought to life.

I have so many Civil War books to read, but I certainly want to read this book again, in the future.

If you're a real Civil War Buff, you owe it to yourself to read this. To me, it was as good as Shelby Foote.

I've been immersed in my Civil War studies for about 2 years, and Waugh/Mc Pherson's effort is an absolute joy. The life and times of key (and minor) personalities of this particular graduating class are spotlighted through their studies at West Point, Mexican/Indian War exploits and sorrowfully, to the final conflict of America's Civil War. One of the true instances where one "cannot put the book down". Highly recommended, indeed.

Larry Beinhart's AMERICAN HERO is really two novels; a trenchant political satire and a by-the-numbers PI story. The story of Joe Broz and his Hollywood paramour was stricken with the same situations, relationships, developements and cliches (even a Kung Fu showdown, fer cryin' out loud) as a zillion other Private Detective novels. Nuff said. The other part of AMERICAN HERO, the shimmering Verasalles palace of the the book, is the tale of Lee Atwater's fevered public relations pitch, it's acceptance by George Herbert Walker Bush, and it's conception in the hands of Hollywood heavyhitter John Lincoln Beagle. In these chapters, Beinhart shines: exposing the stunning gullibility, mindless jingoism and political apathy of the American people. One wonders why he stopped short of describing the war itself, but since it is such a recent memory, the readers themselves can think back with embarrassment at how heartily we embraced that highly dubious military foray, with yellow ribbons, ticker tape parades, and a nintey percent approval rating for ole George Herbert Walker. Beinhart lets the chill run down our spines as we close the book and realize for ourselves that Atwater was right. We're a nation of suckers, tacitly complicent in our own duping. (LOVED THE FOOTNOTES!)

I love a good conspiracy theory and this is one of the best. This was a very interesting novel. The thought had never crossed my mind that the Persian Gulf War was a false war. This opened my mind to the realization that a fake war could be a reality. Although the book begins with the disclaimer,
This is a work of fiction. Many public figures appear in the text. Their speech and actions as depicted here are figments of the author's imagination except where supported by the public record.
, it appeared that the Larry Beinhart knew what he was talking about, that or he has a really great imagination. I really liked the book because it was about the side of politics that no one ever really sees. The dirty, no holds bar, the ends justify the means, kind of stuff. A life of politics takes a lot of strength and courage. The two timelines that Beinhart used made the story flow better and gave a more "common person" side to it. Overall, I felt it was a great book and I'm off to find the movie version.

There's something about _American Hero_ that pulls at the edges of the reader's mind: you will not turn a page without pausing to think, "Could this really happen? DID this really happen?" I'm a veteran of the Gulf War. I was there. I KNOW what I saw.

And yet...

_American Hero_ is putatively the novel on which the hit film "Wag the Dog" is based. A president intent on reelection, a film producer confronted with the biggest project ever, a war made for the screen. But however much Beinhart's opus depends on the world of film, that paradigm doesn't have enough dimension to capture the essence of _American Hero_ in return. You NEED to read this.

The book is complex, heavily footnoted, and written in such a manner as to prove itself fact or fiction, whichever you prefer to believe. Chances are, you won't KNOW what to believe by time you read the final summation.

Beinhart, whose other work (_You Get What You Pay For_, _Foreign Exchange_ and _No One Rides For Free_, as well as the non-fiction _How to Write a Mystery_) hasn't achieved the popularity it deserves, has delivered a masterpiece.