Of course, this is strictly a novel about war. It focuses entirely on the soldiers, not politics or technical details of specific weaponry. The fact that it's told from the Soviet point of view makes it all the more fascinating. Many war novels have had Soviet generals as characters; very few feature Soviet tank crews, infantry squads, artillerymen, etc.

Don't let the outdated topic deter you. This is one of the best novels ever written. I've read it six times. In a word: outstanding.

Unlike those travel ads about getting there being half the fun, Ralph eats enough dust to recognize the freewheeling lifestyle on the highway as bunk. But he meets quite a menagerie at Camp: kindly Aunt Jill, and an anti-social kid named Garf who sings horrid songs about maiming animals. Then there are the four footed pests: Catso--a feline who delights in torturing mice, and Chum--a grouchy hamster/cum temporary camp mascot.

How long will vacationing Ralph remain silent? And how can he ever ride his motorcycle back home again, since it is all uphill? Even before that quandry, how can he escape from his cage in the Crafts Shed and clear the name of his reluctant human friend? A cute read for fans of Ralph S. Mouse, Mouse about Inn and Country!

If you want to know why Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon, read this book. If you want to know how such terrorists can best be attacked, read this book. If you want a clearer understanding of the terrorist threat, read this book. If you are tired of academic analysis on terrorism, that says much but clarifies little, read this book.

The author is one of the best traveled of the writers on contemporary terrorism. He knows his subject. A former US Army Intelligence Officer, Peters writes with honesty and conviction. Whether you agree or disagree with his analysis, you won't have any difficulty understanding his positions. Such clarity of thought is rare and valuable.

More importantly, this reviewer believes that Peters more often than not is correct in his assessments. His opinions are based in a multi-disciplinary approach to his subject matter... using the intellectual tools of psychologists, cultural anthropologists, sociologists, and historians. This approach explains much while obfuscating nothing.

Ralph Peters' work is highly recommended because he insists on gaining first-hand experience before writing his opinions... an unusual and laudable characteristic. Beyond Terror is the best of contemporary writings on the critical topic of terrorism.

The balance of the book, with the exception of the final chapter, consists of essays published by Peters between 1994 and 2001. During my four-year tenure as a faculty member at the U.S. Army War College, Peters' controversial and usually irreverent views were often showcased, either via his published works, or when he would appear as a guest lecturer. Having worked closely with him during an assignment in 1992-93 to uncover the truth about American military men who were missing in action during the Cold War, I considered Ralph to be perhaps the Army's premier intellect. His is a keen mind, steeped in history and fertilized by on-the-ground experience, its brilliance equalled only by its brashness and Peters' willingness to bluntly rail out at the many innanities of the post-Cold War defense establishment. I unashamedly pushed Peters and his essays on my War College students (colonels all), and was a bit dismayed at how many tuned him out, often because Peters, then a "lowly" major, seemed to them to be a bit of a pretentious upstart.

But as the essays in "Beyond Terror" demonstrate, Peters had it right all along. In 1999, for example, Peters wrote in "MacLean's," "Conventional war remains a threat, but a diminishing one. Today's--and tomorrow's enemies are half-trained killers in uniform, tribesmen, mercenaries, criminals, children with rusty Kalashnikovs, shabby despots, and gory men of faith. The most dangerous enemy will be the warrior who ignores, or who does not know,the rules by which our soldiers fight, and who has a gun in one hand, a cell phone in the other, and hatred scorching his heart." Small wonder that Peters reserves special contempt for some senior military officers ("Hucksters in Uniform") who steadfastly remain married to "heavy" forces of the Cold War, and who retire to positions in the defense industry to reap the harvest of seeds they sowed while on active duty. Concerning the Army and its pursuit of leviathan systems like the Crusader artillery system, Peters wrote in May 1999, "Obsessed with building the perfect division at Ft. Hood, Texas, the Army refuses to acccept that the number one requirement for the future is the ability to get out of Texas on short notice." It is a page out of Donald Rumsfeld's book, but the book is Peters', and he was saying it when such views were heresy and Rumsfeld had yet to re-emerge from corporate America.

All in all, those who have followed Ralph Peters' personal intellectual odyssey since the early 1990s will see in this fine collection of essays vindication of the warnings issued by Peters, usually far in advance of other defense "experts." Peters' hard-hitting essays, many of which were written and published while he was a serving officer, are a testament to a fine mind, a love of country, and a remarkably keen sense of smell for the future. They are also a tribute to the military establishment that encouraged him to speak out, even when his messages often gored sacred cows. If you are serious about understanding the business of national defense in the age of the War on Terrorism, you must read this book.

What happens in the story is a girl named Rachel White decides to remain silent, and she hasn't talked for six months. One day, The teacher, Mr (Fab)iano, planned a vacation, and the substitute is sick, leaving Mr. Fabiano's class teacher-less. The class decides to run the class themselves, and I'm sure anyone would like to party when there is no teacher, but with Karen Ballard around, the natural-born leader, the class is doing their own work. Things go pretty well in the class until Bastian Fauvell, air-force brat's rock ritual, with deep emotions from Rachel White about Tommy Feathers, the boy who died exactly six months ago.

I loved this book because it is very exciting with a sad touch to it. This is a great book. But I have read one other Ralph Fletcher book, Fig Pudding, and in both of these someone dies. I don't like it that much, But it can actually spice up the whole story. Flying Solo is sort of based on the death of Tommy Feathers unless the book wouldn't be as good. I much prefer this over Fig Pudding, but that's just me. If you like excitement with deep emotions, read this book!!!

This book is just as exciting as the movie and is a must-read for fans. For those who are curious about this, buy Star Wars: A New Hope first, or you won't understand a lot about what is happening.

It shares many features with the great comedies - the notion of the forest as a magic or transformative space away from tyrannical society ('A Midsummer night's dream'); the theme of unrequited love and gender switching from 'Twelfth night'; the exiled Duke and his playful daughter from 'The Tempest'. But these comparisons only point to 'AYLI''s comparative failure (as a reading experience anyway) - it lacks the magical sense of play of the first; the yearning melancholy of the second; or the elegiac complexity of the third.

It starts off brilliantly with a first act dominated by tyrants: an heir who neglects his younger brother, and a Duke who resents the popularity of his exiled brother's daughter (Rosalind). there is an eccentric wrestling sequence in which a callow youth (Orlando) overthrows a giant. Then the good characters are exiled to Arden searching for relatives and loved ones.

Theoretically, this should be good fun, and you can see why post-modernist critics enjoy it, with its courtiers arriving to civilise the forest in the language of contemporary explorers, and the gender fluidity and role-play; but, in truth, plot is minimal, with tiresomely pedantic 'wit' to the fore, especially when the melancholy scholar-courtier Jacques and Fool Touchstone are around, with the latter's travesties of classical learning presumably hilarious if you're an expert on Theocritus and the like.

As an English pastoral, 'AYLI' doesn't approach Sidney's 'Arcadia' - maybe it soars on stage. (Latham's Arden edition is as frustrating as ever, with scholarly cavilling creating a stumbling read, and an introduction which characteristically neuters everything that makes Shakespeare so exciting and challenging)

Ah, sweet Rosalind. In her are encapsulated so many ideas about the nature of woman. She is first pictured in a rather faux-Petrarchan manner. This quickly fades as an intelligent woman comes to the fore. While the intelligence remains, she is also torn by the savage winds of romantic love. Rosalind, in all her complexity and self-contradiction, is a truly modern female character.

Most of the women in Shakespeare's tragedies and historical plays are either window dressing (as in Julius Caesar) or woefully one-sided (Ophelia, Lady Macbeth). This is not the case with Rosalind. Rather than being marginalized, she is the focus of a good chunk of the play. Instead of being static and [standard], she is a complex evolving character.

When Rosalind first appears, she outwardly looks much like any other lady of the court. She is a stunning beauty. She is much praised for her virtue. Both of these elements factor in the Duke's decision to banish or [do away with] her.

Rosalind falls in love immediately upon seeing Orlando. In this way she at first seems to back up a typically courtly idea of "love at first sight." Also, she initially seems quite unattainable to Orlando. These are echoes of Petrarchan notions that proclaim love to be a painful thing. This dynamic is stood on its head following her banishment.

Rosalind begins to question the certainty of Orlando's affection. She criticizes his doggerel when she finds it nailed to a tree. Rather than wilting like some medieval flower, she puts into effect a plan. She seeks to test the validity of her pretty-boy's love. In the guise of a boy herself, she questions the deceived Orlando about his love.

Yet Rosalind is not always so assured. Her steadfastness is not cut and dried. Composed in his presence, Rosalind melts the second Orlando goes away. She starts spouting romantic drivel worthy of Judith Krantz. Even her best friend Celia seems to tire of her love talk. This hesitating, yet consuming passion is thrown into stark relief with her crystal clear dealings with the unwanted advances of the shepherdess Phebe.

Rosalind contradicts herself in taking the side of Silvius in his pursuit of Phebe. She seeks to help Silvius win the love of Phebe because of his endearing constancy. Yet the whole reason she tests Orlando is the supposed inconstancy of men's affections.

This idea of Male inconstancy has made its way down to the present day. Men are seen, in many circles, as basically incapable of fidelity. Though a contradiction to her treatment of Silvius' cause, Rosalind's knowing subscription to pessimistic views on the constancy of a man's love places her on the same playing field as many modern women.

Rosalind takes charge of her own fate. Until and even during Shakespeare's own time women largely were at the mercy of the men around them. This is satirized in Rosalind's assuming the appearance of a man. Yet she had taken charge of her life even before taking on the dress and likeness of a man. She gives her token to Orlando. She decides to go to the Forest. She makes the choice of appearing like a man to ensure her safety and the safety of Celia.

Rosalind finally finds balance and happiness when she comes to love not as a test or game, but as an equal partnership. Shakespeare is clearly critiquing the contemporary notions of love in his day. His play also condemns society's underestimation and marginalization of women. However, the Bard's main point is more profound.

As You Like It makes it clear that the world is never picture perfect, even when there are fairy-tale endings. Men and women both fail. Love is the most important thing. With love all things are possible.