Frank Peretti has become famous for his spiritual warfare novels. However, unlike THIS PRESENT DARKNESS, and PIERCING THE DARKNESS, in which evil was found in worldy people, organizations and philosophies, this time he finds evil within the church. The author uses the anti-hero--a demon-possessed false christ--to highlight the far more dangerous devils--ignorance, self-righteousness, hypocrisy, pride and cruelty--that call themselves members, and even leaders, of the family of God.

The writing is well-paced and enjoyable. Occasionally there seem to be too many subplots brewing, but the confusion does not last too long. Peretti causes us to smirk at times, but then catches us unaware--tossing out a bombshell insight that forces us to look more closely into the mirror.

Though the book is directed towards Christians, anyone who is active in a faith community will find incredible insights in this book. Those who are more passive about spirituality may mistakenly see The Visitation as a critique of organized religion. On the contrary, Peretti simply affirms that family life--whether with blood relatives, or with spiritual 'brothers and sisters'--is sometimes difficult and painful.

Bottom-line: This is an incredible read for those who enjoy a good story with spiritual depth, and who are not afraid to confront themselves.

Peretti refuses to be put in a box, tackling different issues in different ways, instead of resorting to the phenomenally successful formulas of his first two books. I like that. Sometimes it works better than others, though--that's the risk he takes. (More power to him.) Here, the risk was seeming shaky at first. I liked the initial premise--and no, the prologue didn't throw me off track as it did some of my friends--but I couldn't tell where this ride was taking me. Then, slowly, I found myself absorbed in the Travis' past, relating to every detail of his church experiences, laughing to the point of poignant tears at some parts. This book tackles some of the spiritual questions the church often avoids. It refuses to give pat answers, refuses to resolve everything in the usual casual manner, and left me feeling refreshed...I'd waded through some of my own struggles with this fictional character and realized others struggle too. Okay, the conclusion in the town streets got a little wacky and melodramatic, but the deeper issues hit home. Don't be put off by the slow-motion start--this book wants to slam-dunk you, if you'll let it.

Frank Peretti is probably one of the coolest Christian writers alive today. He comes up with the greatest plots, keeps you in the dark until the end, and crafts his story in the most imaginative ways. It's just like a regular movie plot, with Peretti's Christianity keeping close beside.

The Visitation is his finest work yet, taking into account his Darkness novels, as well as The Oath and The Prophet. You probably already know the basics of the plot...Travis Jordan, a pastor in the small town of Antioch Washington begins noticing the strange, allegedly miraculous events occurring around town. People of the town that he knows suddenly show up healed from all of their handicaps and giving the credit to Jesus. Then he receives a phone call from the healer. Before he knows it, he (and, since this is Peretti's first "First Person" perspective novel, so is the reader) is caught up in a chaotic present, a dubious future, and a painful past all at once.

Peretti wastes no time, catching your attention from the very beginning of the book. As with most novels, there is a period of calmness that, if you are an impatient reader, you must work through to get to the action, but don't you dare skip! You'll miss crucial elements of the story. However, I've yet to meet an impatient reader that didn't enjoy Peretti.

We gradually discover lots more about Travis Jordan, the protagonist of the book, through a series of flashbacks starting when Travis was at college, and leading up to his present situation. You gotta keep track of everything that happens, but it's worth it in the end.

Peretti incorporates something a lot different in this book than he has tried before...humor. This is the first book of Peretti's I've read that was so cool, and still so funny at times. Peretti has found a wonderful gift of inserting little tidbits of comedy here and there that provide tasty spice for the book. Example, we know that Frank Peretti once lived in a camper, so when he writes about the portable toilet that was first installed in the church of the story, you can tell he relies on personal experience.

And wouldn't you know it, Peretti can't stay away from towns that go bonkers, and this book is no exception. Ever since The Oath he's enjoyed doing that, it must be some sort of fantasy of his.

The plot, mystery, and characters thicken, the action intensifies, and the enjoyment peaks in this book. If you like good mystery, drama, action, comedy, and sound Christian truth, then this is the book for you.

This is a beautiful book-beautiful in its epigrammatic format and its precision. Ellis wastes neither his own efforts nor the histories of the "Brothers" in the telling of America's founding. The book is lean, but the telling is fully developed.

In the book's introduction and its six chapters, Ellis examines the beliefs, ambitions, motivations, and the conceits and politics of the country's founders. He elucidates, without judgement, the opposition of Hamilton to Burr, the friction between Adams and Jefferson, the young nation's near-unanimous views of Washington and Franklin, and the calculated brilliance of the federalist/republican Madison. His portrayals of Jefferson and Adams are succinct yet as accurate as those of their more leisurely written biographies (including those by Ellis).

This book illustrates the differences that divided us in the late eighteenth century and, to this reader, shows us that we have inherited the spirit of those divisions. Ellis permits us to understand just how these divisions unite us to our past and how they continue to inspire the American spirit of tolerance, compromise and optimism.

If one had to recommend just one book on the history and, indeed, the raison d'etre of America's founding, it would have to be this one.

After listening to Joseph Ellis speak on C-Span, I bought his book, and I was not disappointed. Ellis' book is one of the most informative and truthful looks at out Founding Fathers that I have read. His view point of that generation is a refreshing look at the history of our nation as it should be. Despite what some people would like to claim, our revolution and founding was enacted by a group of highly intelligent, highly able men. It was they, not the common people of the nation that designed our government and that put that government into effect. It was through the genius of these men that our government succeeded in the way it did. Ellis brings out this point wonderfully. My favorite section of his book is the chapter 'The Farewell'. Ellis illustrates the necessity of Washington, and how the national experiment might not have even succeeded without his influence. Ellis explains the different views of the revolution possessed by the Founders in a highly descriptive way, and his explanation of the hostility then reconcilliation between Jefferson and Adams is a perfect way to illustrate his point on how the revolution was viewed differently by those who created it. A highly recommended work on the most important era in American history and the men who brought us to be the nation we are.

Forget Parson Weems and the cherry tree. Forget the mechanical wonders of Monticello. Forget the powdered wigs and the wooden teeth and the stately poses. This is the beginning of American history as it really was -- and apparently not all those truths were quite so self-evident in the end.

Joseph Ellis' FOUNDING BROTHERS is by far the best book I have read about the founding fathers (for a close second, see Gore Vidal's mischievous novel BURR). America's hard-fought liberty was no waltz, even after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown and even after the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution. Ellis shows that we just squeaked by, by the skin of our teeth.

The French Revolution, for example, shook our young country to the core. Some well-known leaders (like Jefferson) were all for supporting the French even if it meant fighting England again. Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts, the XYZ Affair with its (surprisingly contemporary) undertones of bribery and scandal, and England's unwillingness to see us as a separate nation -- all made the approach of the 1800 election a make-or-break affair for the young nation.

Then there was slavery. As early as 1790, abolitionists almost precipitated the immediate secession of South Carolina and Georgia. The only way the fracas was delayed was that Congress agreed to disagree and not do anything about it until the Missouri Compromise of 1820. In the meantime, the United States had grown stronger and was less likely to split apart at the seams.

Despite the history textbooks, Thomas Jefferson does not emerge as one of the good guys of our early years. He had an ability to speak out of both sides of his mouth and flood the media with spin that would make his fortune in today's DC scene. His attacks on John Adams while professing friendship are a model for contemporary sleazebag politicians. (There is a fascinating coda: After Jefferson left the presidency in 1809, he and Adams picked up their friendship where it left off -- and both men died within 5 hours of each other on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence!)

Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, who for some reason are at the beginning of the book, were both sleazebags of a sort. If Burr hadn't shot him in a duel, Hamilton's reputation may well have taken a dive on the basis of his shady maneuverings. And by winning the duel, Burr paradoxically was the big loser. It is not Burr's picture that appears on the $10.00 bill.

Curiously, George Washington comes off the best of the founding fathers. Although he was not the world's greatest military leader, there was a universal feeling that if there should be a first president of the United States, it would have to be either George or no one. Except for some contretemps in his second term (the Whiskey Rebellion, for example), George left office smelling as sweetly as he did the day he took office. And his "Farewell Address" (it was never actually delivered, just printed in newspapers) showed that his vision for the 20 years following the presidency was dead right.

This is a tremendously entertaining work as well as an enlightening one. A superb read that easily deserved its Pulitzer Prize.

Having just read Mr. Bugliosi's wonderful book, "And The Sea Will Tell", I was eager to get his take on the O.J. Simpson trial. He scathingly proved what was, even from my layman's perspective, clear to me from watching the opening arguments on TV -- that this inept prosecution team could not have convicted O.J. with this jury and Johnnie Cochran even if O.J. stood up and confessed. However, no matter how much he might have tried to spread the blame around to the so-called "Dream Team" and the jury, Bugliosi rightly laid the bulk of this travesty of justice at the feet of Clark and Darden. In addition to their own mountain of mistakes and plain poor preparation and presentation, it is they, along with the media-absorbed and quite mediocre Lance Ito, who allowed the defense the type of freedom they had in proffering their ridiculous "frame-up" nonsense to the jury.

I was disappointed that much of what he wrote that fell outside of the specifics of the O.J. trial was lifted straight out of "And The Sea Will Tell". In only one small passage did he acknowledge this fact. I guess it's O.K. to plagiarize your own works, but it shouldn't be offered up as "new" material. It gave a large part of the book a "recycled" feel, which was disappointing.

What really took me aback was Bugliosi's eight-page diatribe against God, after spending the first 340 pages proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the prosecution was completely and unbelievably incompetent and, of course, O.J. did it. This non sequitur into theology was totally out of place. I wish that I could cross-examine Mr. Bugliosi on this one -- I think I could beat him at his own game! He should at least try reading St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on the Book of Job before asking where God was in all of this.

Vince, you're the best -- but stick with the law and leave the theology to the Church.

At last, there is a sense of "relief" for the travesty of justice that was the O.J. Simpson circus of 1994-1995. This book had me saying "Yes, Yes! I knew it!" I latched onto the words in this book with full attention. I completely agree with the author, and wondered why he was not in the courtroom instead of the prosecuters who tried the O. J. Simpson case.

Mr. Bugliosi did not let a single detail of the much publicized trial escape his attention. He makes it clear that if a guilty person will not confess of his crime, for whatever reason, then everyone else who is aware will do it for him. The author's wit is razor sharp in each chapter, especially the Final Summation. I ate up every word in this book like pancakes and syrup on Saturday morning!

Why did the judge allow the race card to be played? Is it a coincidence that money buys a verdict of "not guilty?" How can blood at the crime scene from one out of 233 people not be convincing? If we cannot obtain testimony--which the author, a lawyer, indicates is something that an innocent person is inclined to do after being falsely charged with a crime--then there is satisfaction, at least, from having possession of the printed words written by someone with genuine knowledgeability.

The highlight of "Outrage..." is the transcripted interrogation of the LAPD with O.J. Simpson, word for word. It allowed me to understand how guilt has a way of making a story trip all over itself. There is no such thing as the perfect crime. After reading this book I feel like a lawyer instead of a spectator.

Wherever you see this book, buy it, buy it, buy it. Don't think--get it! There's more in this text than the trial of one man. "Outrage..." makes a solid case for revamping the entire American judicial system.

Put simply, this book makes me wish that Mr. Bugliosi had been arguing in place of Clark and Darden. Mr. Bugliosi's analysis of the case should convince even the most narrow-minded person of O.J. Simpson's guilt. The book is filled with insightful commentary as well as biting indictments of incompetence, when appropriate (and indeed, such indictments are appropriate all too often). At the same time, the book remains engaging and very enjoyable to read. The Final Summation section, with the arguments that Mr. Bugliosi would have given the jury in his final summation had he prosecuted the case in bold, is particularly powerful. The arguments condemn Simpson with the power of pure, straight-forward logic and a superlative command of the written word.

People in the reviews below have said that Mr. Bugliosi "demeans" people and that in being a defense attorney he is doing the same thing he condemns Johnny Cochrane for. These reviews are ridiculous for several reasons. First of all, Bugliosi does not have the intention of "demeaning" people such as the prosecutors or the LAPD when he criticizes their respective performances; he is simply analyzing their individual performances, which frankly were quite poor, and saying what he considers to be the truth. He is certainly not euphemistic in his criticism; but he is rather just being objective (he has nothing against the people he is critiquing on a personal level, for sure), and anyone who says he is being too harsh had better have a good reason, because his comments sure seemed to be dead-on accurate. Regarding Mr. Bugliosi's criticism of Johnny Cochrane in light of his own turn as a defense attorney: every criminal who stands trial has the right to an attorney, and defense attorneys are generally respectable people who attempt to advise their clients in a way in keeping with justice. Johnny Cochrane's showy, preachy, over-the-top, and, most importantly, vehement defense of a man he must have known to be guilty was disgraceful. Defending an accused criminal is one thing; pulling out every possible stop and every ludicrous argument so that vicious murderer goes free is entirely another.

Regarding people's complaints about Mr. Bugliosi's ego: I think you mistake his expertise for ego. I didn't sense any self-consciousness on the author's part, only a firm handle on the subject at issue.

As for Mr. Bugliosi's words on God: instead of having a gut reaction of "How dare he!," why don't you actually think about what he says? The man is clearly one of the most clear-headed and intelligent people around, and it might do you good to think about religion from a different perspective than your own with an open mind, particularly when the source is one so distinguished. Mr. Bugliosi uses the powers of analysis that enabled him to demonstrate Simpson's guilt so decisively to grapple with contemporary organized religion--if his logic was good enough in the former instance, why is it all of a sudden called into question and, indeed, struck down by certain reviewers in the latter instance? Read with an open mind, people--you just might learn something. Don't accept everything you're given--examine and scrutinize the universe that surrounds you instead. And by the way, just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you can't distinguish right from wrong--the idea that morality has to spring from religion is a conceit that some religious people tell themselves to make themselves feel noble. A sense of right and wrong can certainly come from a belief in God, but it can also come from respecting your fellow human beings.

In more general terms, though, I think it can be agreed that this is an immensely intelligent and revealing look into the mockery of justice that was the O.J. Simpson case. I would invite anyone who cheered Simpson's acquittal to read this book and see if they regret having rejoiced in the freeing of a murderer. As for the rest of us, it gives us an opportunity to sit back and read all of the points that we have made time and again about the case plus some we haven't thought of thrown in for good measure, all articulated in the most eloquent fashion.

My mother-in-law is the one responsible for getting me to read this book. We were having a discussion nearly a month ago about faith-inspiring books. She handed me a copy of Joshua and insisted that I read it. I did and, although I would not say that it ranks with my favorite books, I did find it a rather enjoyable and moving story.

Joshua is very simply written; the fact that Girzone was a novice author at the time he wrote it definitely shows in the writing style. However, the simplicity of the writing lends itself to a very easy read.

In addition to the writing style being very simplistic, so too is its message. Girzone is very direct and repetitive (almost to the point of being annoying) with the message he is trying to convey. In doing so, he avoids the possibility of misinterpretation but, at the same time, prevents the message from having much depth; very little is left to the imagination.

I found the book enjoyable and worth the time I spent reading it, but I didn't find it as profoundly inspiring as my mother-in-law had (for me, Clowns of God by Morris West had a much deeper impact). However, Joshua does have a good message, and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to get in touch with their spiritual side.

This book hooked me. It's simplistic writing wasn't my favorite- it seemed as if it was written for young adults. But by the time I finished the book, I realized that simplicity was the main theme of the book. The writing style was consistent with the entire message. I think it's very hard for modern day Christians to understand Jesus, the man, and how a man today with His values might live/act every day. Even though it is fiction, this book was very helpful in allowing me to understand the intention Jesus has for us in this day and how he expects us to live our lives. The book only failed in that it wasn't realistic at the end where Joshua is called to stand before the Pope. I realize that the author was attempting to make a point and allow Joshua to really test his faith principles with the Earthly pontiff, but it seemed too far fetched. I was right with the story until that last section. I still think it's a worthwhile read. I have personally reflected on it many times since I finished it.

I've often been curious about what would REALLY happen if Jesus came back and walked among us today as a regular person.

As a parable, I think this book has much to offer. Joshua is a kind, Godly individual, who models Christian humility, inclusiveness, dignity and values. It succeeds in getting it's message across about dealing with people and inclusiveness.

However, I think the portrayals of some clergy seem to be a little stereotyped and the book makes me wonder whether the author had some unresolved issues with Catholic Church hierarchy. Also, the ending seemed a bit contrived. Still, parables can have happy endings, I suppose.

I did enjoy reading this and watching the Joshua character develop. As religious fiction, it certainly succeeds as a gentle, thought-provoking read.

Joseph Campbell's _The Hero with the Thousand Faces_ is one of the most important works ever written in the history of the study of "myth". Penned a half-century ago, it brought a (largely Jungian) psychoanalytical perspective to the study of mythology-- and of literature and through it, argued that asame basic narrative pattern could be found all myths-- and even folktales and literary texts. Campbell termed this pattern the 'monomyth' and argued that it was essentially the basic narrative form that informed all myth-making and story-telling,
of all kinds, among all cultures.

Campbell recognizes, of course, that this basic pattern-- this narrative 'archetype' (to borrow a good Jungian word) varies somewhat in different stories. But ultimately, he argues, it's based on one basic kind of story. Campbell takes the time to outline what he sees as being the basic structural components of this story-- the 'stages of the hero', which include the 'call to adventure', the various kinds of adventures that happen on the hero's quest, and the return home. Campbell spends a great deal of time talking about each of these, as well as their various substages-- in particularly psycoanalytical terms. One of the likely encounters in the monomyth, fr example, is the 'encounter with the temptress' or the encounter with the benevolent goddess, who comes to represent the mother. For each of these stages, he provides ample quotations and summaries of various myths to show that this isn't just some crazy theory-- you actually can see it operating in the stories of legend, folktale, myth, and even literature.

For those sympathetic to a psychoanalytical reading of myths, this book is highly compelling. It also seems to be compatiable with a wide range of other 20th century ideas on the nature of myth and literature, with connections to Northrop Frye's theory of archetypes (in _An Anatomy of Criticism), to the work of structural folkorists (like Vladimir Propp), and of course to the the work of Freud, Jung, and those who sought to apply their ideas to the study of story (especially Otto Rank's _The Birth of the Hero_).

While I am generally sympathetic to this kind of approach, I nonetheless feel that this classic text, important and full of insight as it is, strikes me as a bit flawed. The biggest problem I have is the fact that it just ties everything up a bit too neatly, a bit too certainly, a bit too conveniently. Campbell always chooses mythic stories that support his particular point-- or at least he interprets them in ways that seem to. Yet, there are plenty of stories out there that would seem to go against a particular point-- and many of the ones he cites could well be interpreted quite differently. Moreover, the fact the remains that, while there may be fundamental similarities among mythic narratives, there are still differences. By emphasizing the existence of the monomyth and downplaying the relevance of those differenes, Campbell seems to me to be stripping individual myths (and distinctive mythologies produced by different cultures) of their unique character and cultural relevance simply in order to fit them into his (reductionist?) theoretical framework.

Readers should also be aware that the study of mythology has moved in many new directions since this book was first published and that, in many ways, it isgetting increasingly dated. The structuralist approach to myth pioneered by Levi-Strauss and the more semiotic understandings advanced by Barthes (and others) offer compelling interpretations of what myths are and how they work... ones that have nothing to do with psychoanalysis. That's not to say that it's unimportant, irrelevant, outdated, or any of that. Quite the contrary, this book remains a classic. Still, it's hardly the be-all and end-all of myth-scholarship these days, and I would encourage readers who like this to *also* explore other theories and interpretations of myth than Cambell's.

Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade are, perhaps, the preeminent accessible scholars in the field of mythology in the 20th century. I eliminate writers like Harold Bloom whose blatant gnosticism often blurs intended explication of mythological traditions and renders them bewildering and solipsistic rather than "illuminating". The great "political" mythologist Czeslaw Milosz' vision is...as he himself declares...a bit "eccentric" for the beginner. Hence: Campbell and Eliade. The former explains the "players" (would-be heroes). The latter explains the nature of the "field" (the cosmos & history), the nature of the TWO kinds of time: sacred and profane; be they WESTERN/linear/; or EASTERN/ cyclical)...... THE HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES is, I submit, Campbell's best and perhaps only important work. Why? The book provides clear definition of THE HEROIC QUEST and why the hero is the foundation of all mythologies. Axiom: societies must have heroes; mythologies are stories of heroes who incarnate values upon which a society, nation or world-order thrives or dies. THE CALL...THE ORDEAL...(Trials by "Fire & Water") THE GREAT TEMPTATION...AND THE RETURN (Final apotheosis as NAMED hero) initiate the hero. All kinds of cool jargon, freighted with the cultural values of the West (LOGOS)or East (TAO)are employed by Campbell along with stories adjuged by great cultures to Re-Present themselves to their own traditions and the WORLD embodying their notion of THE HEROIC. It's good stuff and very accessible. Campbell's later work..."The Masks of God" and his studies in the mythological dimension of dreams...becomes less so as he apparently succumbs to the "gnostic" temptation himself. After studying THE HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES, the reader is advised to take-on Eliade. THE COSMOS & HISTORY: The Myth of the Eternal Return; and SYMBOLISM, the SACRED & the ARTS. Then, if your interest has been piqued, you're ready for Eliade's literally encyclopediaec study of religions and myth. Or not. No, I have not forgotten Frazer,Graves,Ceram or Corcoran...explicators; nor Lewis, Tolkien or for that matter A.A.Milne..."creators" of mythical heroes and their quests. But with Campbell's THE HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES, the student of mythology can acquire some formidable tools for judgment of culture and ethical ultimates. Petronious (Emperor Nero's "minister" of culture) once composed a mock-heroic quest called THE SATYRICON. It is about the daring struggle of two homosexuals ...against odds and foes, arch and otherwise...to leach a free meal EVERYDAY! An inspirational goal (GRAIL) of truely heroic archetype. Of course historically, Petronius was slain by Nero for participating in an assassination plot. Nero himself reluctantly committed suicide aided by a courtier Then followed civil war (and, in a single year, four violent aspirants to the Emperor's chair and SPQR). The final point: "Who wants to be a hero?" in a culture which has devolved into another quest called "Who wants to be a millionaire?" THE HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES helps to suggest which answer is important; why and how such heroes prevail...or the consequences of failure in even the REFUSAL of the Call. It's an important book...not because Campbell was George Lucas' mentor and STAR WARS was conceptualized on Campbell's ideas. But because this society now does not know the difference among heroes, entertainers and celebrities (the famous for being famous). This book...an excellent introduction to the serious study of mythology...suggests answers to what provides a society with essential VITALITY to EXIST...and that is the purpose of all TRUE MYTH..........

Joseph Campbell was one of the great souls of our age. I've read this book twice, first on my own and the second for a class in "Myth, Religion & the Mythic Imagination." I read the paperack to tatters, literally, marking each illuminating, exhilirating insight. "Dry"? "Not a fun read"? What book did YOU read? Campbell is unlike other writers on myth; he looks not at an entire myth but at its parts. By the end of the book, he has essentially created the Ultimate Hero Myth, which takes bits of every hero myth from virtually every culture (heavy on Native Americans). Campbell was not a dispassionate academic--this was his gospel, and he lived by it. This book is alive and inspiring like no other book I know. One unique aspect of it at the time it was published was its approach to Christianity. For Campbell, Christ's life had to be seen as a myth. Before him, most Western scholars wouldn't have dare to say such a thing. Others had written on that, but in a skeptical manner. Campbell's view is that the Virgin Birth, miracles, Resurrection, etc have meaning only because they ARE myths. Look, there'd be no "Star Wars" without this. No "Sandman" comics from Neil Gaiman. No "Watership Down." This book is for the intellectual who wants to LIVE, not just to sit sterile at the desk. Recommended like mad.

Okay, you're probably thinking that I'm just someone complaining about having to read it in my freshman year's honors English class. No, I was not forced to read this. I read it far before it was on the reading list. Just wanted to clear that up. Back to the review. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is an intriguing autobiography of a man obsessed with tampering with the laws of nature by reversing them. This novel shows how man deals with failure and loss. Unfortunatly, Victor Frankenstein dealt with failure and loss the wrong way and... Wait, I don't want to give away the ending. Anyway, Mary Shelley creates a clever plot and adds some gruesome happenings and romance, combining the three to make one of the most famous horror stories. Unfortunatly, for those of you still hooked to video games and fast-paced action, you may have a difficult time reading this for it tends to drag out at some points. But that's how literature is, you'll just have to deal with it. Apart from that, I would definitly recommend this book to just about anyone.

Victor Frankenstein's creation had murdered members of his family and strangled to death his fiance on their wedding night fulfilling his threat to "be with you on your wedding night" and warned Victor, "You are my creator but I am your master." As Victor centered his life around creating the monster, he would later center it around hunting down and killing his creation. This manhunt would expend Victor's life and prove his efforts futile to catch an untouchable and nameless monster. This novel is full of enduring themes of ambition, friendship, and the conflict between the two, psychology, oppression and rebellion, the dangers of scientific and intellectual advancement, and societal injustice. The writing itself isn't great but it's the story and the themes that make this a great classic.

Shelley wrote this book influenced by the period of time in which she lived, the Romantic Period. This was the response to the previous time, the Age of Enlightenment. In the Enlightened Age, reasoning was deemed of utmost importance and people thought that there were natural laws and that reason plus these natural laws would equal progress. By progress, they meant not only advancement, but unlimited advancement, that society would continue to move closer and closer to perfection. In Frankenstein, we see the result of so much logic and reason- the creation of a monster. In the story there seems to be no natural laws governing the world. The Romantic Period accounted for emotion like reasoning and logic cannot. The monster as the center of the novel shows us as his direst need a companion, as does Frankenstein himself.

When I think of what natural laws would govern the world, Justice comes to mind as the most important. Throughout this whole story, justice is so dearly lacking. Injustice leads to more injustice. The monster is born into unforgiving circumstances that were not his fault. His creator rejects him immediately. Throughout his life, the monster found himself rejected by everyone for the repulsive looks his creator gave him. The monster even suffered rejection of the impoverished family he ardently and sacrificially helped. When he saved a girl from drowning, her father shot him. The monster yearned desperately for a mate of his kind, which Victor denied him for fear the two would breed an entire race of fiends or that she, too would reject him and there would be two fiends. Decide this debate between the monster and Victor for yourself. Even if Victor was right to deny him a mate, it was still an injustice for the monster. After all, the monster could not help the disadvantages he was born into and he strove mightily to be virtuous. He exercised his will and responsibility strongly, but to no avail. The poor thing begs for just one friend and he is denied this. The innocent Justine (a play on the word "Justice") is executed for the monster's crime; the monster eventually slays several innocent people he doesn't even know. Injustice is what moves the plot of Frankenstein.

Shelley's novel disputes the importance and promise of natural laws, reasoning, and the idea of progress. It introduces emotion and intuition. Frankenstein studied laboriously but failed because he left the monster emotionally neglected and rejected. When Victor first learns of the murder of an innocent member of his family, he intuitively knows it was the doing of the monster- he offers no reasoning or deduction as to how he knows. The monster hounds Victor and seems to supernatually know where he is at all times.

One of the many interpretations of Frankenstein is that it was a product of the Romantic Period, which was a response to the Age of Enlightenment. My own evaluation of reasoning vs emotion is that our logic must be in control of us always but that emotions are a part of us too and must be satisfied.

This book is a great read. The main character is not the monster, but the scientist Victor Frankenstein who creates him. The story is told from his point of view, and reads wonderfully. It's a bit like a journal, beginning with a line something like 'I was born in..', and truly can be called a 'story'. It is not what I expected, not as scary as I thought it would be, and the monster is very different to the typical image most people have of him. Although, however, the author leaves a lot about his features to the imagination. The story takes place in Switzerland, England, the Arctic, and other places around Europe. Mary Shelley paints a beautiful canvas through her descriptions of mountains, rivers, the sky and sea, the sun and the moon, castles, towns and villages, relating human emotions to them. In different parts of the story, both Victor and the monster spend days and weeks in isolation to dwell on their troubles. Nature plays a role and has an effect on their thoughts and emotions. The monster often sees the sun, the shade of the trees, and songs of the birds as his only companions.

The monster torments Victor by murdering those close to him. The author leaves you to decide on these events, and sometimes you sympathise with the monster, sometimes you cannot accept any excuse for his misdeeds. The victims are as innocent as can be and poor Victor has to bear so much grief, but the monster is alone and repulsed by the whole of mankind. Both creator and creation suffer. I won't dwell on the themes of these points as I'm sure other reviewers can do better, I'll just say the book is wonderful. Read it if you like good stories with a nice unhurried pace, and if you don't mind getting a little depressed. And, even if you do mind, read it anyway, it's such a short book.

There is some legitimacy for questioning Joseph Ellis' scholarship of Jefferson independently of his personal veracity. Does his analysis itself hold up to scrutiny?

In at least one significant sense, no, it doesn't. The genetic connection between Jefferson and Sally Hemings of which Ellis is assured is anything but, which Professor Ellis surely knows himself since one of his co-authors on the inflammatory 1998 report "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child" was the author of the DNA study itself, and who publicly stated as much himself.

Eugene Foster told the journal Nature that his study found only that Thomas Jefferson *could* have been the father of Eston Hemings, not that he was. He pointed out that in fact the type of testing done was incapable of proving such a thing. All the DNA analysis revealed was that *some* Jefferson male very likely fathered a child by Sally Hemings. Since DNA comparisons were made with regard to Jefferson's uncle, not Jefferson himself, over two dozen Jefferson males living at the time were possible candidates, several of whom were present at Monticello during the time Hemings conceived her last son.

Contemporary evidence points strongly to Randolph Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson's brother, who had such a close acquaintance with the slave community at Monticello that they referred to him as "Uncle Randolph." Some of the same evidence can be seen to point to Thomas Jefferson as the father, but such an interpretation requires one to believe that the forty-four-year-old U.S. ambassador to France chose to have an affair with the teenaged slave half-sister of his wife who by more than one account was incapable of taking herself, much less the ambassador's daughters to whom she was charged. You be the judge.

So what does this say about Joseph Ellis' scholarship? Clearly for him to declare as he has that "Now we know," concerning the truth of the Jefferson/Hemings relationship, is irresponsible and injudicious at best, since such an assertion is factually incorrect. When combined with his own personal prevarications and embellishments, such a willingness to bend facts to support a purely subjective opinion makes trusting his judgement in accurately reporting and adjudging history and historical figures much more difficult. I, for one, am now deeply skeptical of his work, and believe others should be, too. That he writes well isn't in question. That he's right, is.

Joseph Ellis deserves the Pulitzer Prize! As a Jefferson researcher who has been through everything written about, and more important, by Thomas Jefferson, I don't always agree with the author's subjective opinions on topics for which I believe objective conclusions must be found, as I did in my book "WEST POINT" about Thomas Jefferson & West Point. Nevertheless, that is always debatable. Not debatable is the fact that the author and his editors have done a stellar job.

I enjoyed reading "American Sphinx" by Joseph J. Ellis. It's a well written description of Thomas Jefferson as an enigmatic, sphinx-like figure of American history. I recommend it. I also recommend "West Point: Character, .... Thomas Jefferson" by Norman Thomas Remick. It brings Thomas Jefferson into clear focus.

I find that the different reactions people have after reading The Book of Mormon are very interesting. Generally there are two kinds, people that feel it is true and people how think its false. Those stuck in the middle, who don't know and aren't sure, they really havn't read the book. The very first time I read the book I found some parts very difficult to understand while other sections really drew me in and held my attention quite well. After reading it I had a strong sense that it was a true book. Overall the Book of Mormon is a very interesting read, I have read the book about eight times and each time have found something new and interesting that I had not seen before. The book is a general history of God's dealings with people on the American contienent from about 600 B.C. until about 400 A.D.. Mormon was a prophet who lived cerca 400 A.D. his compiling of several different records make up the majority of the text in this book(a sort of reader's digest). There are several diffent stories that enertwine and ultimately climax at the apperence of Jesus Christ. This apperance to the people here in the Americas is after his death and resurection in Jurselem. The book goes on to tell that after His appearce the people lived in a perfect society untill their rejection of His teachings caused the destruction of their soceity. Several interesting simularities can be drawn from the societies in the Book of Mormon to that of our own today. Overall the Book of Mormon is a very good read. The stories are very engageing and take several interesting twists. There are parts though that are hard to understand patience is required. To truely understand the Book of Mormon one must also read and understand the Bible. A good understanding of the Old Testament is especially important. I would sugest also finding someone with wich to discuss the Book, there are many Mormons who are quite willing to answer quetions. If that is not for you there have been several books that are quite objective on the subject. Read it, study it, ponder its meaning and come to your own conclusions.

This original version of the Book of Mormon ought to be of interest to anyone who studies religion in general and/or American religions in particular. Certainly any serious student of the Book of Mormon would want a copy of the original. There are neither "faith-shaking" changes for the LDS since this edition, nor is it the same as the Book of Mormon published today in flavor and style.

Prior to Orson Pratt's versification of the text and later modifications and tidying up, the New England roots of the author/translator come through clearly. One must be amazed, if Joseph Smith is a prophet, at the labor he performed under less-than-optimal conditions in his father-in-law's cottage. One must also be amazed, if he was not a prophet, at the complexity of the stories contained in this fascinating work.

This is where it all started. 11+ million people at least nominally believe that this book is Sacred Scripture today. It's worth getting to know. Get a copy for your personal library.

Called "the keystone" of the religion of the Latter-Day Saints by Joseph Smith, this book gives an account of ancient civilizations of the Americas and their dealings with God.

The theological implications of the book have led to 17 decades of controversy. Countless books, tracts, and web pages have been published because of it. Both critics of and apologists for the book have had ample time for their say, but the Book of Mormon must speak for itself.

Unique to the book is a promise contained therein that the reader can know if its contents are true by a method that, in my view, ultimately transcends both deductive and empirical processes.

It bears many careful and thoughtful readings.

Why I didn't like this book (& why I can't explain its bestseller status):

1) Yes, this may be Kathy Reichs' first novel...but still, one can't get past the BAD WRITING, especially when it comes to the lack of character development. All main characters come out flat (especially Tempe, the forensic anthropologist who is the main character).

2) Something else about the bad writing: what annoyed me especially was the constant use of flowery comparisons. Also, the extremely long-winded descriptions of actions & places, which made me skip whole paragraphs at a time.

3) OK, if we get past the lack of characterization issue & the bad writing, we get to the actual plot, which of course is essential in a crime novel: "Deja Dead" has a plot that makes you want to scream "I've read this book before- many many times!" It's a book that's far from original, especially the cliche of the main heroine getting in harm's way.

4)Again, concerning the plot: there are lots of holes in the plot, such as the monkey & the biologist (I kept turning back to see if maybe I'd missed crucial points). There are also loads of characters who keep appearing & disappearing, with no apparent reason--for example, Tempe's daughter, Katy, whose existence serves no other purpose than simply for the main character to...have a daughter!

5) Tempe Brennan oversteps the limits / boundaries of her job description all the time, during the investigation described in this novel. She is a forensic anthropologist, & yet acts as a detective, showing a disturbing lack of common sense: for example, she keeps going to dangerous places alone (always at night!) & then is surprised & annoyed when the detectives whose job description says they have to solve this case are angry at her! There's no background as to why Claudel dislikes her, some reader mentioned: but how can he NOT dislike her, when she keeps stealing his job from under his nose? It's such a cliche when all the detectives are stupid & our heroine is the only intelligent one...

6) French is thrown in casually from time to time. This I didn't mind. What I did mind was that it was apparent that this was done simply to show that Montreal is where the story takes place. No other descriptions of Montreal exist, no "feeling" of Quebec comes out of this story.

7) Another point that many readers have mentioned is that the book is FULL OF technical details. These are interesting, but tend to be far too many. 5 or 6 pages full of descriptions of how saws work? Please!!

8) Tempe's relationship with Gabby is inexplicable & annoying. The crazy scenes that take place between them (especially the ones where Gabby appears in the middle of the night, out of nowhere) are hard to understand, & are never properly explained.

9) Last point: Of course "Deja Dead" is being constantly compared to Patricia Cornwell's books. Even though the Scarpetta novels keep getting worse & worse, I still find them far more original & fast paced.

This is Reichs' first novel involving Dr. Temperance (Tempe) Brennan, a forensic anthropologist from North Carolina who has been seconded to Montreal. Although I am not a keen 'grisly-serial-killer-mystery' reader, this was a very well-written book for the genre. Tempe is dealing with a serial rapist/murderer who leaves his remains in garbage bags buried around the city. She does her forensic work at the Laboratoire de Medicine Legale in Montreal and with an odd assortment of characters, and is forced to deal with a considerable amount of resistance from the police force, namely one detective, Luc Claudel (who is almost too obstructive to be believed). Also involved in this mystery is a school friend of hers, Gabby, who is studying prostitutes and sometimes, it seems, leads Tempe around by the nose with just enough information but not as much as she needs. As with most novels of this type, the closing pages find Tempe in a good deal of danger ' that she will only be able to get out of if Detective Claudel will just start believing her. This was actually a fairly good read and I will likely pick up her others.

No wonder people have been urging me to read Kathleen Reichs! I finally caved in, began with "Deja Dead," her debut novel, and was swept away by her incredible brilliance.

This is a book that simply cannot be put down. I read it before work, I read it on the train, I snuck it in between tasks at work, I read it at lunch, I read it far into the night when my eyes were hanging on stalks. And still I had to race to the finish.

Temperance Brennan is a fortyish American forensic anthropologist from the South, who is working in French-speaking Montreal. A recovering alcoholic, she is divorced, mother of a college-age daughter, troubled--and incredibly good at what she does. In a tight story heavily interspersed with fascinating scenarios of Montreal, Temperance (called "Tempe") is called upon to autopsy a young female victim of a pathologically gruesome murder. This leads to a foray into the Dark Side as Tempe, convinced that she has seen the work of a vicious serial killer, sets out to prove it to her skeptical (and often chauvinistic) male colleagues.

The exquisitely insane nature of the killer, made all too clear by the havoc he wreaks on his victims, forces Tempe to face her own demons and she tries to stop one from real life. But he may be impossible to stop.

Perhaps "Deja Dead" is to brilliant because in real life, Reichs IS a forensic anthropologist who has lived and worked in the South and in Montreal. Whatever the cause, it is obvious that she is a born writer. I gave this book five stars because it is impossible to give ten. Needless to say, I am already on Book Two of the Temperance Brennan series, and won't be able to stop until I have read them all.

Unlike so many other thrillers, this is a subtle and thought-provoking novel, a search for moral truth within a mystery and a love story. Creating fully developed main characters, filled with the good intentions and personal failings that make us all human, Kanon portrays the ethical dilemmas of the occupying forces in a devastated Berlin, just as the Potsdam Conference begins. The Good German, an ironic title, explores the practice of American policymakers of "sanitizing" the Nazi connections of German scientists so that they may be spirited into the U.S. for work on the atomic bomb. By transforming them into "good Germans," as opposed to the "bad Germans" who will face war crimes trials, the American "good guys" reveal themselves to be as morally compromised, perhaps, as the German scientists, willing to stop at nothing, including murder, in order to keep these men from falling into the hands of the Soviets.

Kanon's eye for the telling detail is unerring. To fix the scope of the devastation, he remarks: "Buildings, like soldiers, were expected casualties of war. But the trees were gone too, all of them...The dense forest of the Tiergarten, all the winding paths...burned down to a vast open field littered with dark charcoal stumps." He refers to those Jews who tried to delay their fates in the only way open to them as "U-boats," hungry people who walked anonymously around the city all day, every day, so that they could not be identified by "friends," sometimes captured and deported when they took their worn out shoes to be repaired. Nazi big shots are "golden pheasants." The Russians are said to "pack up the power plants and anything shiny and hope for the best," while the Americans searching for scientists were doing "patriotic looting."

The several subplots--the search for Emil Brandt, the love story of Jake and Lena, the conflict between war crimes investigators and the State Department, in conjunction with U.S. industry, and the difficulties of sharing power with the brutal Russians--are smoothly integrated into a thoroughly engrossing narrative, which, in combination with the unique characters, allow the reader to keep track of what's going on and stay involved till the end. I cannot attest to the accuracy of the history, but I came away from the novel with vivid images of the level of devastation in Berlin and a new appreciation of the difficulties faced by occupying forces.

"The Good German" by Joseph Kanon, Audio Tape read by Stanley Tucci.
Simon & Schuster, New York, NY 2001.

Although billed as murder mystery/thriller, this book is really an attempt at in-depth analysis of the actions of the United States at the end of the Second World War, when the seeds of Cold War were planted. Were Americans truly so set on reaping the dollars (marks) that they ignored the implications of a Communistic Russia? Set in the hot weather of the Potsdam Conference, July/August 1945, author J. Kanon uses his skills to develop a word picture of a bombed-out, destroyed Berlin. Kanon portrays the scenes as "you are there!" descriptions of the ruined capital city of the Third Reich, as the gun fights and car chases carry the chief character, Jake Geismar, in and out of harm's way.
Jake Geismar is a realistic portrayal of the jaded correspondent, who came to Berlin during Hitler's Olympic Games. Geismar had stayed on to report the historical events, fell in love with Lena Brandt, and all this serves as the foundation for his return to a conquered Germany and the events of 1945.

An over-riding theme is Geismar's continued attempt to understand how an educated and cultured Germany could have tolerated, no, more than tolerated, ...how the Germans could have joined in the crimes of the Nazis. This guilt-seeking theme slows the book, but is necessary for the final resolution when the murderer of Lt. Tully, the American Army officer, is identified.

There are some logistical questions, such as how a person (Geismar) can operate an old-fashioned manual typewriter, when his arm is in a cast, and how the little German boy, Erik, (three years old) is able to understand not only his native German, but also English ... so much so that the boy is taken out of the hospital room to avoid hearing details.

The reader of the audio version, Mr. Stanley Tucci, does a fine job with what we usually consider German accents, and he has fine characterization of both female and male personages, so you think you are really hearing dialogue between actors. I enjoyed this audio book as I drove Interstate 495 around Boston, in my daily commute.

I read this book in two sittings and only because I'm too old to stay up ALL night and still be productive the next day. That is to say, this is one exciting read -- I even blocked out my fear of flying as I zoned in on the absorbing story during my recent flight. I enjoyed Los Alamos, but I'm happy to say that Kanon has continued to develop as a writer -- this book is by far his best yet. Kanon does a masterful job portraying post-war Berlin around the time of the Potsdam conference and all the intrigue, scientist-chasing and frenetic behavior during the last days of the Nazi regime. I don't know if Kanon meant to tip his hat to Hemingway's Jake Barnes, but I found his Jake to be an extremely well drawn portrait of our hero-journalist. The pacing is excellent, the dialogue credible and the plot absolutely mind bending. In terms of genre, I'd put this between Le Carre, Folliet, Clancy combining the best elements. Ultimately, Kanon outdoes them all for just plain good writing. My head is still spinning from the labyrintine plot -- read this one with a friend so you can compare notes. If I could even find a small quibble, I'd say the fortune telling scene was a bit over the top and perhaps Jake's original motivation to pursue a murder mystery once he found Lena, but I was very willing to suspend any disbelief. The Good German succeeds on every level (also a very touching love story) and is already one of my very favorites from this year. Superb reading from one of the best writers out there -- don't miss it.