I've been very curious about Soviet history since the fall of Communism in the 1980's. It seems that before then, Soviet life and history was a well kept secret. We knew it was corrupt, and that it had it's evil moments, but I'm not sure we knew how EVIL, evil can be. This book was an eye-opener. Stalin was most definitely the epitomy of EVIL. I read this book twice. Many thanks to Edvard Radzinsky for his dedication to the subject and in trying to help us understand how life under Stalinism was filled with fear and dispair. It's hard to imagine a life under these very extreme circumstances. How can one man scare millions of people into conforming to his own bizzare vision of utopia? One Man. FRIGHTENING. Frightening because it actually happened.

If you want to know how evil and far thinking Stalin was, this book is for you. It answers some questions about his rule and his life. The book also made some statements that I will never forget. One line stated that when the book was written in 1997, the author interviewed some people in Russia for the book. Even after the fall of the Soviet and about 45 years after his death, people who lived during Stalin's time WERE STILL AFRAID to talk about him. Think about that, the man had been dead for about 45 years and people were STILL scared of him. Only Stalin could install that kind of fear. The author does a great job explaining everything about how Stalin operated and how he always thought one move ahead of everyone else in the Soviet Union. Anyone who is interested in the Soviet Union or anyone who wants to read about the greatest murder in history, pick up this book and be prepared to learn about how deep and evil one man could be.

This is an excellent portrayal of one of the greatest monsters in human history. I have read some of the other reviews which attempt to cast doubt on the some of the author's findings and conclusions. First off, based upon everything else I have already read on Stalin, I personally have no reason to doubt anything in this book. Secondly, the facts that the author lived through most of this period, and had access to formerly closed Soviet Archives greatly bolsters his credibility. What I think is the most important aspect of this book, however, is the unequivocal portrayal of Stalin as the ...menace that he was. Too often, biographies or portrayals of Stalin describe the horrors and atrocities committed under his rule, yet attempt to partially mitigate these crimes with the rationalizations that they were somehow necessary as Stalin had to industrialize the Soviet Union in a short time period, or prepare the country to defeat Adolf Hitler. This book does a tremendous service to the history of the Soviet Union, and Communism in general, by dispelling such nonsense. The other myth this book destroys is that Stalin somehow "hijacked" the revolution, and was not really the product of the system put in place by Lenin and the Revolution of 1917. Hogwash! As this book shows, Lenin groomed Stalin every step of the way to assume power in the Party and Government. True, they parted ways at the end, and Lenin did write the letter that Stalin was "too rude" to take over. What others have consisently failed to mention, however, was that Lenin had nothing good to say about the other Bolshevik leaders either. While the author doesn't state this, the conclusion I draw is that Lenin resented Stalin for the fact that Stalin had effectively taken away Party, and Government, leadership from him. Stalin was the logical extension of Marxism/Leninism.

The book is very well written, and is a highly enjoyable read. I would recommend it to anyone interested in Stalin and/or Soviet history. The author is to be saluted for having the courage to face up to this period in Russian history, and present these events in such a way that shows [what]Communism truly represented. Highly Recommended!!

My father is blood type AB and my mother blood type O. I am type B, nineteen years old, and attend college. Last summer I visited my father and went on the diet and did the exercise recommended. I went from 165 lbs. to 135 lbs, and from 28% body fat to 9% body fat in 8 weeks. The diet and exercise works like a charm and I'm glad my dad started me young. My father's family were mostly type A, and just as the books says, they all died of heart disease. My B grandmother, on my fathers side is in good health at 76. On my mother's side they are all type O and very healthy. My great grandparents are in their 90's and still with it. The part about life span is significant and accurate as far as my family is concerned. The part about compatibility is also accurate. My parents, who are AB and O stayed married for 10 years. After they divorced they each married spouses of their same blood type, and both are very happy. Coincidence? I think not. I wish this subject was taught in college, as it seems much more relevant and practible than many of the courses I am required to take.

I am blood type B, and my entire life I have felt misunderstood. When I heard there was a book that claimed to know why people were drawn to each other, and how long they would live, I was extremely skeptical.

I am middle aged and didn't like being alone, but I followed the advice and waited until I met a young woman who was also blood type B. That was 9 months ago. It sounds corny, but my life has never been better. We think alike, we act alike, and we like the same things. Both of us have never been happier in our entire lives.

We were both a little overweight, so we tried the diet plan for type B, and I lost 18 lbs., she lost 11. Its amazing how this book has changed our lives. We were two lost souls who found each other because of this book. Knowing that I was supposed to be with someone of my same blood type, made all the difference. We are planning a June wedding, and I know this time it will work.

It all makes sense now that I checked my parents medical records and found out they were both blood type B. They were married for 56 happy years. My dad died at 76, my mother 83, right smack in the life span guidelines of the book.

This book is a Nobel Prize waiting to be discovered. We would recommend this book to everyone, young and old.

My father was blood type A2 and very muscular. He looked the picture of health when he died suddenly at age 56 of a massive heart attack. I am 37 years old, also A2 and quite muscular, and considered myself in excellent health, until I gave blood and found that my cholesterol was 252. I read this book, followed the supplement guidelines, lost almost all body fat, and my cholesterol fell to 148 in 3 months.

Now my wife and children, all of whom are blood type A, and who are higher risk than the rest of society, are on the diet. I am a very religious person and believe things happen for a reason. I believe JJ Messenger, responsible for the Theory of Compatibility and Longevity, is devinely inspired. Now wherever I go I carry my Holy Bible and The Answer is in Your Bloodtype. I too wish to be a messenger and carry the word to all those in need of health and guidence.

At first, I was a little confused as to how Hardy could stretch what seemed to be a simple plot into such a long novel--especially because the story in blurb on the back cover happened within the first 50 pages. But the story is more than the blurb on the back cover. It is about betrayal, last wishes, the "evils" of drink, and how one mistake can affect you 21 years down the road. Hardy's fatalistic view, seen through Henchard, is, at times, enough to drive the reader crazy.

Like many of the other reviewers here, I cried throughout the book. There are constant turns in the story line that at times uplift your soul, and then crash it into the depths of depression. This book is not an easy read though. There are sections that you will struggle to get through because it is dry, but then there are others that will keep you up at night rushing to finish.

I liked this book slightly less than I liked _Tess_, but it was _Tess_ that made me buy this book. Enjoy!

I read this novel in English class, like most people probably did. It was one of the best assigned to us.

Hardy is a gifted author. He writes in a clear style with vivid descriptions that really bring the setting alive, without making the reader (at least this reader) feel inundated with borning, unnecessary detail.

The thing that I look for most in a novel, however, is quality characterizeations, and this book had them in spades. Dialogue was used effectively to flesh out characters. These are not stock characters, either. These people have flaws and shades of grey. They seem as though they could be real. I found that I could relate to the characters, and I did empathize with them, even when I didn't agree with their choices. Everyone had clear motivations. The characterization of Henchard shows that Hardy clearly understood the notion of the tragic flaw and the tragic hero/anti hero.

Students who have to read this book as part of their English class may find it a bit on the long side. I would urge you to stick with it; once you get through the initial chapters the book will pick up (a commonality that all British classics seem to share). The book is easy to follow and understand. It is a key novel that marks the shift from Romantic Age to the Victorian Age, so it's an important read for anyone who has a serious interest in English Literature.

At first I was forced to read "The Mayor of Casterbridge" in school more than 12 years ago. Reading it slowly made an impact on my life. This book always served a special purpose in my life. It introduced me to the wide world of Literature. It sort of enlighten my interest and liking for English literature. Now re-reading it not only brought back fond memories of my yester school days but also renewed my liking to one of the greatest writer of all time Thomas Hardy.

Through this novel I came to the understanding of Irony and oxymoron. Hardy totally wrote with a sense of awareness of human characteristic and he had a amazing style of mixed humour with tragedy.

His protagonist,Michael Henchard's life was under the microscope of Hardy.

I love the way the story began I quote:"ONE evening of late summer, before the nineteenth century had reached one-third of its span, a young man and woman, the latter carrying a child, were approaching the large village of Weydon-Priors, in Upper Wessex, on foot. " I love the Englishness and the sense of intriguing events that would follow...

In brief, Michael Henchard was a drunk who sold his wife and daughter at the fair. Later he realised his mistakes he work real hard and eventually became the mayor of Casterbridge. His life took another twist 20 years later when his wife and daughter came back to his life plus a few more other characters adding on the complexity of his life.Soonafter events unfolded and many things became to go against his way and then came his downfall. Indeed Michael Henchard's rise and fall were filled with compelling details and his encounters with numerous intestering people.

What I love most about this novel was the way Hardy depicted Henchard's behaviours and thoughts and totally enhanced his weak character and irresponsibleness with dashes of ironies. His sardonic literary style were brilliant and at the same time he also vividly described the scenery and situations. Another greatest of Hardy was his ability to create innovative characters still account for in modern contemporary days and he was a pioneer in analysising human's weakness and blended it into his creation. It's a vintage classic,psychoanalytic and intriguingly written ,a must read for all books lover.

After the Prequel, Charlie and Mr. Wonka and the crew are left in the Great Glass Elevator. In the sequel, (they're still in the elevator,)they find the Grea Space Hoteland the Commuter Capsule in space. They decide to be th first ones to to enter the Space Hotel, so they go inside. Inside, they find the Vermicious Knids.(a kind of green-brown upside down eggs with eyes) So they scream run away back into the elevator. There are Knids everywhere! Even outside the Hotel! But fortunately, the Elevator is Knid-proof. The Elevator flies all the way around the world, but they end up where they left! They decide to save the Commuter capsule, so they hook onto it with Knid-proof rope, and fly back to the Earth, unhooking from the Capsule and the Elevator ends up in the Chocolate Factory. I liked this book alot bcause it's funny. Roald Dhal always writes funny, confusing, and imaginary books. I also liked his "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." (hint hint hint, READ THE BOOK!)

I agree with some reviewers in that mostly all of what the book talks about is the glass elevator and Charlie's grandparents. It does state nothing about what Charlie did after all of this with his new chocolate factory, but I disagree with those who say that book was awful. I enjoyed reading it, despite the above complaints. It was very well written, and interesting to read, althought I would have liked to read about what Charlie did with his inheritance.

This book made me laugh a lot. To understand it better you should read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This time, Willie Wonka has taken Charlie's whole family into outer space in the great glass elevator. The grandparents made me laugh the most, especially when they yell at Mr. Wonka. Mr. Wonka is his craziest ever in this book! They have to save the space station from being squashed by aliens, though! Watch out for Willie Wonka in this hilarious book.

Quite simply, Joseph Heller's "Something Happened" is one of the great novels of the twentieth century. The narrative style is more consistant with a story being told in person than reading a novel. When I first encountered this work as a younger man, I was impressed that fiction writing could be so powerful and yet so realistic. Years of exposure to the corporate world described have made me realize that the book is even more profound than on first reading. It is the deconstructing of the American Dream, and the casualties are each of us in his own way.

I was dismayed to read one reviewer write that nothing happens in "Something Happens." If one's criteria are shoot-outs and car chases, I suppose that this is true. What happens is internal, very personal, and unique to each of us. The protagonist confronts not only his own mortality, but that of an entire system. In contrast to the characters in Catch-22, who wear their absurdity on their sleeves, the characters in this book were harder to portray accurately. That Heller does this without missing a single note is a tribute to his craft.

I wish that this work had been included in the Modern Library's 100 Best. It is richly deserving of that accolade. Read it and you will not be the same.

This is, perhaps, the most complex of Heller's writings that I've read. It's structure is so tight and intentional that upon subsequent readings, each chapter becomes almost symbolic in and of itself. This book deals, in the first person, with the personal and professional life of Bob Slocum. He seems to be a very disillusioned fellow, and, at times, comes across as completely callous. However, there is more to this story than the simple ramblings of an unhappy man. It's deeply rooted in psychology (especially Freudian psychology). This is where the structure of the book comes in to play. For Heller deals with a lot of Freud's theories (which I won't necesarilly get into here), and almost all of them are repressented somewhere in this book. A common critical complaint about this book is that nothing actually happens (in terms of physical action). If you give this novel only a surface reading, you're likely to come away with that very impression. However, if you look closer (or even read this novel a few times), you'll see that there is definite psychological and symbolic action. Something happens (although it may not be readily apparent). Although Something Happened is not as humorous as Heller's earier work, Catch-22, I think that it is a far more rewarding piece, in the long run. It, in my opinion, has more depth to it, and is highly underrated because of it's lack of physical action (or drama). If you decide to pick this book up, be aware that it isn't the comic piece that Catch-22 is. Whatever humor exists in this novel is dark and jaded. It's far more likely to be disturbing than funny. However, as I've said earlier (and by the five stars I gave it), it's well worth the read. I would recomend this book to anyone who has an interest in psychology, as well as in Freud.

I realize my title for this review may be a bit perplexing. Joseph Heller is primarily (only?) known for his first novel, the wonderful "Catch-22." With this book, his second, Heller tried to make a book completely opposite from his famous first novel. Where Catch-22 was funny, Something Happened is sad and horrific in its portrayal of 20th century life, and it for the most part avoids the sort of humor that made Catch-22 so funny.

A year or two after Catch-22 started flying off the shelves, an ad appeared in the New York Times, saying Heller was working on a second book, to be titled "Something Happened," and while no publishing date of course was available yet, to look for it sometime before we landed on the moon. Five years after the moon landing, thirteen years after Catch-22, Joseph Heller published "Something Happened," and I truly believe it is his best work. In fact, it is (presently) my all-time favorite book and will doubtless have a special spot on my bookshelf forever. In this work Joseph Heller creates the Everyman for our pejorative society, a character, Bob Slocum, who is unraveling: at the very same time when his professional life is at its best, his family life is getting worse and worse. He feels distant from his wife and children, and he wonders if he was ever close. He cheats on his wife and longs for divorce, though he admits he would never grant her one if she asked. He refers to his family members only as "my wife," "my daughter," and "my boy." The only family member, in fact, with a name is his mentally disabled son, Derek.

The novel is Slocum's 560+ page monologue to himself, told in the first-person present-tense, with Slocum trying to convince himself that he's not breaking down, that he's not going crazy, all the while covering up his true insights with false enthusiasm for delivering a 3-minute speech at a company conference, Slocum's partentheticals, and his ever-shallowing "Ha-ha's." It is a deeply textured and highly intelligent book, one whose language, from the first page to the last, crackles like the disintigrating kindling on a fire.

I am a white resident of St. Joseph, Michigan. . .a transplant, not a native. We moved here in June 1991, just as the Eric McGinnis story hit the headlines. I was outraged by what I read in the papers about it then and the rumors I heard around "White St. Joe," not because I believed he had been lynched, but because the bigotry and misunderstanding on both sides of the river were so apparent. And now comes this book by a distinguished author. . .let me tell you, St. Joseph residents on the whole were not happy about what he wrote. However, it is accurate from what I have read, heard, and know, with only a couple of insignificant errors which don't affect the story. I'm glad I finally read Kotlowitz's book, because it caused quite a stir around here and has really made the townsfolk reevalute racial relations, in spite of their bellyaching. And I believe it should be mandatory reading for every resident in both of these monotone hamlets. I can never cross the river again without thinking of Eric, imagining him struggling against the currents, and thinking of the symbolism of that image.

I had to read "The Other Side of the River" for a class in school called Conversations on Race. In this class we discuss different parts of racial barriers and disscuss how we can make a difference in errasing racial stereotypes. This book, about a death that seperated two towns even more than they already are, reveals many of these racial stereotypes. I think that Alex Kotlowitz did a really great job in presenting both sides to this story. It is hard to write a non-bias story when you have your own views on the situation. I really hope that those who read this book became aware that racial prejudisim is still present in our country. I hope that those who read this book will encourage their friends and loved ones to read it as well so that the eyes of America may be opened everywhere!

Kotlowitz set out to investigate the mysterious death of Eric McGinnis, and ended up writing a superb narrative on the American racial divide. The setting is adjacent but mutually suspicious communities in southwestern Michigan. St. Joseph (population 9,300) is mostly white and middle class, while across the narrow river Benton Harbor (13,000) is largely black, poor, and crime-ridden. McGinnis, a black teen from Benton Harbor, vanished one evening in 1991 after fleeing from a man in downtown St. Joseph whose car he'd allegedly broken into. Days later McGinnis turned up in the river. Perhaps he was beaten, but this fleet young man could easily outrace his hefty pursuer. As the author investigates what happened, he finds opinions hardened by race and community bias rather than by the facts (shades of O.J. Simpson). Kotlowitz also finds allegations of police misconduct and biased housing patterns, plus smug indifference by some whites, and certain blacks that cry racism at every turn.

Kotlowitz writes about tragedy and race without casting blame or seeking favor. For that reason alone one should read his outstanding narrative. Sadly, the author never discovers how McGinnis died, or the key to healing our racial divide.

This is a great book because of it's entertaining way of teaching about some of the more interesting aspects of paleo-anthropology and anthropology in general. The author did an excellent job of researching his subject having consulted actual anthropologists. He obviously researched African politics and culture as well to make his characters believable. I also found it refreshing that many of the African characters were both positive and protagonists.

Some of the ideas about the development from primate to Homo Sapien in terms of social, physical, and emotional development were very intriguing. To give an example, I found the idea of early Neandertals and different versions of humanity living concurrently and interbreeding to be fascinating. To think that we picked up, as modern humans, many successful traits from "evelutionary dead ends" such as the Neandertals is really captivating. Forgive me for overusing my language, but i really enjoyed this book!

If no other reason, read this book for it's easy way of introducing scientific ideas about the origin of Homo Sapiens and their evolution. This book is a way for people who are scared of science to find out how enjoyable science can be. Enjoy!

Mankind's Beginning in Conjecture

This is a great book because of its entertaining way of teaching about some of the more interesting aspects of paleo-anthropology and anthropology in general. The author, Petru Popescu, did an excellent job of researching his subject having consulted actual anthropologists. He obviously researched African politics and culture, as well, to make his characters believable. I also found it refreshing that many of the African characters were both positive and protagonists.

Some of the ideas about the development from primate to Homo Sapien in terms of social, physical, and emotional development were very intriguing. To give an example, I found the idea of early Neanderthals and different versions of humanity living concurrently and interbreeding to be fascinating. To think that we picked up, as modern humans, many successful traits from "evolutionary dead ends" such as the Neanderthals is really captivating.

The book itself is the story of one anthropologist, Ken Lauder, a Californian "beach bum" type hiding out from responsibility, in far off Kenya. In the course of his existence in Kenya, he makes a big discovery that could rock the anthropological world: a possible living "missing link." Ken and his friend, a local African with connection, are in the process of exploring their discovery when a civil war breaks out in Kenya and everything turns into chaos. The better part of the text explores what the field of anthropology is like (according to a fiction writer who did some research), what life in Africa is like and particularly the volatile politics of small African nations, and Ken's erstwhile existence after being abandoned in the African wild. While Ken is abandoned in the wild, he is befriended by a protohuman that Ken nicknames "Long Toes." Ken and "Long Toes" form a father/son relationship that forms the core of the book.

If no other reason, read this book for its easy way of introducing scientific ideas about the origin of Homo Sapiens and their evolution. This book is a way for people who are scared of science to find out how enjoyable science can be. Enjoy!

Review by: Maximillian Ben Hanan

I bought this book two years ago at a "dollar store" during an ice storm which left us without electricity for two weeks. There wasn't much to do so I bought this book thinking it probably wouldn't be too great; I mean I spent three bucks on it at the dollar store. But, I hoped it would ward off the boredom. I didn't get to start reading it until a month ago and was I ever surprised. This is a great book! As the last reviewer stated, it's a great way to teach science through fiction. I had never put too much thought into how humans evolved. I have even found myself watching The Discovery Channel to find out more about the protohumans.

This is the central question explored by Conrad in Lord Jim. Jim is ultimately a character who inspires our sympathy due to his inability to find reconcilliation for his one tragic moment of weakness. In him we find a person of tremendous potential that remains unrealized as the tragic circumstances of his abandoning his post aboard the Patna continually haunt him and the associated guilt drives him to isolation.
Conrad successfully explores the concepts of bravery, cowardice,guilt and the alternative destinies that an individual may be driven to by these qualities.
The narrative can be a bit confusing at times as Marlowe relates the tale by recalling his encounters with Jim. The book reminded very much of Somerset Maugham's THE RAZOR"S EDGE" in style. However I believe that Maugham did a much better job of incorporating the narrator into the flow of the story. Overall LORD JIM is a wonderful classic novel that I highly recommend.

This is the fifth book I have read by Conrad, and through these readings I have come to deeply appreciate his literary power and the perfection of his stories. Conrad has the skill to border about several similar subjects, without repeating himself. "Lord Jim" is truly a Shakespearean tragedy, mainly because of the Shakespearean nature of the main character. Jim is a young naval officer with high hopes of heroism and moral superiority, but when he faces his first test of courage, he miserably fails. While 800 Muslim pilgrims are asleep aboard the ship "Patna", Jim discovers that the boat is about to sink. There are not sufficient lifeboats for everybody. Should he wake them up or not? He gets paralyzed with fear and then sudenly jumps into a boat being set up by the rest of the officers. He is taken to trial and disposessed of his working licence.

Ashamed and humiliated, Jim dedicates the rest of his life to two things: escape the memory of that fateful night, and redeem himself. This agonizing quest to recover his dignity in front of his own eyes leads him to hide in a very remote point in the Malayan peninsula, where he will become the hero, the strong man, the wise protector of underdeveloped, humble and ignorant people. Jim finds not only the love of his people, but also the love of a woman who admires him and fears the day when he might leave for good. The narrator, Captain Marlow (the same of "Heart of Darkness") talks to Jim for the last time in his remote refuge, and then Jim tells him that he has redeemed himself by becoming the people's protector. Oh, but these things are never easy and Jim will face again the specter of failure.

Conrad has achieved a great thing by transforming the "novel of adventures" into the setting for profound and interesting reflections on the moral stature of Man, on courage, guilt, responsibility, and redemption.

Just as in "Heart of Darkness" the question is what kinds of beings we are stripped of cultural, moral and religious conventions; just as in "Nostromo" the trustworthiness of a supposedly honest man is tested by temptation, in "Lord Jim" the central subject is dignity and redemption after failure.

A great book by one of the best writers.

After reading this book (along with several other of Conrad's books) I am under the impression that Joseph Conrad may very well be my favorite author. Here is another masterpiece, a deeply incisive study of character of the motivation and the ultimate failure of all high-minded ideals. Granted my own personal world view falls directly in line with this realization and therefore prejudices me towards anything the man might write, but, when considering such a lofty title as 'favorite author' one must regard other aspects of the novelist's creation. As with the others, Conrad wins by the power of his stories.

Lord Jim is my least favorite of the the four books I have read by Conrad. The story is rather scattered: a righteous young man does something wrong that he holds himself far too accountable for and the public shame the action brought him exaggerates the reality of his failure and makes him believe the rumors swirling around about his so-called cowardice. He spends the remainder of his life trying to reclaim his self-regard, mostly exaggerating his own importance in matters he hardly understands. His goal is to liberate the primitive people of the jungle paradise he inadvertantly finds himself in (due to an effort to escape every particle of the world he once inhabited) and his once high-minded ideals and regard for himself lead him to allow those people to consider him almost a God.

Jim likes being a God and considers himself a just and fair one. He treats everyone equally and gives to his people the knowledge of modern science and medicine as well as the everyday archetecture and understanding of trade that those primitive folks would otherwise be years from comprehending.

Of course everything ends in failure and misery and of course Jim's restored name will be returned to its demonic status, but the whole point of the novel seems to me that one can not escape their past. Jim, for all his courage in the line of fire has tried to avoid all memory of the once shameful act of his former life and by doing so becomes destined to repeat his mistakes.

Lord Jim is far more expansive than the story it sets out to tell, ultimately giving a warning on the nature of history and general humanity that only a writer of Conrad's statue could hope to help us understand.

If there is a flaw it is not one to be taken literally. Conrad was a master of structural experimentation and with Lord Jim he starts with a standard third person narrative to relate the background and personalities of his characters and then somehow merges this into a second person narrative of a man, years from the events he is relating, telling of the legend of Jim. It is a brilliant innovation that starts off a little awkward and might lead to confusion in spots as the story verges into its most important parts under the uncertain guidence of a narrator who, for all his insight into others, seems unwilling to relate his personal relevence to the story he is relating.

Nevertheless (with a heartfelt refrain), one of the best books I have ever read.

This book should be read by anyone interested in the impacts of globalization. With that said, not everyone will agree with Dr. Stiglitz's analysis. Nonetheless, to form an educated opinion it is essential to understand both sides of a debate. Stiglitz's provides the reader with a blistering critique on the current state of globalization, and particularly chides the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for their arrogance and cookie-cutter approach to crisis resolution. The East Asian financial crisis, Russia's rocky road to a market economy, and other recent examples are used to illustrate how the IMF's bailout plans are contingent on a country's agreement to rapidly adopt western ideologies (free market economics). This "conditionality" forces the expedient liberalization of capital accounts, imposes restrictions on the government's fiscal policy, and pushes up interest rates in the name of fighting inflation. The result is high unemployment, stunted growth, and an increase in the federal deficit.

Moreover, the probability of a major financial crisis is actually increased because the government is more leveraged and the liberalization of capital flows allows short-term, "hot" money to flow in and out of the county, which makes for more volatile markets. Stiglitz also points out the hypocrisy of U.S. in regards to free trade. In short, we tell countries to drop their tariffs and subsidies to allow free reign for U.S. exports while we keep our tariffs (on steel) and subsidies (for farmers), which restrains a less-developed country's access to our markets. The central theme of the book is that developing countries are adversely affected by the current state of globalization as they incur a disproportionate amount of the costs and long-term risks and well-to-do western bankers and U.S. corporations reap many of the benefits.

This book has opened the eyes of many to the discontents of globalization and in doing so helped Joseph Stiglitz win the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics. However, it would be a tragedy if this were the only book someone read about globalization. For a less-biased account of recent events and future treads I would recommend reading any publication(s) by Barry Eichengreen or Peter Kenen on the "international financial architecture." They will provide a more balanced account and use a higher degree of technical analysis. Also, "The Commanding Heights" is excellent.

"Globalization and its Discontents" is a great title for a book, and one can't blame Joseph Stiglitz for grabbing it. Unfortunately, the title is a bit misleading for the book he has actually written.

If you're looking for an overview of the latest round of worldwide economic integration ("globalization"), or the protest movement that has arisen in its wake (the "discontents"), you won't really find it here. There's very little discussion of the fundamental issue surrounding globalization--the pros and cons of vastly expanded international trade. You won't find more than a few passing references to the World Trade Organization, for example, or to the 1999 WTO conference in Seattle that marked the birth of the anti-globalization movement.

What Stiglitz does offer is a devastating critique of a different organization, the International Monetary Fund. "Write about what you know" is always good advice, and the author follows it here. As a former Clinton administration economic advisor and later an official at a rival organization, the World Bank, Stiglitz has a few scores to settle. He takes dead aim at the so-called "Washington Consensus"--the notion peddled by the IMF and U.S. Treasury in the 1990s that privatization, deregulation, open capital markets and balanced budgets would be a panacea for developing countries.

The Nobel Prize he garnered in 2001 for his work on market failures lends Stiglitz additional credibility as he rips to shreds the IMF's blind faith in markets--particularly free-flowing capital markets. He argues convincingly that IMF policies made the 1990s financial crises in Asia and Russia worse. And he raises many worthy questions about whether certain constituencies (namely the financial services industry) have a stranglehold over international institutions that should be serving the common good.

Most readers will emerge easily convinced that the IMF needs to be reformed and reoriented. What's missing from Stiglitz's book is any sense of whether that would be enough.

One suspects there is a need for a much broader agenda to address the defects of globalization, and to assuage its discontents. But one will have to look for it elsewhere.

Globalization so often evokes pictures of rioters in Seattle, Genoa and Washington DC protesting the World Trade Organization or other economic planning meetings. But while one cannot doubt their fervor, they often are not as effective in explaining *why* they oppose globalization, at least to an extent further than the evening news sound bites. But here, Joseph Stiglitz has weighed in and helped explain at least one view as to why the protesters are right to be upset. He looks at the effect that global economic activity has had over the past decade. Stiglitz is unsparing at naming the root of the problem - the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. He lays the problems upon the policies and practices of these two organizations and how in his opinion they hinder rather than help especially developing countries. Rather, their "roadmap" of policies only serve to make things worse for these countries, especially when the problems spill over from one country to the next as happened in the Asian economic crisis a few years back.

As a non-economist, I was leery of delving into this book, but found that it was very accessible, and free of too much economic jargon or theory. Stiglitz has written a book for the reader interested in international politics and the world situation today. I may not be the most scintillating thing you read this year, but it can be a very thought provoking read. It's a well argued point of view in a cacophony of world opinions.

This novel is truly both what Conrad subtitles "A Simple Story," and quite a hard nut to crack. Not having read any of Conrad's other, more famous works, I have nothing to compare The Secret Agent to, but I would say that it proved in my own mind that the man is a master of revealing human emotions and motivations. There isn't a single character, however insignifigant they may seem to the story itself, who is not fully developed, from the Assistant Commissioner of Police to Toodles the Secretary to Winnie Verloc, to the intensly creepy "Professor." Nor was this merely description tacked onto the plot; indeed, it took precendence over the plot and became my purpose for continuing to read the book. For the story is simple, and not overly meaninglful.
I will say that Conrad's prose occasionally slowed me down. Once into the middle of a chapter or a conversation I had no problems, but the beginning of each chapter, especially the early ones, was extremely confusing, and had to be suffered through before the books strengths were revealed.

It is amazing how well this terribly story fits into nowadays reality. Terrorism, with all its hideous irrationality and contradictions is masterly depicted by Conrad. And so is human nature. Every single character is treated here as the center of his/her own universe, which results in wonderful psychological creations. From the very Mr Verloc -the secret agent- to an apparently insignificant cabman, all of them are given here the opportunity of redemption, since they are so humanly feeble. The author reaches this goal by arriving at numerous standstills where action seems to be suspended in the air while characters are sunk in deep reflection -or else are aided by Conrad's voice on account of their difficulties to express themselves.

The whole story is encircled in a gloomy atmosphere that turns to be very difficult to escape from. It starts with Mr Verloc's visit to "the embassy" where he is assigned a mission to "justify" his work as secret agent. Being scornfully treated, he finds himself involved in a plot that leads him to take actions he would have never think of...wouldn't he...? Thus, his initial attempt to blow up the Greenwich observatory ends up in a dreadful tragedy whose unspeakable consequences had not been meant by his author.

Although not easy to follow for the non-native reader, which is my case, this appalling and great story is really worthwhile. I am glad I have made the effort.

The funniest, strangest, or worst (depending on how you look at it) thing about Joseph Conrad's "The Secret Agent" is that it makes light of a situation -- terrorism -- that maybe was not a big deal at the time it was written but nearly a hundred years later has become a fearsome world problem. The terrorist activity described in this novel apparently is based loosely on a real incident, but Conrad avoids specifying any actual political motivations and instead makes his story as basic and general as possible.

The "terrorist" is a most unassuming man named Mr. Verloc. He runs a stationery and news store in London where he lives with his wife Winnie, her mother, and her mildly retarded brother Stevie. For the past eleven years he has been drawing pay from an unspecified foreign Embassy for occasional information on the activities of an anarchist organization, the "local chapter" of which is comprised of a bunch of malcontent duffers whom he has managed to befriend. An official at the Embassy, Mr. Vladimir, thinks Verloc is not very bright and plans to use him as an agent provocateur to get the anarchist organization in trouble. He suggests to Verloc to blow up an unlikely but symbolic target, the Greenwich Observatory; as the source of the prime meridian or zero-degree longitude, it's like the seam of the world. Using a bomb made by another of society's outcasts, a creepy fellow known only as the Professor, Verloc enlists Stevie's help to carry out his scheme.

Fast forward to immediately after the (unsuccessful) bomb blast: Police Chief Inspector Heat is investigating the incident, reconstructing the crime back to its source, and, interestingly enough, competing with his own superior officer. The post-blast events are where the novel really develops unexpectedly, in which we see what kind of tenuous relationship Verloc has with his wife, and the cruel treachery of one of his dishonest comrades. The structure of the novel is remarkable in the way it establishes the chronology of events, sets the pacing, and lets the scenes unfold as naturally as if they were being staged.

I found this novel to be a lot of fun and, despite the serious subject matter and the fact that it was considered quite violent for its time, actually kind of funny. I see it as not an attempt at a spy story or "thriller" but rather an early example of black humor, in which the narrative is filled with wry wit and each character is given a certain comical edge as if Conrad were making subtle fun of the whole business. It is a book that defies expectations, discards formulas, and immerses itself in the tremendous possibilities of the creativity of great literature.