After visiting the National Musuem of Natural History, I wondered about many of the claims that the museum made. So I decided to read a book about the "terrible lizards" and found out what I had guessed -- the study of dinosaurs and their fossils is not an exact science and many of the fundamental questions we have about them cannot be answered, including:

How old are they? How fast were they? How big were they? What did they look like? What color were they? What is their relation to birds? How are fossils aged? Do we have any dinosaur DNA?

The authors of this book do a good job at trying to answer many of these questions about dinosaurs, but in the end their explanations merely lay out the science of guesswork. The first part of this book is fifty questions about dinosaurs, and I would recommend this section to anyone interested in the subject. The next two sections are about dinosaurs digs and specific dinosaur species, and is a little bit extensive for the "casual dino reader."

Mark David Spence has crafted a fascinating look at three national parks: Yellowstone, Glacier, and Yosemite through the filter, the lense as it were, of Native American presence.

Citizens of the United States did not always see the national parks in terms of an empty wilderness, untrodden by human footsteps. Rather, early on in the 19th century Americans, such as Catlin for example, tended to look at the wilderness in its 'natural' state, that is, its condition before European conquest, advancement, and domination. This state, therefore, included the presence of Native Americans within these three national parks. This presence took on, at times, both a temporary or a permanent character.

Although the book can read with a pace that only a historian would love, there are sufficient insights to enlighten even the armchair historian. Perhaps one of the most fascinating facets is the role that John Muir took in defining Yosemite as a region that should be absent of the Native Americans, the very people who had dwelt in the Valley for centuries. His comments could easily be construed as racist, naive, and bigoted.

I cautiously recommend this book to you, although personally I found it fascinating.

Taking Peri to visit Kew Gardens, the Doctor's long list of enemies comes into play and the TARDIS is drawn off track to a mining village in 19th century England. And there not one but two renegade Time Lords are laying down their plans...

This story is probably best remembered for introducing the Rani, a renegade Time Lord of the female gender (I really don't like to call her a Time Lady because she certainly isn't a lady!). Played with great panache on TV by Kate O'Mara, here in the novelisation by script writers Pip and Jane Baker she comes across very cold - perhaps colder than on TV. While I generally like the Rani, I do have a problem with the fact that the Bakers can't seem to show us that she is a genius - they have to have people tell us she is again and again and again...

Also on Earth, and the reason for the TARDIS being knocked off course, is the Master. He draws the Rani into his plans for revenge on the Doctor and Peri, using her genius (about which he waxes lyrical on several occasions) by hijacking some of her inventions.

The story suffers a little at the hands of the continuity craze that held the Doctor Who production team in its grip at the time. For instance, in speculating about who could have interfered with the TARDIS' journey, Peri suggests the Daleks might have been behind it. Peri hadn't met the Daleks at this point, and it seems unlikely she's know about their time travel technology.

However, once out in the English countryside, the story settles down into a more acceptable state, and we get the spectacle of three Time Lords trying to outthink each other. A good thing which we rarely have had the opportunity to observe.

The Bakers' writing style is OK, but I suspect it reflects their unfamiliarity with novel writing.

For anyone studying the history of marriage this book is an excellent reference. I used a lot of information on a term paper for college. It flows smoothly and is easy to understand. It looks at marriage from an informative standpoint rather than being muddled with opinion. Who are the authors to argue with history anyway.

Dombroff obviously knows wherefore he speaks. He just doesn't say enough. He offers some sketchy advice on how to go about the tasks of direct and cross examination, but he doesn't really get to the "meat of the coconut." Chapters 20 & 21, on the "do's" and "don'ts" of cross examination, could have been useful, but Dombroff devotes no more than a brief paragraph to exposition of each of the "do's" and "don'ts." If you want more instruction on the "do's" and "don'ts," Dombroff suggests you consult another book he wrote, "Key Trial Control Tactics: A Guide to Winning the Ultimate Verdict." I suggest that you consult Stern's "Trying Cases to Win: Direct Examination," and "Trying Cases to Win: Cross Examination." I've only read Stern's book on cross, but it is the best modern study on the subject that I've found. I have no doubt that his work on direct is every bit as good.

Echenoz is a big cheese in French lit, and having kind of enjoyed his 1983 Prix Médicis-winning book Cherokee, I thought I'd check out this 1987 novel of his. The thing I didn't like about Cherokee was its huge cast of characters, and again, there are a lot of people to keep track of and quite a lot happens, but none of it seems to be of any consequence. Kind of a style over substance problem. The plot can barely be summarized, but basically it revolves around gunrunning. Parisians Paul and Bob sell guns illegally and are interested in Justine. Jeff (aka Jean-Francois, AKA Pons, AKA Duke) and Charles need guns to stir up a little trouble in Malaysia so that Jeff can be a plantation manager/feudal lord without any interference from the pesky owners. They both used to be interested in Justine's mother, Nicole, and Charles is also Paul's uncle. Finally, there are some Belgian gangsters, Plankaert, Toon, and Van Os, who are mad that Paul and Bob won't sell them guns and thus kidnap Justine. (If you intend to read the book, do yourself a favor and print this out, 'cause trying to keep it straight as you're reading ain't easy.)

What sounds simple and straightforward above, really isn't in Echenoz's fractured style. He playfully hops, skips, and jumps, all over the place, and while it's not an experimental work, it's a far cry from traditional narrative structure. It's more about the rhythm of the story and the irony and comedy derived from his telling a series of melodramatic events in a exceedingly deadpan way. There's the kidnapping or two, a mutiny, bank robbery, worker uprising, lost loves, unrequited longing, long-lost relations, and all manner of melodrama. Some scenes are quite wonderful and witty, however, the story is never really taken seriously by the author, and thus the book is kind of a big piece of steaming irony. (It's not without reason that there's an academic work in French titled, "Irony in the Works of Echenoz"). It gets pretty tiresome after the first quarter of the book, and I don't think I'll be bothering to seek out any more of his stuff, although the Prix Goncourt-winning I'm Gone is supposed to be quite good.

This is my first by Genevieve Lyons, and I really enjoyed it. The protagonist, Mark Dangerfield owns a bookstore which his girlfriend, Mandy, helps run. In this novel, Mark is asked to look into the apparent suicide of Alison Alyward. The police have closed the case as a suicide, but a family friend is convinced that she would never commit suicide. Alison hangs out with three other friends that people refer to as the Fab Four. When other members of the group start dying, Mark is certain there is something to be uncovered. During the course of his investigation, Mark is stabbed and then later on has the stuffing beat out of him. As opposed to protagonists who take a licking and just keep going, it was a little more realistic as his wounds managed to keep him down for a few days. Definitely a refreshing change; I'm planning on reading more in this series.

this book is good, but has no content. It's all politics and no action. I don't know about all of the people out there who find politics enjoyable but i hate it!

This books probably isn't the best place to start for someone just becoming interested in either Alan Watts or in Eastern thought in general. However, for osmeone who is interested in Alan Watts, it is invaluable. It shows him just coming into his own as a writer - most of them were written when he was in his late teens and early twneties, and shows him strruggling to devlop his style and the finer points of his philosophy. THe introductory material is especially helpful

Although not as scholarly and thorough as Steven Foster's book on Echinacea, this book is a good introduction to Echinacea.