This textbook while being comprehensive enough,is enjoyable to read. As opposed to other major oncology textbooks, it provides definitive conclusions regarding treatment and is not overly burdening to the reader. Because Oncology changes so quickly, one could likely get by with this textbook and following the published literature.

The book is about the latest treatment in oncology. It's easy to obtain information out of this book. It has everything breast, lung, colorectal cancer, etc.

I thought this book was great! The pictures of the objects are beautiful. Where a picture could not be obtained there is usually a detailed sketch of the object. The descriptions give not only insight into use of the archaological object but also surrounding information like similar objects and archeological context. Then the essays descibe the time period and unknown/debated issue of Egyptian Archeology. As a newbie to Egyptian Archaeology I found the book easy to read and felt that things were explained well.

The Kirkus review of James Whitcomb Riley: A Life is hardly a fair one. It criticizes the book because of two opinions of the reviewer that clearly the author had no hope of changing:

1. The facts about Riley are not as interesting as the myths about his life.

2. He was not the author of great literature.

It is, of course, the duty of the serious biographer to present the truest picture possible of the life of the biography's subject. To this end, Elizabeth Van Allen has done a prodigious amount of research in documents relating to the life of Riley. The result is a scholarly but readable and interesting book. She rightly puts to rest the myths about the poet, intriguing though they may be. Furthermore, as a historian, Van Allen discusses the significance of Riley's poetry but does not attempt to defend it as outstanding literature.

Certainly, the biography of Riley will be most popular in Indiana where he is still revered by many, but it also will be of interest to anyone who is interested in American cultural history. In presenting the context for Riley's early years, the author paints a clear picture of life in the Midwest in the second half of the 19th century. As Riley rises to national fame, the reader learns of the role of newspapers as a purveyor of literature in the late 19th century, the national importance of regional literature in that century, and the important role of the national lecture circuit as mass entertainment of the period.

As an immensely popular entertainer on platforms throughout the nation and later through the marketing efforts of his publisher and of Riley himself, before movies, radio, television, or rock and roll, Riley was the 19th century precursor of the 20th century pop culture celebrity. This fact alone makes him a figure worth reading about and the author's authoritative and entertaining book worth buying.

Another evaluation of the book that is recommended is the review by Rich Gotshall in the Indianapolis Star issue of Sunday, November 7, 1999.

Writing after the fact, historians often conclude that a war was preventable. This is generally false, as the dispassionate writer is removed from the context of the times. The war in 1812 between the United States and Great Britain has often been viewed as a pointless, forgettable war, yet in fact it had enormous consequences. The war was the defining moment of the Madison presidency and a significant break from the policy of the previous Jefferson and early Madison administrations. In describing the war, Rutland is masterful in describing the context and emotions of the times, the combination of which caused a war that was inevitable.
At the time, the Napoleonic wars were raging on the European continent and both Britain and France sought to wring every advantage they could out of what they considered an upstart nation. For years, Jefferson and Madison tried every tactic they could short of war in an attempt to delay a call to arms. Finally, national pride won out over all other factors and the war began. Madison's conduct of the war was not nearly as effective as it could have been, and yet the tie was all that was needed. James Monroe, the successor to Madison, enunciated what is now known as the Monroe doctrine, which warned all nations to avoid colonization efforts in the Western Hemisphere. With little American sea power to back it up, it was the first example of cooperation between Britain and the United States, as the enforcement was due to the power of the British navy. It is doubtful that this could have happened without the war.
The ways in which Rutland places the war in the context of power struggles in Europe and in the United States is masterful, as he describes how fragmented the United States was in those years. It is also possible to see the seeds of an eventual split and internal war, not over the issue of slavery, but over commercial and social differences.
In so many ways, Madison's best years were behind him when he became president. And yet, his handling of the war of 1812 was most likely the best that could have been done, as he sought to defend a fractious nation against an old foe who afterward became a staunch ally. For that reason alone, his administration should be considered a success and this book is the most realistic appraisal of his years in the White House that I have ever seen.

This is a book that had to be written and needs to be read by those who seek to understand Allen Dulles in greater depth. The author does break new ground and add valuable new detail to the history of Allen Dulles, and his hard work in bringing us this book merits appreciation. Having said that, I confess to three disappointments: 1) the use of years to demarcate the chapters, rather than meaningful titles, is both boring and representative of the book's lack of presentational "zing"; 2) the book obsesses on Allen Dulles as the center of the earth and leaves out the context within which Dulles achieved his successes-casual references to how he operated two additional French networks, for example, without covering the arduous and detailed path that led to the creation and maintenance of those networks, leave one feeling as if Dulles simply waved a magic wand to create networks whole-bodied and in full force; and 3) the conclusion of the book, purportedly a review of what Allen Dulles would see and feel if he examined today's intelligence community, is generally on target but rather terse-nothing that one could take to an incoming President to energize him into revitalizing and enhancing our national intelligence community. There are some gems in this book that reflect the author's dedication and merit notice: Richard Helms reflecting on how America came much too close to losing World War II; Walt Rostow on calming the Kennedy's and preventing a rash counter-attack once the Bay of Pigs was known to be a disaster-this is the stuff of history, and I therefore heartily recommend this book as a valuable contribution to our understanding of Allen Dulles' place in history.

This is a phenomenal book about both Allen Dulles and the intelligence world. If you have any interest at all in the subject, then put your pennies on the counter for a great read. Clearly Srodes has an inside track with the intel community and the reader benefits.

This is a wonderful biography -- lots of drama and dirt, spycraft and sleaziness. Srodes paints a vivid picture of Dulles -- he gets into the pores of the man as well as the young CIA. A great read.

I have always been a fan of the intellectual debates in the New York Review of Books letters to the editor pages. This book consists of two articles by Crews and the subsequent debates surrounding them. I would have liked to see better defenses of Freud, but none of the eminent defenders of psychoanalysis is able to mount a serious challenge to Crews's devastating attacks.

This devastating book has two parts: (1) The Unknown Freud, where the reader gets a picture of Freud as a dictator, a megalomaniac and egotripper. A pope who alone knew the truth and who founded a secret commission to protect his 'church' against the heathen. He was a bad psychoanalyst (e.g. the Wolf Man case) and a venal man (e.g. the catastrophic Horace Fink case, where he tried to get his own hands on some money of the heiress).
I agree with the author that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience - statements cannot be tested and the research results cannot be verified uniformly. Although it is not totally without meaning (Karl Popper), it is not a science.
(2) the revenge of the repressed
A frontal attack on the caste of the psychoanalysts, depicted as 'religious zealots, self-help evangelists, sociopolitical ideologues, and outright charlatans who trade in the ever seductive currency of guilt and blame, while keeping the doctor's fees mounting.'
The author is particularly severe with their latest 'school' : the 'recovered memory movement', based on the rape of children by their parents (really!). This lead to false accusations and condemnations of innocent people. No wonder the author predicts an accelerating collapse of psychoanalysis as a respected institution.
A much needed and courageous book to halt a profession riding at full speed on a misty highway. And a much needed angle on Freud as a person, written in a style to slaughter the not so innocent father of psychoanalysis.
After reading this book, I agree with Peter Madawar, who called doctrinaire psychoanalytic theory "the most stupendous intellectual confidence trick of the twentieth century".

Frederick Crews really knows how to tap that deep reservoir of hostility found in modern Freudian psychoanalysts. In 1993 and 1994 FC wrote two essays in the New York Review of Books debunking Freud in the first, and tearing to shreds the recovered memory movement in the second.

These two essays and the letters in response to them have been put into the book The Memory Wars. As someone trained in experimental psychology you can guess my own personal bias in this matter. Crews discusses Freud's botched cases; his frequent vacillation in theory formation; some of his sillier theories; and his serious interjection of personal bias into the formation of his beliefs. The main problem with the whole Freudian system is the total lack of scientific evidence supporting it. Freudian psychoanalysis is founded on anecdote and supported by anecdotes. To be fair, much current non-Freudian therapy is also based on anecdote. Indignant Freud followers write back, and their letters are indeed interesting (and often pompous).

The second half of the book takes on the recovered memory movement. It would be great to poke fun at this movement if it weren't for the fact that it has caused so much damage to all parties involved. Symptoms checklists are published with the statement if you suffer from these symptoms you may be a victim of sexual abuse. Read the list and you will find that the majority of Americans will find that they have been abused. It's all a patient seduction game with the intent to make big money. Hospitals have even set up units to treat such patients (Having worked in the psychiatric hospital industry I am well aware of the "product lines" that such facilities set up in order to fill beds). Crews does an excellent job of dissecting the memory movement, and once again we get to read the indignant responses.

Those who believe that psychological therapy should be based on sound scientific evidence will love this book. Those who have accepted Freudianism with a religious like faith will, of course, hate it. To me this whole subject is analogous to the evolution vs. creationist debate. It's science versus pseudoscience.

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

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

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

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

If you are looking for a biography of James Madison, look elsewhere. Rutland's subtitle, "The Founding Father," makes it clear what this book is about: Madison's participation in the creation and passage of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. Although it does cover most of his life, the focus is definitely on Madison's role as founding father.

The book deals with the major issues of Madison's political life, often in too minute detail, but does not satisfy the biographical aspects of his life. There is absolutely no mention, for example, of Madison's birth date, or even the year he was born in! Further, the book failed completely to engage me. I set it aside for weeks at a time before I finally finished if off, despite its modest size.

I picked up this book because I was to attend a conference on Madison and wanted to know something more than the murky recollection I had from school of this less well known "founding father." I was fascinated to learn how it came to pass that after initially opposing the Bill of Rights Madison was the guy who actually got it through the first Congress. The early years were interesting, but this book rather quickly turned into a rather bewildering discussion of the ins and outs of trade with Europe and the problems that led up to the War of 1812--which sounded like a totally forgettable incident in American history. Madison was by and large an untalented president--his greatest achievements were complete by the time he was 30--the Bill of Rights and, before then, the Federalist Papers. Maybe the book went downhill with the career of its subject, but I thought the writing could have been a lot clearer and a few sentences of background information each time a new subject was introduced would have helped this book alot.

not like Jefferson & Hamilton or celebrated like Washington & Franklin. My fellow reviewers seemed disappointed in this as a biography. But it was not Mr. Rutland's goal to write a personal story of Mr. Madison's life although his later years were covered quite well. I am glad however, I took the easy way out by listening to the audio version (unedited). As if I was in Mr. Rutland's class as he was giving a lecture. The years after The Revolutionary War, The Federalist Papers, The Constitution & The Bill of Rights, are the real meat of this book. Madison's behind the scenes leadership in Congress was consummate. If we do not appreciate how important he was 200 years later, it seems that he contemporaries did. To his sorrow he was, with Jefferson, responsible for creating the two party system we now operate under. That he wanted to heed Washington's advice against the party system is evident. But he found this advice quickly outdated. As a result Washington, & to a lesser extent Adams were the only unaffiliated presidents in our history. Happily, none of this two-party stuff is cluttering up our Consititution. As Secretary of State under Jefferson & President on his own he was unremarkable. Any one could have mucked things up as well as he did. Indeed his best years were his early years. What seemed to me remarkable was the love, respect & friendship that existed between Madison & Jefferson all of their adult lives. It was an alliance of two great men that never wavered & recreated the "republican" type government of ancient Greece. Mr Rutland was obviously impressed by this relationship & alludes to it several times. I appreciate biographies that teach me something about history I didn't know. How great is this book? Hard to say. But it fit the bill.