"West Virginia" is a fast reading introduction to the history of the Mountain State. Beginning with a brief section on the region from Revolutionary times, the book quickly moves on to the Civil War era which gave birth to West Virginia statehood.

The Unionist sentiment in the Western part of Virginia resulted, in 1863, in the only case of succession of a portion of one state from another in American history. The Civil War in West Virginia is portrayed both in its military and political aspects.

Williams tells the story of the evolution of West Virginia from the political, economic and social perspectives. The fabled Hatfield-MCcoy feud is given ample attention, as is the Hatfield who served his state as governor and United States Senator.

In a state with an undistinguished political history, Williams introduces the reader to a series of governors, senators and political bosses who struggled with absentee landowners, rail and coal concerns and labor leaders to lead West Virginia through the 19th and 20th centuries.

The story of West Virginia is a story of hope and despair, promise and danger, fulfillment and disappointment. Through it all Williams presents its story as a drama, partly heroic and partly tragic. Not a partisan Mountaineer booster, Williams tells the good with the bad. For anyone wishing to know the history of our country, state by state, this book fills in one piece of the American mosaic in a most pleasant fashion.

A reviewer below states that Shakespeare's literary value is unquestioned. This is patent nonsense. Every year, untold numbers of people (students, etc.) are forced to read him by trained teachers and they still end up questioning his value. Let's examine the Shakespeare cult:
1) Any author who needs an interpreter, explainer, or support from the educational system to keep readers is simply not a vital author. If Shakespeare was a vital author, people would love him without the brainwashing and spoonfeeding of a vast educational system that insists on teaching these tired plays year after year because everyone has done so year after year.
2) Silly romances and boring dramas driven by improbable plots and vulgar jokes are not great literature. These plays are the work of a man who spent far too much time on scandal and trivial junk to be taken seriously.
3) The Shakespeare nuts want it both ways and they can't have it either way. On the one hand, they insist that Shakespeare be regarded with the reverence one would give to holy scripture. No one must dare question its greatness, truthfulness, or entertainment value. If you do so, you will be attacked as a philistine. On the other hand, when people believe this nonsense and stay away from Shakespeare because they do not want to be bored, the cultists insist that we are taking it too seriously and that Shakespeare is simply great theatre (when it is nothing of the sort) which can be enjoyed with as much gusto as a rock concert or a stand up comedy act (which is a lie).
4) Any book that needs a glossary for the reader in order to be understandable must either be abandoned as dated or translated into modern English. The Shakespeare nuts wouldn't insist that anyone read Beowulf in Old English or argue that its Old English language is so beautiful that we all must learn what is now a foreign language to us but they do this when it comes to Shakespeare. This is beyond irrational. Imagine being forced to read a viking saga in Old Norse with only a glossary to assist you because the professor happens to love the cadences of Old Norse. This is no different from the nuts who do the same with Shakespeare.
5) I judge literature on two, and only two, criterion: Is it intriguing? Is it entertaining? I don't give a fig about some academic telling me I need to read something because it is hitorically important. I doubt that Shakespeare's audience paid to see his plays because they had historical importance and neither will I. Alas, what was entertaining even twenty years ago seems dated and boring today, nevermind what may have been entertaining hundreds of years ago. Old jokes lose their punch, old romances become foolish and insipid with time, old dramas about historical figures become irrelevant and sleep inducing, old concerns no longer concern us. Shakespeare is dated, unfunny, boring.
And no amount of forcing the issue will change that. Free Shakespeare from the support of the educational system and watch him become forgotten as quickly as last years fashions. And I say, "good riddance" to an author who should have been relegated to the trash heap at least a century ago.

The very idea of reviewing or giving stars to Shakespeare in this format is superfluous: he is the epitome of English literature. The source and inspiration for many subsequent classics, the well from which many popular expressions have sprung, the basis for many brilliant (and not-so-brilliant) stage and film renditions of these classics -- Shakespeare's literary greatness lies universally ackwnoledged and unquestioned. In reviewing any edition of the man's works, then, the reviewer's task is not to comment upon the work itself, but the presentation. This Gramercy edition of The Complete Works (yes, that's all 37 plays -- comedies, histories, and tragedies -- as well as all of the poems, sonnets included) is the most popular and widely-available -- and inexpensive -- version available. Is it the best? Well, no. Other reviews of this edition have commented upon its shortcomings -- extremely small print; very tight and hard-to-read layout; no margins for notes; no footnotes or annotations; no background information on the plays; errors, typos, and generally questionable editing. That said, this edition may have what you're looking for. It does indeed contain the complete works; it also has a few other small incentives: a hard cover that looks great on a bookshelf, a built-in bookmarker, and various illustrations. Clearly, this is not an omnibus for the Shakespeare scholar. If you want an edition of the bard for in-depth study or for academic use, you are better off buying more expansive editions of the individual plays themselves, with plenty of background info, notes, annotations, and space for your own writing; or else one of the more expensive editions of the Complete Works. That said, if you are just looking for a Shakespeare book that has all of his works in one place, that is convenient and, above all, inexpensive -- or you just want a Shakespeare tome sitting on your dust-ridden bookshelf to impress friends -- then you could do worse than picking up this.

Few writers in history have been able to come close to matching Shakespeare's astounding flair for writing, and this volume is the perfect compliment to his talent. The engravings inside are beautiful, and the plays, even without their numbers and their footnotes, are still as incredible as they ever were. To those of you who say that Shakespeare is boring, you're not really understanding his work, or you are simply unable to appreciate anything this old. I highly recommend this particular edition

The semantics woven throughout Alexander's book will not be helpful for an individual who is lost and suffering, or newly sober and looking for insight. Instead, this is a book of arguments aimed at the community of people who have been in AA for a long time or are well established in the "recovery" community. Not seeing value of anonymity, Alexander sets up straw men and then shoots them down, misrepresenting (or perhaps not understanding) other traditions and steps of twelve-step recovery. Many who turn to this book looking for a way out will be mystified while finding no solace. For those, Alexander's piece may do more harm than good.

"The real definition of my alcoholism is that when I drink my life goes down the toilet. How about you?" This is the definition offered by Alexander, an explanation that scratches the surface. Equally disappointing is Alexander's lack of depth in the understanding of monotheism. Divinity is rejected as "capricious." Picking his way around steps, Alexander displays little or no insight into the program he would rewrite.

If you are interested in brief discussion of Alexander's version of twelve-step programs contrasted with Alexander's version of Buddhism this is the book for you. If you want to go to an unbiased source about modern Buddhism, read the beautiful writings of Thich Nhat Hahn instead. If you are desperate and looking for a way out of a deadly trap, skip Alexander's book for a couple of years and look elsewhere. This one's more about Alexander than you might find helpful.

...I was completely disappointed. Not only does William Alexander lack in providing any real substance for 'recovery' but there's an undertone that seems to say, 'hey, it's never your fault... Just get over it and forget about all the damage you've caused people because of your lack of control (drugs and alcohol). It's about not taking any responsibility and 'forgetting' what was done in the past. But one can't have any kind of future if they don't take responsibilities for their past. This book was confusing as he's slamming AA then complimenting them, going back and forth. This author is weak and doesn't even provide an email or way to contact him directly, he says, 'contact me thru my publisher...'.
So much for the help, Al. Worst self help book I ever read and wish I could return it. I've never said this about any book in the past. You can't really take anything away from this. It was a book written to make money primarily and that's sad for folks, like the friend I bought this book for who needs something much more tangible and with substance. Complete waste of time. Sorry.

A very special book, indeed. I found this book to be one of the best I've ever read on recovery. The author is an eloquent and honest writer, who creates a powerful and poetic guide for simple everyday recovery & living.

As an introductory book its fine but as a 'Most Complete' you want it to expand beyond basic examples into e.g. interaction between the cartridge types, practical implementation advice etc.

I'd have used the money back guarantee if there was one as I expected a bit more from it.

Does a reasonable job of covering Oracle Web Application Server 3.0, but the Oracle Press book is better.

This book does a good job of providing an overview of the architecture surrounding OAS 3.0, but certainly does not hold to its claim as "The Most Complete Reference." Its biggest shortfall is its lack of detail concerning Inter-Cartridge Exchange (ICX). It mentions this topic at least a few times, and explains the premise behind ICX, but doesn't provide any examples of how ICX is accomplished from a PL/SQL cartridge to a C cartridge, for example. A good book for people who are just learning about OAS and want an introduction and then some.

Pittenger's Daring and Suffering is an interesting but flawed tale of the Great Locomotive Chase by one of the Ohio soldiers who participated--and survived. He describes in fascinating detail the journey deep into the Confederacy, snatching the train, the subsequent pursuit, and the long ordeal in various jails and prisons. Particularly vivid is his telling of the sudden execution of seven of his fellow raiders, and the subsequent emotional shock of the survivors.

For modern readers, Pittenger's book has some flaws. The Union soldiers are, almost exclusively, brave, stoic warriors who endure hardship and death with manly fortitude. The Confederates, for the most part, are drunken, illiterate,cruel louts, the only good ones being those who secretly profess no interest in who wins the war. The portraits are so consistent that one suspects there is more of parody here than portrait. It must be kept in mind, also, that this book was published in 1863, shortly after Pittenger's release, so he did not have answers to some of the questions that come to mind as you read: why were some of the Raiders executed, and so abruptly, and not the others? Why was their exchange delayed for months after arrival in Richmond? Why were they so ill prepared (if his description is correct the planning and preparation for their mission was most casual by modern standards)?

Still, the book has some merit, particularly in the descriptions of prison life, and the monotony of diet and daily life faced by Civil War captives.

Daring and Suffering is the most easily accessible first hand account of Andrews Raid. While it is clearly biased toward the Union, it is understandable since it was written after Pittenger has spent almost a year in several Southern jails, including Libby Prision. Although Pittneger wrote endlessly about the raid, some of his later writings are worth looking at; such as Twenty-five Years After: A Supplement to Daring and Suffering; and the more definitive In Pursuit of The General: A History of the Civil War Railroad Raid. By the time he wrote In Pursuit he was able to give a more balanced and complete view of the events. The other participants also wrote about the raid, but they are mostly in the form of newspaper articles. Scholars since Pittenger have been busy researching the raid, with notable authors including Parlee Grose, Joe Head, Wilbur Kurtz and several authors listed in Amazon.com. This fascinating event in the countries history has been the topic of three movies, and many intersting books - including this one.

Very interesting and moving adventure story. Great job by digital scanning on creating the cd rom. A must have for those interested in the development of our country.

I would not buy this book. [...]It is very much out of date and appears to be a textbook for a first semester electronics course. Even if I had read this book 10 years ago I would not be happy. It does not mention surface mount devices (they were in use at time of publication in 1986) and goes on at length about very simple subjects like drilling a holes in circuit boards. Don?t waste your money. Amazon has much better books in stock.

This book is in need of major updates in almost every way. I would not recommend this book to anyone who has had more that a year or two of experience in the electronics lab environment.

I believe this book is dated although it does have some interesting ideals

Chris Stevens might know a lot about the Alexander technique, but you'll have a hard time gleaning anything from this book!

Chris Stevens has put together a clear, straightforward, non-'New Agey' introduction to the Alexander Technique. The ONLY introductory book of comparable value is Michael Gelb's 'Body Learning.'

Some readers may be frustrated that the book does not follow the usual self-help, do-it-yourself formulas. This is inevitable, as the Alexander Technique has no place in those categories.

i haven't read the book itself, but i have read excerpts in a book on different people in history, and tarn's writings are extremely complicated.

Tarn hits all the high points of Alexander's career, and manages to include many relevant details. Unfortunately, he struggles so mightily to keep his text brief that it becomes somewhat unclear at times. Tarn is actually at his best when he steps back from his narrative for a moment to make a more general observation; for example, when he remarks that ancient writers' adulation of Alexander's good treatment of Darius's kinswomen reflects not so much upon Alexander's kindliness but upon what he was expected to do...

This book (which I have not read) is purported on this webiste and elsewhere to be a collaborative effort between Dumas and Williams or at least a Williams adaptation of a Dumas play. It is actually believed by many others to be the sole work of Williams and of inferior quality to anything penned by Dumas.

A must read for any book fan worth his salt... a masterful book.... I loved it tremndously......
The story is about , as most of you will know , D'Artagnan , who comes from the district of Gascon to the city to become a musketeer and his adventures with the new friends he makes from the King's musketeers.......

I recommend this book to everyone......

My only complaint about this play is that Shakespeare should have had some dialogues where the characters discussed crucial history before the play opens. Gloucester (murdered or dead before the play but mentioned several times) had tried to usurp Richard's crown too many times. History itself is not sure if Gloucester died or was murdered. Bolingbroke for a while conspired with Gloucester and now sees another oppurtunity to usurp the crown.The virtuous John of Gaunt served Richard with honor and integrity and eventually moved parliament into arresting Gloucester for treason. This would of made John of Gaunt's rages all the more valid. Otherwise this play is outstanding! Richard shows himself to be capable of ruling at times, but gains our contempt when he seizes his the honorable John of Gaunt's wealth. John of Gaunt's final rage in 2.1 is a passage of immense rageful beauty. Also, Shakespeare moves us into strongly suspecting that Richard had Gloucester murdered. However, despite Richard's crime, Shakespeare masterfully reverses our feelings and moves us into having deep pity for Richard when he is deposed. The Bishop of Carlisle (Richard's true friend) provides some powerful passages of his own. I can not overestimate the grace in which Shakespeare increases our new won pity for Richard when Bolingbroke (Gaunt's rightful heir) regains his wealth and the death of Gloucester is left ambiguous. 5.1, when Richard sadly leaves his queen and can see that Henry IV and his followers will eventually divide is a scene of sorrowful beauty. 5.4 is chilling when Exton plots Richard's murder. 5.5 is chilling and captivating when Richard dies but manages to take two of the thugs down with him. The icing on the cake is that Bolingbroke (Henry IV) can only regret his actions and realize that he has gotten himself into a troublesome situation. But that will be covered in "1 Henry IV" and "2 Henry IV." We can easily argue that it is in "Richard II" where we see Shakespeare's mastery of the language at its finest.

The thing with Shakespeare histories is that almost no one reads them, as opposed to his tragedies and comedies. I don't know why that is. The histories that are read are either Henry V (largely due to Branagh's movie), Richard III (because the hunchback king is so over-the-top evil), or the gargantuan trilogy of Henry VI, with the nearly saintly king (at least by Part III) who much prefers contemplating religion and ethics to ruling and dealing with the cabals among his nobles.

So why read a relatively obscure history about a relatively obscure king? Aside from the obvious (it's Shakespeare, stupid), it is a wonderful piece of writing - intense, lyrical, and subtle. Richard II is morally ambiguous, initially an arrogant, callous figure who heeds no warnings against his behavior. Of course, his behavior, which includes seizing the property of nobles without regard for their heirs, leads to his downfall. Nothing in his character or behavior inspires his subjects so he has no passionate defenders when one of the wronged heirs leads a rebellion to depose Richard II. But Richard now becomes a much more sympathetic figure -especially in the scene where he confronts the usurper, Richard acknowledges his mistakes, but eloquently wonders what happens when the wronged subjects can depose the leader when they are wronged. What then of the monarchy, what then of England?

On top of the profound political musings, you get some extraordinarily lyrical Shakespeare (and that is truly extraordinary). Most well known may be the description of England that was used in the airline commercial a few years back... "This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, ..."

If you like Shakespeare and haven't read this play, you've missed a gem.

Richard II was incompetent, wastefully extravagant, overtaxed his nobles and peasants, ignored his senior advisors, and lavished dukedoms on his favorites. His rival, Henry of Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), was popular with the common man and undeservingly suffered banishment and loss of all his property. And yet two centuries later Elizabethans viewed the overthrow of Richard II as fundamentally wrong and ultimately responsible for 100 years of crisis and civil war. Queen Elizabeth's government even censored Shakespeare's play.

Shakespeare masterfully manipulates our feelings and attitude toward Richard II and Bolingbroke. We initially watch Richard II try to reconcile differences between two apparently loyal subjects each challenging the other's loyalty to the king. He seemingly reluctantly approves a trial by combat. But a month later, only minutes before combat begins, he banishes both form England. We begin to question Richard's motivation.

Richard's subsequent behavior, especially his illegal seizure of Bolingbroke's land and title, persuades us that his overthrow is justified. But as King Richard's position declines, a more kingly, more contemplative ruler emerges. He faces overthrow and eventual death with dignity and courage. Meanwhile we see Bolingbroke, now Henry IV, beset with unease, uncertainty, and eventually guilt for his action.

Shakespeare also leaves us in in a state of uncertainty. What is the role of a subject? What are the limits of passive obedience? How do we reconcile the overthrow of an incompetent ruler with the divine right of kings? Will Henry IV, his children, or England itself suffer retribution?

Richard II has elements of a tragedy, but is fundamentally a historical play. I was late coming to Shakespeare's English histories and despite my familiarity with many of his works I found myself somewhat disoriented. I did not appreciate the complex relationships between the aristocratic families, nor what had happened before. Fortunately I was rescued by Peter Saccio, the author of "Shakespeare's English Kings". Saccio's delightful book explores how Shakespeare's imagination and actual history are intertwined.

I hope you enjoy Richard II as much as I have. It is the gateway to Henry IV (Parts 1 and 2) and Henry V, all exceptional plays.