The photos are quite poor - usually grainy, a bit out of focus, sort of amateurish...that is my main complaint. This is also a thin book - not a lot of information for the price. Considering the lack of information on the subject, though, it might be worth buying if you are interested in the Taos people and pueblo.

When Frank Waters published his novel *The Man Who Killed the Deer* in 1942, he brought the plight of the Taos Indians to the attention of the American public. A recurring theme of the novel, like a drumbeat through all of its pages, is Taos Pueblo's concern with the return of their sacred Blue Lake, which was taken away from them, without recompense, by the U.S. government in 1906.

Taos Pueblo, nestled in the foothills of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains of Northern New Mexico, is the oldest continually occupied pueblo in North America, reputed to have been the refuge of the ancient Anasazi who fled a drought in the 13th Century. This lake is the site of emergence in the Taos religion.

In 1906, Teddy Roosevelt established the Carson National Forest, taking the 50,000 acres of Taos land, the watershed of the Rio Lucero and Rio Pueblo that runs through Taos Pueblo as government land. The Taos Indians waived their right to the town of Taos and surrounding areas, asking only for the return of their sacred lake. They refused money for it. Instead, the U.S. Forest Service cut roads into the area, made it available to campers and tourists, built cabins and corrals, allowed fishing in the sacred lake itself, allowed grazing of herd animals into the area, allowed illegal clear cutting of some 2,000 acres of timber, and threatened to mine the area immediately adjoining Blue Lake. To the Indians, this was comparable to developers taking over the Washington Cathedral and turning it into a strip mall or a camping site.

The Pueblo had formidable opponents - the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Federal Budget Committee, the BIA, and New Mexico Senator Clinton P. Anderson, who at first persuaded the Indians that he was on their side. But white man spoke with forked tongue and viciously opposed the bill to give back the land that Taos Indians had held since time immemorial. He refused to believe that these Native Americans didn't want to exploit their own land (as all true-blooded Americans do), with timbering grazing and mining. He had an underground deal with a mill owner who had already illegally clear cut a huge chunk of it.

In 1921, using the Religious Crimes Act as its chief weapon, the U.S. government made the practice of Indian religious ceremonies a punishable offense. Government officials invaded the Tribal Council, stole and destroyed religious objects in their kivas and had the old Indian elders arrested and put in jail in Santa Fe. In other words, everyone in America had religious freedom except for its oldest inhabitants - the Indians.

But the Pueblo people also had formidable friends throughout the 64 years of their struggle - writers and artists of Taos such as Mabel Dodge Luhan, Olivar La Farge, Frank Waters - and into the '50s and '60s when politicos got into the fray - Interior Secretary of the Interior under Johnson, Stuart Udall, his brother, Morris Udall, Senator from Arizona, Senators Edward and Robert Kennedy, Barry Goldwater, Corrine Locker (secretary to Oliver La Farge) and many others including hippies all over the country who took up the cause of Native Americans as their own. The struggle for Blue Lake made strange bedfellows indeed.

Taos Pueblo Indians flew on an airplane for the first itme in their lives to Washington to attend hearings before the Senate Subcommittee. Several times. But the culmination of the hearings happened when Nixon was President and the venerated 93-year-old Cacique, the spiritual leader of Taos Pueblo, Juan de Jesus Romero, spoke to Congress so movingly and with such spiritual presence (bringing his three canes of office from the King of Spain, President Abraham Lincoln and President Nixon with him) that Washington was stunned, and on December 15, 1970, Bill HR 471 was signed by Nixon into Law and Taos Pueblo got back 48,000 acres of their sacred space including their beloved Blue Lake.

This book is tedious at times, only because the whole process of American justice is tedious, agonizing and incredibly difficult. The Pueblo went into great debt to pay legal fees. But it is a story of victory. I don't know whether Nixon did other good services for the American people, but this is certainly the best thing he ever did. And he had both bipartisan opposition and bipartisan support for this amazing action. It has set a precedent for self-determination (not assimilation) for Native American peoples throughout the country.

This is not a coffee table book with glossy pictorials but a chronicle of the complete story of Blue Lake, replete with historical photographs of the area and the people who were involved in the struggle. If you're not at all interested in this period of our history as a nation, this work will bore you and you won't bother to read it. But if you are interested in the whole scoop about the return of Blue Lake, the last chapters, especially, will leave you mesmerized - and hopeful. Hopeful about American justice and the future of our society.

In a tiresome rehash of most of the ideas of his previous book, Summers tries to present his version of psychoanalytic psychotherapy from an object relations perspective. Unfortunately, he misses the mark on several counts. First, there is very little original thinking in this text. As with his prior book, what we get is a synthetic rehash of other's ideas. Nothing new is added that is creative, incisive or evocative. Second, he fails entirely to cover any of the empirical literature on psychodynamic psychotherapy, which is more critical and skeptical, and ultimately helpful. He fails to cover Hans Strupp's work, he completely passes over the work of the Mt. Zion group on process research (e.g. Sampson , et al) and he fails in general as a clinical psychologist to advance the notion that close research into the process/outcome dimensions of psychodynamic psychotherapy is needed. Otherwise, what you will continue to get are more books like Summers', where the author simply regurgitates old theorist's ideas, or speaks from their own slanted clinical experience, then generalizes to all patients and psychopathology! (Although in Summer's defense, Freud did the same, but this was 100 years ago without the benefit of the research, history, and tools that Summers would have available. Of course, Freud also had an infinitely richer grasp of history, culture, etc., which would make his generalizations more compelling).

This is a great book for practicing therapists interested in curent psychoanalytic theory. It is well written, clear, readable and includes numerous case examples to illustrate key points. The focus is on clarifying the differences between ego psychology, self psychology, and relational theories and proposing a neo-Winnicottian model that attempts to integrate and build on the best aspects of these. As a practicing psychologist in private practice (who is fairly well read in psychoanalytic theory) I found the book helpful both in terms of its comparisons of other models and its original contributions, especially the concepts of the buried authentic self, of the analyst's vision of what the patient can become, and the idea that focusing on these can help narcissistic patients tolerate defense interpretations with less injury. The descriptions of work with more severely disturbed, difficult or fragile patients were also particularly impressive and useful. I occasionally disagreed with some of the author's characterizations of the other models he compares, especially self psychology, but found this a minor factor in light of the strengths of the book. Overall it has helped me in my work with patients.

Blackjack is a game that is easy to understand and nearly impossible to master. It is also a game that is largely influenced by how people play. The odds will vary depending on compliance with basic strategy. For a new player, the basic strategy chart will be useful, as may the description of gameplay. But the suggested betting strategies and card counting techniques are nothing but snake-oil! I'd recommend Andy Glazier's works over this book to experienced as well as inexperiened players.

Thomason's book is very good. Novice blackjack players will find it informative and very helpful. I did.

I found that Morena has mislead her readers into thinking that this is a book about OZ; especially since she is a relative of the creator. But it really talks about her interest in play/sandbox therapy. I am not interested in that so I felt disappointed with the book.

I am forever a student. In this book Gita relates the world of Oz to the field of psychology, something I have never seen. Exploring her family heritage she gives ample backround in explianing that we are all traveling in our own yellow brick road. Truly exceptional, Gita has a way with words. This is definatly a book for the eager to learn and open-minded. If you are such, it is a must read...

Larry Kramer won an Oscar for his screenplay in WOMEN IN LOVE, and has received quite a bit of attention for his political dramas. Sadly, they're not very good. WOMEN IN LOVE still reads as campy and overbaked, and the dramas seem shrill and uninteresting. In an essay on his much-lambasted satire JUST SAY NO, Kramer vigorously champions what he sees as the play's genius (he favorably compares himself to Aristophanes!), and though he rightly scores points against the prissier critics who deplored the play's lack of good taste he fails to consider that the play was (and remains) obvious and unfunny.

Kramer is an inspired political writer, and though you may disagree with him his essays are always worth reading if you care about gay identity. But he is a weak and obvious playwright and screenwriter.

"Women In Love" ranks among the finest films from an unrivaled era in screen history. "Faggots" was and remains a seminal American novel, and "The Normal Heart" one of the best and most produced American plays of the twentieth century. This book charts for lovers of great writing exactly how Kramer forged himself into a literary triple threat. It's easy to be distracted by his formidable civic achievements and confrontational public persona, but as an artist and living writer of fiction he ranks among the grand masters. This book is a treasure.

Let me start by saying I am a huge fan of Arnie and own most of his movies. Okay, Arnold is not the greatest actor to ever grace the screen, but he usually makes great, suspend-disbelief-and-they-are-entertaining movies. Gabriel Byrne is a great actor and usually appears in good movies. Kevin Pollack plays a side-kick as well as anyone and is good comic relief. Between the three of them, you would have hoped that one of them would have read this script and said, "Oh My God, this story is REALLY BAD!"

The plot of this movie is predictable and so full of logical holes that it makes one wonder if anyone actually wrote it or if they just started filming a bunch of "cool" action and occult scenes and thought putting it all together would make a good movie. The Devil is alternately brilliant and stupid. Arnold somehow manages to outsmart the Prince of Darkness and the New York Police Department, despite being an alcoholic burn-out. And, after watching this movie I am still confused as to who Arnold and Kevin actually work for. As for the number of the beast being 999 instead of 666 and that being why Satan has to mate in 1999, I am still confused as to what happened in the year 999. Wouldn't that have been the end of the thousand years they kept babling about in this movie? Did the Devil run into an ancient version of Arnold and get his butt kicked then, too? And if so, why didn't he learn?

In addition to the cast already mentioned, this movie also has other good actors who should have known better. Robin Tunney (great in "The Craft"), Rod Stieger ("On the Waterfront"), Anthony Fultz ("For Love of the Game") and CCH Pounder ("Face Off") are all wasted in this suprisingly bad movie.

Don't get me wrong. I can suspend disbelief with the best of them, and I know movies are supposed to be entertainment and not reality. But, at some level, the movie must make sense and fill in the blanks. This movie seems to be just a vehicle for Arnold to kick Satan's ass. That is not a good enough reason to see this film.

If you are a true Arnie fan, you will see this anyway, despite the flaws (I did). But, it is not up to his usual quality, and is best rented first, before bought. Caveat emptor.

The Exorcist, The Omen, Rosemary's Baby, Stigmata, - stories of devils and demons are as old as man, and often a common theme in Hollywood. In the "End of Days" we are treating to another story of Hell on Earth, this time the devil is here searching for his unwilling and reluctant wife. If he finds her, it will be "The End of Days."

As opposed to most "Devil Movies," this one is at least one half action film. I guess, with Arnold in the credits, that was to be expected. And to give this movie its due, it looks good. The special effects and the action sequences are great. If that is what you are expecting or want, you should enjoy this film. If you thought or hoped this film was scary, it really is not. Who would be scarred with Arnold there to protect them?

There are also some interesting ethical questions thrown in. Would you kill one innocent person, to save millions? Most people would say yes. The hero in this movie says no, but he doesn't believe in the devil anyway. The Pope, who knows what she is, also says no. Who is being more heroic? The Pope or the misguided hero?

Well, they both have their roles to play in this film. "The End of Days" is a good film with some good performances from the supporting cast. I liked the Devil, played by Gabriel Byrne. There is also a good performance by an actress who plays a police detective also searching for the truth.

Irrespective of where you are, I have the funny feeling that this film is made fun of or ridiculed by the general public & the critics. One thing about critics is they are paid to criticise movies. For that simple reason, I watched the movie anyway. Arnie just got better with age. Even though there's still an element of accent in his command of English, his acting ability is improving comparing with his Conan the Barbarian day. A lot of people are mocking fun of the story line but why should we take a movie that seriously? Isn't that the purpose of going to movie is to escape from reality? In terms of entertainment factor, it's superb with plenty of actions & sarcastic jokes. Arnie gave us a superb performance & so does Gabriel Bryne (a very different role from his other movie touching on spirituality, Stigmata). Well, credit also have to be given to Peter Hyams, the action director who had also directed Van Damme in TimeCop. Highly recommended especially for Arnie's fan.

Is Grisham performing some act of penance by writing this book? Did he somehow wrong some poor person in his past life as a real lawyer, and the only way to gain absolution is to make us suffer as well? Is he feeling remorseful for making so much money off the back of the poor (well, poor readers at least)? This book makes you wonder.

Welcome to Grish--er, Michael Brock's Washington D.C., where the rich are filthy rich, the middle classes are oppressed by the student loans they picked up while going to Ivy League schools, and the proletar--er, poor, destitute, and homeless are just victims of society, especially that right-wing Republican society that runs D.C.'s government. In Grisham's book the diologue is pseudo-gritty; the streets are pseudo mean; the jails are pseudo-tough. This is fitting because Grisham has written a pseudo-novel, a moist-eyed mishmash of accusations, whining, and fingerpointing thrown together with a three-quarters-baked plot. It is, in short, the creation of a guilt-ridden Southern liberal who probably thought that slumming with a real poverty lawyer for a week entitled him to tell the rest of us all there is to know about Life On The Streets, and how everyone is responsible for those who are not.

I'm not giving this book a lower score, however, because the plot *does* move right along, in between the preaching, and unlike "The Chamber," this book wasn't 100 pages too long. Brevity is appreciated in any sermon.

I understand those who criticize Mr. Grisham's liberal rants in this book. More than any of his books, this one can be viewed as a simple platform for him to voice his liberal political viewpoints. As a Republican, I disagree with the majority of his views and the views of his main character in this book (which does not in any way make me less than compassionate for the plight of homeless people, I just disagree about the best way to help them - I'd rather teach them to fish than simply feed them a fish). However, having said that, let me say that the reason I read John Grisham is due to the fact that his stories are both fun and easy to read. As a person who grew up reading primarily fantasy/science fiction, I was romanced away to other types of books by 3 authors. Tom Clancy, Michael Crichton, and John Grisham. Of these 3, Mr. Grisham is perhaps my favorite because his stories are always fast-paced, very interesting (whether you're a fan of the courtroom drama or not), and always make for light reading when on an airplane, sitting on the beach, etc.

In this book, I'll admit that what the other reviewers say is true. The story is a bit thin, and the plot seems a bit contrived. A homeless man holds a law firm hostage, and the main character (being one of those lawyers) finds out that the homeless man had a legitimate complaint with his law firm, since the firm had evicted him from his housing illegally. True to John Grisham novels, the big corporation is the bad guy and is involved in illegal doings to get what they want. This time, the homeless population is the victim and it's John Grisham to the rescue.

While Mr. Grisham takes time to voice his liberal viewpoints through the eyes and voices of his characters, he doesn't forget one very important thing. And that is to make his novels interesting. Regardless of his political views, his stories are compelling. I honestly believe if John Grisham wanted to write a novel about a group of aging women getting together each week to make quilts, he could do it in a compelling manner.

The bottom line is that if you can't enjoy reading this book without looking past his liberal views, then it's probably not the book for you. But if you can, as I did, ignore the liberal speeches in this book, I think you'll find it a fun, exciting read.

That is exactly what happens in this saga, yet another fantastic deliverance from bestseller John Grisham. This particular young lawyer, our protagonist, works for an extremely prestigious firm, living his life by hours billed, working nights, weekends, clawing desperately for an offer of partner in his firm and struggling mightily up that career ladder. Possessions, he dreams, a Lexus, a million dollar home, it will all make him happy - he is certain of it. But something rather tragic and magical happens one day that turns this money hungrey lawyer into someone who truly learns how to care. This one is yet another of Grisham's page turners. If you have enjoyed his other books, you'll put this one right next to them.

Ken Follett, who wrote the brilliant "Pillars of the Earth" and the excellent novels, "Key to Rebecca" and "The Eye of the Needle", has cranked out a quickie that misses badly, in my view. The basic idea is okay - a man wakes up, dressed like a bum, in Washington D.C., with no idea who he is or how he got there. Turns out he's actually a rocket scientist involved with the launch of the United States' first satellite. Unfortunately the story is filled with anachronisms (a Ford Fiesta in 1958 is one glaring one)and highly improbable plot devices. In one segment, a CIA agent fires several shots at our hero, in the dark, behind a large Washington hotel, then runs out and gathers up the spent bullets! However, the absolute worst, the point at which I felt like hurling the book against the wall, was the final chapter in which the moon landings took place. Follett has it happening on July 20, 1968! 1968! Is there anyone who doesn't know that the moon landings happened in 1969?? Is there an editor or fact checker working at this publishing house? Mr. Follett, I've been a fan of yours ever since "Key to Rebecca" but you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than "Code to Zero" to keep me. This book is a dud.

If you like Ken Follett's spy thrillers you won't be too disappointed. I loved his historical novels and just started in on these cold war stories. The thing that shocked me was the inattention to detail and almost consistent misrepresentation of historical facts. I felt like his historical books were great fiction set against solid research. Now I'll have to go back and check. In this book, he made small mistakes, like portraying Huntsville, AL in the Eastern time zone instead of Central. Maybe that helped the story since the action kept moving from Huntsville to Washington DC and Florida during the countdown. But he also had Neil Armstrong walking on the moon in 1968 instead of 1969. What was the point of that? So I went onto the web and looked up several items that he talked about in the foundation of the story. Turns out that Mr. Follett may have intentionally changed a bunch of things, but I never figured out the purpose of the misrepresentations. If you like his historical notes at the beginning of the chapter, don't believe them. Go to http://www.spaceline.org/rocketsum/juno-I.html to get a nice summary of the reality. Otherwise, the book is certainly worth the price. I couldn't put it down. It is just fiction, after all.

I had the opportunity to read Ken Follet's CODE TO ZERO last week. The tale of a man who wakes up in a Union Station restroom suffering from autobiographical amnesia is compelling The protagonist must find out, in short order, who he is, why he has lost his memory, who has done this to him and what are the consequences if he does not recover. The story is set in the late 50's as America attempts to put a satellite in space, countering the Russian-launched Sputnik. As he slowly discovers that he is Claude "Luke" Lucas, a rocket scientist of some fame and renown, he discovers that he is the victim of a plot to silence him. Why, however, he and the reader must discover as the novel races from place to place at race-car pace.

Ken Follett has long been a favorite author of mine, particularly for his book, PILLARS OF THE EARTH, which involved the construction of a magnificent Gothic cathedral in 12th century England. That book, epic in scale, intertwines various characters, kings, noblemen and noblewomen, clergy and peasants in a story of faith intrigue and power in the middle ages. This book, while considerably shorter in length, move quickly. I never lost interest! Indeed, I read the book in one sitting in about 4 hours which is most unusual for me. I would recommend the book highly to anyone who enjoys a good yarn.

I've read every Ludlum book multiple times. His mastery of the past of twisting plots and extremely interwoven details has gone by the wayside with Prometheus. Way too many "just happened to have" answers and overly simplified answers that lead to plain unbelievable consequences. I have considered Ludlum to be the absolute best at keeping details and plots with "no holes" and this book does nothing to compare to his previous works.

Ludlum has gone from writing his unique style books, to writing cheap James Bond type thriller types meant to please the mass public accustomed to TV paced adventures.

The true Ludlum fans can only hope he comes back to his own unique writing form in the future.

I bought this book to read on a transatlantic flight because I had read several Ludlum books earlier in my life and had thoroughly enjoyed them all but had then decided that I was "too old" for Ludlum books. I realized my mistake almost as soon as I started reading. Ludlum knows how to grab and keep a reader's intention throughout dozens of action scenes, one right after the next. He is also a clear writer and I was able to follow the story even as characters popped into and out of the book at dizzying speed and the plot went through twists and turns. With any other author, I would have needed a flowchart.

The plot, in a nutshell: a super American agent, Nick Bryson, for an ultra-secret spy agency is sent into retirement unwillingly after failing to carry out a mission. Several years later, the CIA show up at Bryson's door and tell him that he had unwittingly been working against America for all his years as an agent. It turns out that the super secret spy agency was a secret to the entire U.S. government, and was, in fact, working for the Soviet Union. The CIA sends him out to find out what his old bosses are up to now.

The plot twists and turns from there through global terrorism and corporate conspiracies, with Bryson surrounded by enemies almost all the time and putting his trust in friends that may soon become enemies.

The plot takes on new meaning after 9/11 because it involves the government (and in fact the whole world) taking away civil liberties because of terrorism. The cause of the terrorism in the book is certainly different from that in real life and the reaction of the governments has certain been more even-handed then the reaction in the books. But it does get us all to think about where the line should be between liberty and security. So, if you pick up a Ludlum book (like I did) believing that there would be no deeper issues to think about, you should probably choose a different Ludlum book. For me, this twist made the book a lot more interesting.

A few books ago I'd given up on Ludlum. He seemed to be going through the motions - he used terms sloppily, let too many plot points sit unresolved, and his story lines started blurring from one book to the next.

I'm glad I took some time off, because The Prometheus Deception was a very welcome surprise. Based on earlier Ludlum works (the Bourne trilogy, Holcroft Covenant, etc.), I knew to expect a first-rate espionage yarn. What worried me going in was his ability to handle such a complex technological plot line.

Fortunately for us, he gets it right. From the crypto details to the massive amounts of data collected about individuals, Ludlum manages to weave together threads of various current topics and turn them into a thoroughly enjoyable story. For someone who's been writing these novels for more than 30 years, Ludlum manages to make it sound contemporary - an impressive feat.

Other reviewers have correctly noted that Nick Bryson is a bit too good to be true. Between his incredible physical prowess (after a five year hiatus no less!) coupled with his skill at eluding impossibly difficult situations, he's presented as the uber-spy. The twists do pile up - making it difficult at times to remember who's working for whom.

Overall, however, I found the story to move along well once we got through the preliminaries. By the way, I listened to this on my Rio (downloaded from audible.com) and thought that the narration was exceptionally well-done. Every character's accent & inflection was used to great effect, making the story even more engaging to listen to. Considering its length (nearly 15 hours), that was indispensable.

If you enjoy complex spy thrillers and are interested in seeing where today's technology fits in, then the Prometheus Deception should satisfy. The ending also invites at least a slim possibility that this could turn into another "franchise" for Ludlum... I wouldn't be surprised to see Nick et al. show up in a future novel.

This book was supposed to break all the rules and make everyone geek out. This book was supposed to be the next step in comic book storytelling. This book was hyped to be maybe the best graphic novel of all time.

Do you know what we got instead?

A played-out plot about governmental conspiracy that has more to do with the DC universe than it has to do with Batman, followed by sloppy art with various sorts of digital colors thrown messily onto the pages.

What the hell????

Frank Miller's drawing style has evolved since his first big drawing gig on Daredevil. He started off a bit normal, then went to the Dark Knight grittiness and then to where he's at now -- cool black-and-white Sin City formula. The problem with his drawings in this book, however, is that he's using the Sin City formula instead of the Dark Knight style. And he's not even using the formula correctly; the art seems rushed (and it's not in black-and-white. Miller plays off the shadows in this book, but it's contradicted by the coloring).

Speaking of the coloring, it is perhaps the worst part about this book. Rather than using colors that make sense for a book, the colorist takes rather normal computerized colors -- a lot of them, at that -- and seems to just put them in various places on top of the artwork, hoping that it'll look good. Sometimes the colorist likes to make a design here and there, thinking that it'll be pretty.

It doesn't work. And it's not pretty.

Avoid this book, I'm begging you. Don't give DC more money for this "effort." This is an insult to their customers and to their fans. For making this book, Frank Miller and all involved should be ashamed of themselves. They've delivered awesome works before...but they just got lazy this time around. This gets two stars for the decent plot.

Just to let you know where I stand, I'm a former comics collector who tired of the excesses of the medium and its perpetual recycling of characters and storylines. However, I admired Frank Miller's "Dark Knight Returns" for its cinematic storytelling, sharp wit and unexpected vision of a world that no longer wanted superheroes. Set three years later, "The Dark Knight Strikes Again" presents this world in an even more nightmarish fashion that I found both intriguing and repellant. Here, a grotesque Lex Luthor has quietly siezed control of the presidency (for what ends, we're not yet sure), Superman plays his pliant pawn, and the exiled Batman decides he must upend this future society drunk on prosperity and a soft form of fascism. This first chapter begins as Batman and a band of Bat-themed revolutionaries free several imprisoned heroes. And as an old fan, I found Miller's reimaginings of stock DC characters fascinating. The Flash now is bitter and cynical. The Atom, long a third-tier character, is recast as a gutsy tough guy. And I was pleased that Miller allowed Superman to state a convincing case for siding with the despots (which still fit the character's more simplistic, utilitarian philosophy). What I found even bolder--and, in the end, most difficult to swallow--was Miller's deliberately crude drawing style. He no longer delineates characters as much as simply suggests them with scratchy etches and thick blotches of shadow, and pays only lip service to realistic perspective. At its best, this style brings a weighty and disquieting quality to the book that you rarely find in comics. I occasionally was reminded of Picasso's late-period pen-and-ink work. And it certainly is appropriate for capturing the corruption of this future world and the moral ambiguity of these characters. But I also found that this jarring style impeded the storytelling; I often had to puzzle over panels to figure out what I was looking at or how one image related to the next. (And I don't even know how to address Miller's apparent fetish with humungous shoes.) However, I have to admit that I want to pick up the next issue. To find any work in the superhero medium so original and deeply unsettling is, in the end, a compliment.

Admittedly, this book was too expensive, but I liked it, it was so much fun (PLASTIC MAN, etc.) despite some unanswered questions. I'm sure that the big orphanage home that genetically experimented on orphans was commentary on Batman's parenting of Robin, setting the stage for Robin's appearance (where he mentions being genetically altered), and that's why we don't hear the entire orphanage story, because we've just heard the crucial metaphor (it may feel like the story has gone on a tangent, but it didn't). When the orphans say 'they poked us, and touched us', it seems like a funny inside joke on the Batman/Robin 'relationship'. ... .

...

Miller has stated that this story is not how the DCU and Batman should end up, it was supposed to be a little more out of character, bleak, and realistic in areas (while still very fantastic-looking and acting). the realism isn't all darkness, it can be funny like in Watchmen. In my humble opinion, DK is about what would happen if Batman let the emotions that keep him fighting every night get the best of him... in an apocalyptic world of tomorrow. This book inspired a lot of thought for me about these classic characters and political differences, it makes me want to create something. I think it's had a greater positive effect on me than DK1, which told a great, though less complex story.