The Xanth series is on a downward spiral toward childishness. Kind of Sad, I loved Spell.

Some authors work on bulk. The problem is that once an author is established (s)he can write and write and no one seems to care if the writing turns to junk. Copper is a perfect example. The cliches are forced and painful. The writing isn't too bad, but there's nothing there to make a reader care. The characters have no depth, and the basis of the entire plot is unimaginative. The idea might have been interesting in book one (and I stess MIGHT HAVE) but by the third installment of the series, we really need something fresh and new. Not rehash. Anthony will continue to churn out 2-3 books per year. His name is firmly established and bookstores eat up big names. But until he sits down, thinks up a good idea and takes the time to pull it off, don't bother. Personally, I'd take my chances with a brand new author. You know a new author can't publish this kind of empty junk.

Piers Anthony is the best author ever! Only he could make his books in such an imaginative manner!

Appiah and Gutmann (A&G) want to arrive at the conclusion that America's blacks should be given plenty of quotas, preferences or at least pots of money; but they do not actually accept that blacks are a racial group having any special needs. Their book is replete with assurances that "the only human race in the USA....is the human race" (p. 32); that "I think there aren't [any races]" (p. 33); that there are no races at all (p. 117); and that race is a "dangerous fiction" (p. 176).

Despite generous page space, it is unclear just how A&G have decided on this self-denying ordinance that must forever cramp their style - especially since they have no reparations to propose for Amerindians. What is stopping A&G from estimating how many people are black and what actually are their characteristic problems? One might expect argument about the number of main racial groupings found in the USA -- even if the final answer has to be 'one' -- to proceed by considering expert definitions, by looking at empirical clustering, or by tracing lines of descent. More engagingly, authors like A&G might be expected to try to do battle with race realists like Phil Rushton (1995, 'Race, Evolution and Behavior') who claim it is convenient to identify three main racial groups (African, Asian, Caucasian) in the world as a whole and in America likewise.

Yet no such healthy process of argument and consideration ever begins in Colour Conscious. Simply, Rushton is not given a mention. Just as Harvard's top leftist, S. J. Gould, prefers to concentrate his critical fire on psychological positions of a century ago, so Appiah derives amusement from the concern with skin colour and 'White beauty' of the USA's "race theorist" and founding father, William Jefferson (e.g. 1781-2, 'Notes on the State of Virginia'). Apparently, anything is preferable to taking on Arthur Jensen's suggestion of the 1990's that 95% of people in the world can be conveniently said to belong to one of some six main groups (Whitney, 1999, American Renaissance, March). (Jensen was to be well supported by Chinese research which used 'microsatellites' [repeats of short DNA segments] to test human genetic variability and produced a picture of ten main types racial grouping and descent, merely recognizing more differentiation within Jensen's Oriental groups - Piazza, 1998, Nature, 15 October.) Even the geneticist Luca Cavalli-Sforza who works so hard to persuade the media that there are no races is mentioned by A&G only in a one-sentence footnote. Herrnstein and Murray's 'The Bell Curve' receives virtually the same neglectful treatment - with just a page from A&G deploring the "fuss" about the book and asserting there is "almost no evidence relevant to refuting the claim that the differences between American groups are entirely caused by the environment...."

Presumably there is a reason for A&G's avoidance of straight scholarly argument about race - and especially about the worldwide association between negritude and high rates of mental retardation, violent crime, illiteracy, promiscuity, single parenting and venereal disease. Avoidance of the sobering realities that might explain old-fashioned racism is plainly thought by A&G to be their safest course.

Amy Gutman argues that racial quotas are needed because of racial discrimination. There is some truth to this: for example, the Nixon administration invented quotas to fight blatant discrimination by craft unions in Philadelphia, and it's hard to imagine any other tactic working to end discrimination by unions devoted to enforcing anti-competitive, nepotistic hiring. Unfortunately, Gutman makes no attempt to distinguish anti-competitive organizations from competitive ones, which have economic incentives to not discriminate. In fact, I don't think Gutman is even aware of the distinction. She merely assumes that if blacks are under-represented anywhere, it's because of discrimination. Well, we've certainly heard that before, so what's the point of writing another book if you're just going to repeat the same old dogmas?

Appiah, on the other hand, is a more open and intriguing thinker. This may stem from the near-comic ironies of his position in life. He is a Professor of Afro-American Studies at Harvard, but he's not very Afro-American. He was born in Ghana of a local father and an English mother. He has spent a lot of his career arguing that "race" has no biological "essence," but is just a social construct.

It's not hard for him to knock down the absurd strawmen he sets up. He assumes that if there is no Platonic essence to each race, and that if each member of each race can't be perfectly identified, the whole concept of race must be discarded. Of course, reality is not Platonic, it's relativistic and probabilistic. It's humorously hypocritical for a relativist like Appiah to denounce the concept of race just because it's relativistic.

For example, all his criticisms of the concept of race apply with equal, if not greater, force to the concept of family. Nobody can agree on the precise numbers of races? Nobody can agree on the precise number of extended families either. Are some people descended from more than one race? Well, everybody is descended from more than one family. There's no single gene that proves you belong to one race or another? Well, there's no single gene that proves you are your father's child either. Paternity testers examine a host of genes in order to increase the probability of a correct attribution. (In fact, the exact same DNA techniques are used by forensic scientists to inform police of the probable race of criminal who left a bloodstain at the crime scene.)

Why does family provide so many perfect analogies for race? Because they aren't analogies: a race is an extremely extended family. There are no hard and fast borders between families and races -- the only qualitative difference is that races show a degree of endogamy (in-breeding), which means that races are actually somewhat more coherent and definite, and less fuzzy than families.

This is a terrific book. In clear and persuasive terms, Appiah begins the book by explaining how "race" is a fiction, but "racism" is a fact. This seeming paradox presents the difficult challenge that Gutmann then addresses in the second half of the book. On one hand, she recognizes that social justice seems to require that we not define people in terms of their so-called "race." On the other hand, she also shows how social justice demands that we eradicate racism, especially insofar as it affects people's civic life. This leads to the central problem of the book: If we don't take account of people's race, how can we respond to the social injustices stemming from racism?

Gutmann makes a powerful case why fairness demands that we be "color conscious," at least for some purposes and for the time-being. She also explains why class-consciousness cannot resolve the problems stemming from racism, nor can proportional representation based on race.

These conclusions may raise the hackles of those who believe that our country should be color-blind, but the arguments that lead there are carefully constructed, logical, and in the end, largely persuasive. Moreover, they are chock-full of concrete examples that drive home the theoretical points. Whether she is talking about the attributes of a successful program in affirmative action at AT&T or data on S.A.T. scores analyzed by both race and class, Gutmann makes a powerful case from which even honest critics will have much to learn.

Both Appiah's and Gutmann's arguments are nuanced, theoretically sophistocated, and informative. Moreover, they are a pleasure to read. Gutmann's essay, in particular, has an impressive style in that it uses concrete examples to illustrate her theoretical points, as well as solid theoretical arguments to illuminate thorny areas of public policy. Wilkins' introduction and Appiah's epilogue are also well-written and valuable. This book is important reading for all people interested in responding to racial injustice.

Anthony took a basically good Niven-ish novella he wrote years ago called "Ghost Galaxy" and larded it with the type of writing he has unfortunately become known for recently: anything goes, no ground rules plots that throw in everything but the kitchen sink.
Interesting experiment- pick up this book and read chapter 2, then flip back and read the last chapter. It's like two entirely different books.
If you'd like to read something by Anthony, try one of the early Incarnations series books.. the one featuring Death is outstanding.

OK, this is not the best Piers Anthony story in the world, It is reminiscent to the early pulp Science Fiction style (which I enjoy).

However, there is a message in this book which will be found as a more subtle theme in many of his later books. A message of exploring the basis of reality and how our perception of that reality can shape exactly what we define as real.

It is to me an exploration of the mind where Mr. Anthony takes a premise of "what if" and then creates a fictional world in which that premise is real and valid, then as the story develops we learn exactly how valid that premise really is.

I recommend this to hard core fans of Piers Anthony who wish to beter understand him and his writing. You will find this theme again in the Tarot series played out in a much better format.

This was the first of Anthony's books that I read. I found it to be interesting and give the push to read more of his books. It had a little of everything to it, the suspense, the romance, the adventure everything a Sci-Fi book should have.

This is an EXCELLENT, comprehensive book on solid state chemistry. However, the expense of this book is a joke. Save yourself the money, and check it out at a university library.

I couldn't consider the best book I've read about solid chemistry but it is complete for graduate students. The crystaline structure is well treated but it's poor in the quantum approach. My teacher loves this book as she was a student of Anthony West but I don't like it. I bought it 'cause I was robbed and I lost this book and now I need to get it back to the library.

Attending the University of Aberdeen from 1990-94, it was my pleasure to receive solid state chemistry lectures from the author, Professor West.

He was always very clear, concise, and helpful, if terribly busy.

The book was the magnum opus of the Inorganic Department, and was widely used throughout. It covers a very large range of topics, and is rather impressive for its clarity and breadth of information.

Despite the rather phenomenal expense, the book is well worth the price FOR THOSE involved in theoretical and practical applications of solid state chemistry. In my current work as a solid state research chemist, the book has proven an invaluable resource and without peer.

Highly recommended.

The first, fifty-five pages are given over to ubiquitous promises the author intends to make good in the last two-hundred-and-fifty pages, and doesn't. These promises allude to precursors of natural law in its many variegated forms, some of which are not really "natural law" principles at all. Most of the discussion is about how some contemporary Thomists and neo-Thomists have approached the issue, but the reader cannot follow the subtle nuances of this discussion without knowing the meaning of natural law at the outset. The exposition of a reconsidered natural law follows this meandering, often uninteresting, introduction. In another confusion, the author discusses the impact of Moore's naturalistic fallacy on natural law before he describes what Aquinas' "natural law" is. So, over a hundred pages are heuristically inverted, leaving the reader to ponder future promises and anticipate an argument before he knows even the meanings of the terms of the argument drawn. If I did not already possess knowledge of Aquinas' natural law theory, these pages would have been meaningless; as it is, I found the points they may have been trying to make arcane, discursive, and near solipsistic.

Lisska insists upon ten fundamental principles necessary to serve the function of adopting Aquinas' natural law theory. Four of these principles require we accept "essences," a medieval concept wholly foreign in modern philosophy. A fifth principle requires "truth" as a correspondence theory between mind and things (see, Searle, "Construction of Social Reality" for why this is no longer so). The other principles insist that (6) metaphysics of morals is possible, (7) that reason takes precedence over the affective will, &c. In other words, one has to adopt the medieval, which is to say the Aristotlean, metaphysical schema in order for a "modern reconstruction" of Aquinas' natural law to succeed. Lisska writes, "In Aquinas's ontology, the dispositional paradigm holds only for temporal essences" (87), and again, "Divine commands must be in accord with the rational demands of the eternal law" (ibid), but it is precisely those very preconditions that makes Aquinas' natural law inimical to contemporary philosophy in the first place. I don't "see" what Lisska means by an "analytical reconstruction." His writing is the most circumlocutious writing on Thomistic natural law as one can find; it would be better to assimilate it from the source: "Summa Theologica," I-II, q. 90-97, esp. q. 94.

Finally, by page 107, we attain Lisska's definition of the natural law: "Because the end itself determines the well-functioning of the human person. The disposition has, as a part of its very nature, a tendency towards a specific end. This end, when realized, contributes to the well-being of the individual. This is the crux of natural law theory. Nature has 'determined', as it were, the ends which lead to the well-being of the individuals of the natural kind." From this nexus, the rest is downhill, as Lisska then evaluates how different scholastic and neo-scholastic philosophers of this past century have adapted this explication into their working-definitions. It's a tremendous bore, not at all enlightening, and of relative useless speculation on its applicability today. If it weren't for Robert George's excellent work in the field, I would have tossed natural law theory out the window. The book is that bad.

I routinely buy from Oxford University Press based on their unparalleled quality of authors and editors. How this travesty passed its high editorial standards is deeply puzzling. I have highlighted only some of my disappointments with this book, but overall it is one of the worst books I've read in the field of theology, philosophy, or anthropology. My copy is for sale.

I really feel obliged to disagree with the panning review given above. I am a professional philosopher myself, and while I ultimately would reject natural law theory as a basis for ethics, for many of the problems with it which Lisska identifies and vainly struggles to overcome in his book, I was very impressed by the book itself. I think Lisska situates contemporary natural theory within the various debates over law and ethics over the last century, identifies the key "metaphysical" problem with the theory, namely, its reliance upon the concept of all humans sharing a common nature or essence, and puts forward a reasonable and hardly extravagent functional alternative to Aristotelian essences as a possible basis for furhter natural law theorizing.

No, I was not ulimtatley convinced by the book, but I was very impressed with its clarity and it sophistication. Unlike the other review, this is one of the few books on Aquinas which I would not part with. Someone with an interest in what makes Aquinas a perenially interesting philosopher should buy the other reviewer's copy--I already own one or I would!

This book gives a clear and detailed exposition of the author's aproach to orthodontic treatment. The triangular brackets he uses have been heavily promoted elsewhere and his system is claimed to give major reductions in treatment times. The book is particularly popular with general pracitioners who have been on short courses in orthodontics. Unfortunately there is little or no evidence to support the claims the author makes for his system and the triangular brackets have not been shown to achieve any substantial advantage. Many of the author's arguments are not valid and are misleading. The one good idea in the book is the use of 020x020 nickel titanium archwires for alignment. A mainstream orthodontic book would be a much better buy.

.... I can only state that the layout and information in the text is both well thought out and extremely helpful. This technique is becoming as standard and accepted as is both functional appliances and non-extraction treatment methods are currently. A well presented guide on how this technique is used and implemented currently.

Ok, I admit it. I went through a Piers Anthony phase. It is one of those things in my youth that I really regret. Part of the reason (though admittedly only a small reason) that I became disillusioned with this writer was because of this autobiography.

Piers Anthony defines a whole knew level for self-pity. He takes minor instances in his childhood, like when his parents let his sister use his tricycle, and makes them out to be traumatic events in his life. He then goes on to talk about his adolescence. Look Piers, its too bad that you were slow to develop, and that you had a problem with bed wetting, but my man, many people have had it a lot worse.

Anyone who reads this novel will come to realize how egotistical Anthony is. They will learn how sensitive he is to minor criticism, how he thinks the world of himself for being a vegetarian.

Oh well, if you are actually considering buying this novel you have obviously been bitten by the Anthony bug and there is very little I can do for you. But, when you too are one day tired with the high-master of hack, don't say no one ever warned you.

The life of a writer is not as boreing as we have thought. In his autobiography "Bio of an Ogre" Piers Anthony puts his own special twist and spin on things. By writing his own story he managed to get the whole story out in a style unique only to him. He depicts his story starting with his first memories, and finally ending just after his fiftieth year. He tells how his family moved from place to place untill he finally moved to America and started writing. Of course his works got rejected time and again untill his first publication and his first love. From then on he explains his stories and the stories behind them. Including Xanth, the Adept series, and Bio of a Space Tyrant. Along with many other works he has become one of the number one best sellers in America and in Europe. So if you enjoy Piers Anthony or are looking for something different then try Bio of an Ogre I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

This book is a collection of old pictures and drawings related (mostly) to the Boston harbor islands, with some text (mainly captions). It's obvious to me that the author has no first-hand familiarity with the harbor, nor has he edited his book with any care. In addition, many of the pictures are quite fuzzy. If it were possible to award no stars to this book, I would. (Review written by a sailor who spends as much time as possible in and around the Boston Harbor islands.)

Example: Page 6 shows a portion of a 1732 chart of Boston Harbor labelled (on the chart) "A new and accurate chart of (Boston Harbor)". This chart is actually quite interesting, showing names of the harbor islands which differ in several instances from those used today. Unfortunately, when the author on page 24 lists (without qualification) "The Islands of Boston Harbor", he uses the 1732 names. No current chart or map of the islands will show "Apthorp's Island", nor "Half Moon" nor "Egg", nor does the author ever explain why they are listed.

Previously, on page 8, the author had discussed the disappearance of some islands shown on the 1732 chart. Some were filled over to create Logan Airport. These include Apple, Governors, and Bird, not, as he states, "Apple, Winthrop, and Bird". Winthrop never was an island and is still a thriving town, close to the airport but certainly not under it.

On page 35, he repeats as fact the fanciful story that the erosion of Nixes Mate island was foretold by a man (Nix's mate) who was hanged for a crime he didn't commit. As far as I know, no research has ever validated this story. On page 41, he shows a picture of a monument marking the site of Nixes Mate, now a dangerous rocky sandbar. His caption describes the current marker, a black and white pyramid, but his picture shows, without explanation, an earlier, unstriped pyramid. For some reason, the material on Nixes Mate is included in the "Boston Light" chapter, although it is miles away. The intervening islands, Gallops and Lovells, are not covered, nor are Peddocks, Bumpkin, and Grape, all of which have colorful histories.

Chapter Four is devoted to Minot's Light, including a picture of a swimmer diving "into Boston Harbor from Minot's Ledge Lighthouse". This would be quite a trick, since Minot's Light is located off the town of Cohasset, seven miles from the nearest entrance to Boston Harbor!

On page 80, we learn that Thompson's Island was "Named for David Thompson, who acquired the island in 1626"; on the next page, that "the island was named for David Thompson, who was deeded the island from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1622."

The Boston Harbor Islands, now included in Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area, have interesting, well-documented histories. Perhaps someday someone will publish an accurate, and comprehensive picture history book covering them. This book is not it.

I thought that Boston's Harbor Islands was very insightful. It has beutiful pictures of the islands and tells a few great tales. Don't let others opinions sway you into not buying this great book. Who cares if a caption on page 32 is wrong. It just prooves there are people who have too much time on their hands and that you can't make everyone happy

I opened this book with high hopes, being a huge fan of Tony Perkins, and was disappointed to find it consists largely of flippant remarks/opinions by its author rather than any serious probing or insight into this remarkable theatrical family. As a listing of career moments, it is fine, but as a biography or anything deeper than a roster, it is very thin. Some of the so-called chapters are merely one paragraph long, in which the author says she could not come up with any info.

This is basically a textbook, quite dry and academic, except for the author's occasional slips of mild witticism which occasionally make up an entire chapter (usually when she was unable to come up with any hard information). I found this admirable for its obvious effort, but ultimately unsatisfying as it offers little to no insight into either Perkins personally, and has a funny tone of proprietariness and prudishness. Also, why the high price? Not worth it. Stick with the biography.

Laura Kay Palmer's book was a treat and is a treat to any Anthony Perkins fan. She covers absolutely every bit of work Tony ever did and thankfully exposes what a gifted and brilliant actor/director/screenwriter/singer he was and always will be. It helps considerably that she knows whereof she speaks. Her reviews of his music and film and television work,(that which was available), are incisive, intelligent and unbiased, contrary to what one might expect from a fan of his work. When she likes a film that was poorly received by critics and public alike, she supports herself very well and backs up her competent criticism with elements of the work in question that failed to dawn on critics of that time. She also speaks out heartily against the "post-Psycho revisionism" that almost completely destroyed any respect he had as an actor up to this point. She also conjures up quite an impressive bibliography, which is worth reading by itself. Pick this up instead of Charles Winecoff's SPLIT IMAGE.

I totally agree... this book is full of factual errors, including stating that Murphy Brown singlehandedly brought down Dan Quayle. The editor of this book should bone up on grammer, fact-checking, etc. I found it very distressing that many women, from Queen Isabella to Belle Starr were treated with a giddy adulation that did not include the whole woman. I am very much a feminist and have enjoyed the other books from Conari Press and thought all of their products would be as high quality.

This book is filled with inaccurate information, typos, and incorrect grammar. Not to be used as a reference. I could have written this book myself. The parts I didn't know, I could have simply made up, which is what the author appears to have done. Book also contains a small paragraph on Wonder Woman who is historically the most famous and continuously published superheroine of all time. Do your research. Note to author: double check your facts or don't even bother.

This book is an inspiration for any woman that thinks she can't do it. Every woman in this book proves that every woman can do whatever she wants - and do it well.