While not on par with 'Watchmen', 'Dark Knight' or 'Inhumans', I recommned it as nearly as essential as Alex Ross' 'Marvels' to true-believing Marvel fans.

Some missions in the game are not even talked about in the book, and to my frustration, some of those not in the book were some of the hardest missions I played. Most, after time, you will be able to solve. However, you occasionally will need a little help. I was not happy to discover that this book left out a mission here and a mission there.

It does not talk about in-depth strategies to the game either. It is a surface-scratcher, and superficial at that. While it does have its redeeming qualities (it IS a strategy book, so it isn't all that useless), there are probably websites out there that would probably be a little more helpful than this book was.

However, since the manual was published, Interplay got around to releasing the Hydran campaign special missions; those, obviously, aren't in the book. Not a knock, just something the buyer should know. Conspicuously absent is a section on how to fight against and with each nationality; such sections exist for the different weapons, but not for the entire nationality. (For example, a discussion of anti-expanding sphere tactics, or how best to avoid ever letting a Hydran get a close range shot at you.) While there's a listing of all the ships, nothing is said about their unique qualities (for example, the old Federation destroyer not having nearly enough power to charge its weapons and move).

Better than many of the 'strategy guides' being sold, but could have been better still. Recommended mainly if you're finding some of the missions frustrating.

The table of contents lists all the important topics, but the content is, well ... missing. What you find there is "general concepts" that you probably already know.

This is not a book for enginners or system designers. It is probably good enough for a sales person or an IT/PR type. She can pick all the right buzz words from the book but will know no meaning of them.

Needless to say, I returned the book. I still give it one star because it is well manufactured and has good illustrations - a lot of work must have gone into it.

A "must have".

That critique consumes nearly another 400 pages. It is useful for readers who are unaware of the fallacies in fundamentalist religion and paranormalism. In all likelihood, however, they will not be reading the book.

Unfortunately for those of us who might have benefited from Paul's intelligence, he is unable to look beyond his self-imposed blinders. Though acknowledging it briefly, he mainly refuses to accept the distinction between fundamentalist and other forms of religious experience. For him, it seems, all that takes the name "religion" is the same: superstitious and irrational.

As a result, his critique ends up tarring subjects that are far beyond his reach and apparent understanding. His treatment of mysticism, for example, dismisses the entire subject by highlighting its extremes.

The result is a misdirected attempt to dismiss all forms of religious experience and expression by knocking down the straw men of extremes. Had Mr. Kurtz limited his conclusions to those supported by his data --- as he asks "religionists" to do --- he would have written a useful book for those who feel the need to beat a dead, or dying, horse.

As it is, however, he continues to do damage to the name of Humanism with his own form of fundamentalism. Faced with a stark choice between a vision of a cold and empty universe, and a universe of possibilities of hope, who can blame "the masses" for saying "If that's humanism, you can keep it!"

My real issue with this book was how he "solved" the "mystery" of Richard III and the Princes. *Especially* since he singled out Richard in the introduction of the book. Like about 90% of all authors who discuss Richard and either don't bother to do research or don't give about whether they're accurate or not, he uses the bones found in the Tower as proof positive that Richard had the boys murdered. If the author had bothered to do *real* research or even cared to look into the subject some more, he would have noticed the last forensic tests conducted on the bones were in the *1930s*, when the science of forensics was *nowhere* near what it is today. Those tests couldn't say with any certainty what *age* the bones are, what *year* they came from or even what *sex* the bones are. Those bones are also not the first ones found at the Tower. (it was in use for centuries before Richard's time)

So, tell me again how those bones indicate Richard's guilt, for when all we know, they could be female.

He backs up the bones, if I remember correctly, with the dubious authority of Sir Thomas More's "History of Richard the III", which is riddled with obvious errors. (like saying Edward VI was 53 when he died, when he was just days short of his 41st birthday) These errors have pretty much destroyed the work's reputation among serious historians, some who now believe the work was a huge parody or a disguised attack on Henry VII. This lack of care pretty much killed the book for me-I threw it down in disgust after that chapter. It also makes me wonder just how much research he did into the other "mysteries" he covered.

As in his earlier book on American history, Aron presents both sides of subjects that have puzzled historians for centuries. The chapters are concise, informative and clear. Especially interesting are the bibliographies which are also fun and show how historians have struggled to solve these mysteries.

Another reviewer highly recommended "The Junction Boys", a story of the nightmarish ten days that Bear Bryant ran his first Texas A&M team through. I agree that book was more interesting and more focused. "Turnaround", regrettably, does not have the same appeal and sense of being there that "The Junction Boys" did. True, Bear Bryant was not the sweetest coach in the world in 1958, but after what he put his first Aggie team through I could not be awed with what his first Crimson Tide team went through. Bear's first Aggie team appeared to have had it tougher -- which is why he considered that to be his favorite team in spite of the fact that was his only losing team (1-9) in his entire career.

There were a couple of interesting items about the book though. First, J. B. "Ears" Whitworth preceded the Bear to Tuscaloosa and won only four games in three years. I do not remember anything about "Ears" as I was too young and growing up in Alabama I never heard many references to those dark days in Crimson Tide history. About the only reference to those days was that a quarterback who was hurt much of the time while at Alabama later went on to a somewhat more successful career in the NFL -- some guy named Bart Starr. The book did devote the first chapter to the problems swirling around the Alabama football program during "Ears" less than successful three years.

The second item of interest is the description of the practice sessions. Bear later mellowed considerably -- especially in the 1970s and when he was 15 - 20 years older and more experienced. But he ran the program in a very controlled manner, attention to detail, well organized, mission oriented, stressing a strong conditioning program, never a wasted moment on the practice field, well motivated, and stressing academics. I have read several descriptions of the current coach, Dennis Franchione, and although Coach Franchione was not a deciple of the Bear, he runs things in a very similar manner. There are differences of course in that there are different rules and water breaks are no longer considered a sign of weakness. But the basic ideas remain the same. I hope Coach Franchione has similar success.

The play has the first of Shakespeare's many brave, resourceful and cross-dressing heroines, Julia.

Shakespeare always used his fools and clowns well to make serious statements about life and love, and to expose the folly of the nobles. Two Gentlemen of Verona has two very fine comic scenes featuring Launce. In one, he lists the qualities of a milk maid he has fallen in love with and helps us to see that love is blind and relative. In another, he describes the difficulties he has delivering a pet dog to Silvia on his master, Proteus', behalf in a way that will keep you merry on many a cold winter's evening.

The story also has one of the fastest plot resolutions you will ever find in a play. Blink, and the play is over. This nifty sleight of hand is Shakespeare's way of showing that when you get noble emotions and character flowing together, things go smoothly and naturally.

The overall theme of the play develops around the relative conflicts that lust, love, friendship, and forgiveness can create and overcome. Proteus is a man who seems literally crazed by his attraction to Silvia so that he loses all of his finer qualities. Yet even he can be redeemed, after almost doing a most foul act. The play is very optimistic in that way.

I particularly enjoy the plot device of having Proteus and Julia (pretending to be a page) playing in the roles of false suitors for others to serve their own interests. Fans of Othello will enjoy these foreshadowings of Iago.

The words themselves can be a bit bare at times, requiring good direction and acting to bring out the full conflict and story. For that reason, I strongly urge you to see the play performed first. If that is not possible, do listen to an audio recording as you read along. That will help round out the full atmosphere that Shakespeare was developing here.

After you finish Two Gentlemen of Verona, think about where you would honor friendship above love, where equal to love, and where below love. Is friendship less important than love? Or is friendship merely less intense? Can you experience both with the same person?

Enjoy close ties of mutual commitment . . . with all those you feel close to!