The author doesn't like the idea that Anglicanism is a "middle way" between Rome and Protestantism--well, too bad--it is. In the same way that Lutherans are closer to Rome on some things (like the sacraments) but closer to Presbyterians on others (like justification), so are Anglicans in the middle. The Anglican Reformation of Cramer and Hooker was meant to be moderate, appealing to the "ancient and primitive catholic faith." It "reformed" the existing Roman Catholic Church in England--the Anglicans after the Reformation called themselves "Reformed Protestant Catholics" or "Reformed Catholics." The author fails to see that the Anglican Reformers went back to the ancient "catholic" (universal) Church, saw that some of it was good, and cleaned away that which they saw Rome had corrupted. As such, it is both "catholic" and "reformed." The author's distinction of Catholic theology as "Incarnational" and Protestant theology as "atonement" based is also misleading. The great Anglican theologian Richard Hooker's theology is almost completely "incarnational." C.S. Lewis and John Wesley were also highly "incarnational." This does not make them Roman Catholics. "Evangelicals" (such as the author) and "Anglo-Catholics" (who pretend they are Roman Catholics) have to realize they are both wrong and reaffirm their common theology.

This was a very disappointing book. Although I'm an English Use Catholic (a species of Anglican the author barely mentions and then not by name), I'm willing to concede that the English Reformation had a "Protestant face." But Dean Zahl fails to convince that this Protestant face has endured or has ever affected the catholicity of the Anglican faith in any essential way.

"The Protestant Face of Anglicanism" has many flaws. Polemical in tone, strident in style, unnuanced in its history, and often purple in its prose, its brevity doesn't allow the author to make a substantial case for much of anything. The book also suffers from a lack of precision in crucial definitions. For instance, early on in the book, Zahl posits a distinction between "protestants" and "evangelicals." But thereafter, he uses the two terms as synonyms.

The lack of documentation was irritating. Many of Zahl's assertions about English history and the development of Anglican theology were uncited, so there's no way to check his sources or read further. Even fascinating tidbits -- like the complicity of Thomas More in the assassination of William Tyndale -- were uncorroborated. That's too bad. More's one sacred cow that could use a dose of real history.

Zahl does an interesting historical analysis of the rise of Anglicanism, the Church of England, and analyzes the strong Protestant forces that have kept it together. I agree that many today are blinded by the Protestant reality of Anglicanism, and that it owes a great deal to that movement.

Unfortunately, while Zahl does state he does not want to be "anti-Catholic", he ends up being just that. His greatest error is his broad-brush theological characterization of the difference between Protestant and Catholic, namely, that the latter is "incarnational" and the other is "atonement" based. While there is some general truth to that, one may ask if both have merit, for he clearly has problems with the incarnational perspective. By "incarnational", Zahl refers specifically to the Orthodox (not even Catholic!) view of theosis. If he wants to do that, then he needs to see how strongly catholic even Luther was and even reflected strong theosis sympathies, as shown by the Helsinki school of Lutheran study. In the end, Zahl is simply being polemical at this point.

I agree, as an evangelical protestant Anglican, that Anglicanism is not a "third way", but rather a Protestant faith with an Episcopal, historic model. Nonetheless, there is ALSO a "Catholic" face to Angilcanism, whether he (or I!) like it or not. Moreover, he uses "Protestant" and "evangelical" very loosely and I was often unclear what his definitions were.

In the end, the book captured my interest, but was thankfully short. I got this feeling it was written by someone who was annoyed by Anglo-catholic elements in his denomination and wanted to write against them. I also found the dearth of discussion around third world Anglicanism (a VERY protestant and evangelical movement!) to imply that England, and to a lesser extent, the US, was where one discussed "Anglicanism". This is a mistake.

This book merits no review. It is insulting to mislead anyone to think he/she can understand Jean Paul Sartre in ninety minutes. Most people do not have the intelligence to understand his ideas; those who do spend years thinking. It isn't pablum, and there is no clue if you don't have a brain. There are those who get it and those who don't. A book which claims to have the key should have been written on disposable paper.

I picked up this book hoping that it would help me sort through some of Sartre's basic ideas....which I found quite challenging. The book was very disappointing in this respect. It was full of generalizations and opinions and failed to give me, a newbie to sartre, any valuable help. I would spend your money on "SARTRE FOR BEGINNERS" which I found much more helpful and useful.

In contrast to the other reviewers here, I found this to be quite good. Granted, it is extremely basic but that is it's stated purpose. It doesn't claim to be a comprehensive analysis of Sartre's ideas, merely a biographical jumping-off point for those with no prior exposure to the man.

These "IN 90 MINUTES" books are wonderful introductions to the greatest minds of the Western world. I take sincere issue with those (see review below) who would attempt to cloak the study of philosophy behind a smokescreen of intellectual elitism. Such snobbery is contradictory to the goals of all philosophical thought.

Philosophy is for EVERYONE!

Sartre is difficult, yes, but not beyond the intelligence of anyone truly interested and dedicated to understanding.

I recommend this book without reservation.

This is a good example of a terrible trend--the dumbing down of arts books by authors and publishers eager to hop on the pop culture bandwagon and not put much effort into it. The book has zero insights, some truly bad writing, and a modest amount of information. As to the previous reviewer who found it "refreshing" that the author didn't know what one of the films was about--well, this is holding an author to a pretty low standard (Kubrick only made about 13 movies in his life!) And as to the reviewer's statement that this "can and should be read at one sitting" I would suggest that it would be impossible to read this tiny and insubstantial book at More than one sitting.

If you have never seen a Stanley Kubrick film or were unaware of his complete body of work then this book would be of some use. Unfortunately it is far too lightweight to satisfy any serious film enthusiast's needs. This is all the more regrettalble as Mr Duncan is clearly a fan of Kubrick's work. He makes many glaring mistakes and seems to have taken rumour as fact when writing his analysis. It is a shame that a book that seems to have been rushed out following the director's death could not have had more time spent on it and been more considered.

I've seen some bad reviews of this book, and author Paul Duncan's book on Hitchcock, which I find surprising. These books also 'feel' different to other reference books. Normally you have the biography from the director's point of view, then the unauthorised biography with all the dirt, then a 'making of' book, and a book all about the subtext of the movies. Paul Duncan has fused all the types of book together to give both rounded and contradictory pictures of Kubrick and Hitchcock. He has also written it in an enthusiastic 'white heat' style which I find exciting to read. These books can, and should, be read in one sitting. In the case of the Kubrick book, Duncan obviously loves the films but still has the guts to point out that A Clockwork Orange is overrated whilst Barry Lyndon is underrated. Also, he admits to not understanding The Shining - in a world full of ego-centric experts and know-alls, it's refreshing to read something with this level of informality. 'Refreshing' - that's a good word for these books. I am going to look out for more of these Pocket Essentials.

This book is pretty much worthless. There are so many errors
and misconception in this book that I wonder if Brecher really
believes what he writes.

Here is the first that I noticed, and it shows how shallow
Brecher's understanding is:

He says that Tai Chi Chuan means Yin Yang Fist. Wrong! Yes,
the Taiji symbol is the Yin Yang that we are all familiar with.
However, everyone knows that the Tai Chi in Tai Chi Chuan means
Grand Ultimate, or Grand Extremes. No authoritative book on

Tai Chi Chuan would ever call the art Yin Yang Fist.

His explanation that Tai Chi fighting should be all Fa Jin
is wrong. If you don't know what Fa Jin is, you certainly don't
want to learn from Brecher. In addition, he says that you should be striking accupoints. As if. Try to hit a spot on
someone the size of a dime while they are trying to kill you.
Good luck.

The sections on Bagua and Xingyi are weak, also. I'm not saying
that everything in the book is wrong, but there are some major,
major errors.

His discussion of the Wu Dang Shan Qi disruption forms is
practically non-existant. He does put in a nice plug for his
teacher, Erle Montague, who has lots of things to sell.

Save your money, B.K. Frantzis "The Power of Internal Arts" has
much more useful information if you are serious about trying to
understand what the internal martial arts are about.

The sections on Bagua and Xingyi are weak, also. I'm not saying
that everything in the book is wrong, but there are some major,
major errors.

His discussion of the Wu Dang Shan Qi disruption forms is
practically non-existant. He does put in a nice plug for his
teacher, Erle Montague, who has lots of things to sell.

In this book, Brecher looks at 5 soft or internal martial arts: Taijiquan, Baguazhang (Pa Kwa Chang), Xingyiquan, Akido, Xiao Jiu Tian, and Wudang Shan. There is a reasonable amount of information on the background and philosophy of the first 3 martial arts listed above. His treatment of Xiao Jiu Tian and Wudang Shan, however, is very brief. I have a number of general criticisms of his book. 1) He seems extraordinarily uncritical in his treatment of these martial arts. (For example, he matter of factly states that one practitioner of Baguazhang lived to 250 years old as part of an argument on the healthfulness of the internal martial arts. He also uncritically excepts all traditional claims as to the effects of these martial arts - i.e. this set of exercises strengthens the liver, that set of movements strengthens the spleen, etc... 2) There are more typographical errors than one might normally expect. These errors aren't particularly distracting, but you just don't expect them in a finished work. 3) There is almost no concrete information on the actual forms or techniques used in these martial arts. One cannot practice even the most basic forms of any of these martial arts based on this book. Due to this lack of detail, this book would probably be best suited to the person trying to decide which internal martial art to take up, or on whether to learn an internal martial art at all.

In this book briefly looks at 5 soft or internal martial arts: Taijiquan, Baguazhang (Pa Kwa Chang), Xingyiquan, Akido, Xiao Jiu Tian, and Wudang Shan. Enough information is given to help you start to look in the right direction. But do not expect this book to teach you anything. I feel he leaves all opinions out of his discussions on these martial arts. Only going over the facts, traditional claims and myths of what each system offers...and leaving it up to the reader to find the truth. This book would probably be best suited to the person trying to decide which internal martial art to take up, or on whether to learn an internal martial art at all.

My hardback edition has a great presentation of format and color. I do like the photo's in the book, even though they are all not relevant.

Suggestion.....if you are a McCartney or Beatles fan, do not buy this book. Had I not loved Paul and his music beforehand, I would hate him after reading this book. Chet Flippo is a Flippo. He trashes Paul completely, showing only his worst sides. Lots of it isn't true.

Writers and journalists who have obvious scorn for their subject can't be objective. One again, another baised "McCartney hater" succumbs. Paul is tossed off as a lightweight and blamed for the Beatles breakup. Other than some interesting 60's passages, this is pretty much a waste of time.

I found this book to be a very interesting account of Paul's life, while he was a Beatle, and later as a Wing. Having never read a book previously about Paul, I found it quite fascinating, though hard core fans may find that it does trash Paul and Linda to some extent. All in all, though, I did enjoy it and would recommend it.

This is a very superficial activity book. Not only are the activities in it not very engaging, but most of the descriptions are very poorly worded. This is at best a guide for those dear people who think "dance" is for an elite class of people. You would be better off just teaching P.E. if this is what you consider creative. Better by far is a book called "First Steps in Teaching Creative Dance to Children" by Mary Joyce.

Don't waste your money on this!

I work with many children as well as have 4 children of my own, and this book was pretty good. Some of the games were not worth listing... but some others are very good. I got some good dance games out of it. All in all worth having!

Anna, A Friend of Mathias will be an inspiration to many others who have stories of their ancestors (particularly those who immigrated to the United States in the 1800s) that ought to be recorded for future generations. Such sturdy, courageous people as those in this book deserve to have their adventurous undertakings recorded with such care and admiration.

Anna, Friend of Mathias will be an inspiration to many others who have stories of their ancestors (particularly those who immigrated to the United States in the 1800s) that ought to be recorded for future generations. Such sturdy, courageous people as those in this book deserve to have their adventurous undertakings recorded with such care and admiration.

For those who have read both the "Third Millinnium" and "Fourth Millinnium", you should find this to only be a re-visit of the first novel. We watch the same characters work through the exact same struggles as before, however, this time the perspective is more from the viewpoint of the angels; the Arch-Angel Michaelin particular. It would be unfair to compare the author's use of 'angels as characters' with Peretti's "Piercing the Darkness". Those who are looking to nd a similar novel will be disappointed. This is not to say the novel is poorly written, for it is not. There is a marked difference in the writer's use of angels. While Peretti's are more actively involved in his plot lines, Meier's have a stronger sense of character development; such as exploring an angel's first exposure to hatred, anger and war. Overall, an easy book to read, with occassional events that may cause the reader to stop & wonder.

This book tries, and for that alone, I'll give it an extra star. The author obviously has the best of intentions, but unfortunately, the effort doesn't translate into a novel that's readable. The characters are not recognizable human beings- they make June Cleaver seem like a complex, multi-faceted character. What's worse, there's no real theology that goes any deeper than, "God is good, you should worship Him." That's great, but when I read a book like this, I'm hoping to gain some new insight about both myself and my relationship to God. At the very least, I'm looking for a good story. There's none of that to be found here. Anyone looking for a novel about the Endtimes that succeeds where Meier's novel fails should check out We All Fall Down, by Brian Caldwell. It's insightful, enthraling, and will stick with you for months. Meier tries hard in this series, and doubtlessly has the best of intentions, but in all four of these books, his good intentions simply pave the way to a literary hell.

I bought this (prior to discovering amazon) but regret it. It is basically the same text as the book, but with a poor interface. All code examples & notes are a separate window you have to open while you read them. An html implimemtation would have been much easier to navigate and view. No stars for this one. I think I just threw it away.

I have both the multimedia cyber classroom and the 1150 page textbook "C++ how to program" by the same authors. For a training Cd-rom it is better than average for the beginner and excellent for the experienced programmer. Both the textbook and the cd-rom in reality are best for people who have experience in programming. I found the Cd-rom to be slightly easier to learn from because, it is interactive. But since I am a newbie programmer i still found both the Cd-rom and the text very hard! I have a 3.2 gpa and i am a junior with a double major in psych/psychobio. in college. And i found the cd-rom and the book hard! The best aspect of both the book and the CD-rom was that both are very well structured and and extremely information dense. To get thru all of that info will take at least 4 months (4 for the cd rom and 4 for the book!) In summary the Cd and the book are extremely similar in content with very minor differences and both are best for the experienced programmer. But the good side is that if one reads the text and Cd-rom slowly and thoroughly You will be a C++ wizard.

It began quite nice, a tale from old england with cruel masters and poor ladies...but then nothing but repetition...boring at last.

Very typically Paul Little, but neither great, nor bad erotica. Some portions of these stories were good, but others not great. Uneven.