I had great hopes for this book. After I glanced at it, I purchased it immediately. It certainly does reorient you to the distinctions between goals, objectives and diagnoses, but after using it for a while, it just wasn't sufficient for those more complicated kids. I'll keep referring to it, not so much for information but to place me back on course when I'm stuck and blocked- (happens more than I'd like, when the stress gets to me,) yet I still would suggest, for more seasoned professionals, a higher level of diagnostic and prescriptive content.
If you are one of those good therapists who flounder when it comes to documentation; I'd say, "Go for it." But, if you're looking for a book to help with establishing a quality diagnosis and treatment plan for those true stumpers- sorry, this isn't the book.

If you work with adolescent this is a great aid to writing treatment plans for a beginner or a skilled clinician. It makes following this state regulations a lot easier. I would definitely recommend this book to all my colleagues. This book has helped me write treatment plans quicker and easier then I ever thought possible. I love this series of books.

I work in a mental health agency as an intake clinician, interviewing families and children and writing assessments to be used for case disposition and treatment planning. I see 4-6 families weekly and my work load has been eased enormously with this addition to my library. It sits right next to my DSM-IV and I use it daily. The language for long term goals and therapeutic interventions are clinically sound and there are a number of options in each to tailor for specific cases.

This book should be shelved next to "The Bible Codes". The Bible codes claimed to find meaningful patterns in the way letters are distributed through the bible; Kikawada and Quinn claim to find a meaningful pattern in the repetitions and contradictions of the biblical text. They claim this is the author's art, rather than evidence of separate texts having been sutured together.

Their reading is simply not convincing. The repititions in Genesis do not look like the similar repititions in other Near Eastern literature. They have a different quality, which is evident to any reader who is willing to look at the texts as historical documents rather than as some kind of lifeline to God.

The documentary hypothesis lives. Kikawada and Quinn are forgotten by all but a handful of tenacious Christians. Do a websearch and see who supports their theory - evangelical Christian organizations.

I am surprised that this book has never attracted the attention it should have. Quinn and Kikiwada, two Berkeley scholars, make a compelling case for reading Genesis 1-11 as a unified text. The documentary thesis, with the sometimes convoluted efforts to separated out even fragments of verses to various author,s was very much a product of late romanticism and the belief in the representation of time and progress in natural phenomena--from the discovery of time differentiation in sedimentary rocks to the awareness that star gazing was a look into different times simultaneously. This same documentary thesis was popular among Greek scholars at the same time. Few critics now argue that Homer's Iliad is a mere patchwork, yet the documentary thesis of the composition of Genesis remains.

With an extensive knowledge of linguistics, rhetoric, and literary theory as well as the careful use of the evidence used to jsutify the documentary thesis, Quinn and Kikiwada produce a reading of the first eleven chapters of Genesis which reveals a sophisticated and elegant construction that is far from being a patchwork or mosaic. Genesis 1-11 is a layering of chiasmus upon chiasmus, with each reinforcing the general themes of dispersion, a theme whic runs counter to that other closely related Near Eastern narratives of creation and the flood.

The late Arthur Quinn died prematurely, but it is time that biblical commentators and biblical scholars paid these two men their due.

In this fairly short and tightly reasoned book (unfortunately not now in print), Isaac Kikawada and Arthur Quinn argue very convincingly that the "documentary hypothesis" has had its day. Their thesis: that a hundred-odd years of scholarship inspired by Wellhausen's theory has _itself_ produced the very evidence which proves it false. In order to support this contention, the authors examine the portion of the Bible at which support for the "documentary hypothesis" seems strongest: the story of Noah and the Flood. And true to their aim, they deftly show that the very features of the text which seem to support multiple authorship can, when viewed slightly differently, also be seen as evidence that the text is the work of a single author capable of great brilliance and subtlety. It is this last point that I think deserves the greatest emphasis. Too often, the stories of the Jewish scriptures are written off as "primitive" or "barbaric," and superficial contradictions or immoralities are taken as evidence of the unsophistication of the text's author(s) and target audience. Recognizing and questioning our hidden assumption here is an essential step toward recognizing the possibility that -- as Kikawada and Quinn put it -- if we think we spot an error in the text, it is more likely we who are at fault. For consider: since the "documentary hypothesis" requires a "redactor" who was not unduly concerned about obvious "contradictions," why do we rule out the possibility that a _single_ author might have been similarly unconcerned? And if the latter possibility is _not_ ruled out, why do we assume that these apparent "contradictions" are not stylistic contrivances that are intended for a more sophisticated audience than we have thus far considered? And in that case, might not the very features of the text revealed by proponents of the "documentary hypothesis" be themselves evidence of a deeper unity and design? Why, rather than look for such unity and design, do we assume the "redactor" must have been so stupid as to be unable to recognize difficulties that are obvious to any child (and indeed were discussed in the Talmudic literature at least two millennia ago)? Kikawada and Quinn have laid waste to the "documentary hypothesis" by accepting what is good in it and showing that it undermines itself. This little book will be of interest to all who wish to defend the integrity of Scripture, and especially to readers of Umberto Cassuto's _The Documentary Hypothesis_ (unfortunately not now in print either).

As a confirmed fan of the Arthurian Legend and the various retellings, I should probably like this series more than I do. I can't claim that it's because I'm a traditionalist - one of my favorite retellings is Patricia Kennealy-Morrison's three-book subset of her Keltiad series known as "The Tales of Arthur". For those of you who haven't read it, it's a great series referred to by both to the author and its aficionados as "Celts in Space", so use your imagination. And, it's not because A. A. Attanasio's series is poorly written. The prose is lyrical, yet strong, and the characterizations are full. I think it may be because even though the series is original and the setting non-traditional, it reaches too far for my personal tastes. In this series, Arthur (or, Arthor, as he starts out), is certainly a featured character, but not the main one. Arthur's tale is lost in the maze of all the immortals in all the galaxies in all the universes of the cosmos. The story has its beginning in the beginning of time when all was chaos. To keep it brief, Merlin starts out as the demon Lailoken, spawn of Lucifer along with the others of his ilk, who through a series of miraculous events is given birth as a human living backwards in time, i.e., his body grows younger as time progresses. As a result, Merlin sheds his demonic ways, becomes a devout Christian, and is tasked with guiding Arthor on his quest of uniting the British Isles under the umbrella of Christianity. Opposing him are the Furor and the old (pagan) gods. The Furor is Odin and his cohorts the rest of the cadre of the Norse deities. Throw in the Firelords (i.e., the "good" angels), the immortal Nine Queens of Avalon, and the elfin Daione Sid, and you have a battle royale par excellence. Oh, and throw in the fact additional fact that the earth 's core is formed by a sleeping dragon who is cosmically connected to every other dragon that forms the core of every other planet in the Creation. . . As many of the characters are gods or have god-like characters, time tripping abounds and everyone, save the puny mortal humans, can see the future and has their own ways of trying to prevent the holocaust they all foresee. The fact that they all have different ideas about how to accomplish this is what provides the conflict that makes the story go. Mr. Attanasio tells the story far better than I do, but I find the constantly shifting points of view to be difficult to follow. I like the straight-ahead descriptions of Arthur's dealings well enough, but tend to get lost and gloss over the philosophical and mystical mumbo-jumbo. Also, there are some incongruities with the mainstream Arthurian legend that seem to serve no real purpose, or none that I'm smart enough to discern. The Fisher King appears in the book, but Arthur's the one with the wound that will not heal. Call me an ignorant, lowbrow Philistine, and that's OK with me. I like thoughtful fantasy, but a little sword and sorcery floats my boat, too. As I intimated earlier, I don't dislike these books. I've read all four to date, and will read any more that are published. Which brings up another question in my mind - this book has a complete enough ending that it could be the last in the series. However, it leaves us at the very beginning of Arthur's reign. Will there be more? I can't tell. . . The books are well written and mostly enjoyable. They are a strong addition to the store of Arthurian lore that exists. There not my personal favorites, but I do recommend that anyone who enjoys Arthurian literature at all give them a try and formulate their own opinion.

Finally, a multi-faceted, richly textured, thought-provoking and deeply woven and embroidered series of "tales" from a rather masterful story-teller who treats his readers as cogent listeners capable of keeping the various skeins of this historical, cultural, psychosociological and demi-religious tapestry flowing. As an avid and voracious reader with somewhat eclectic tastes, I find Mr. Attanasio's spinning of the threads of these tales to be highly intelligent, deeply fascinating, richly image-evocative and teleportational. So much more so than the typical Freudean psychic-cleansing pap that many current editors seem to qualify as saleable fiction. Yes, life is not easy and we all have our "crosses" to bear; however, can't we have a little more story-telling and a little less Freudean-couch revelations? Occassionally, as with any modern-day story-teller, he has to fall back into reiterrations in order to keep those not willing or able to invest the time and/or money in the preceding tales up with the mulitlayered goings-on in these tales; and yes, he sometimes strays across to "New Age-Feel Good" whining or carping. Yet, his characters for the most part are so fully fleshed and "real" that I feel I'm standing, next to, or even looking out of the eyes of, each narrating character.
To be honest, I haven't watched TV since I got hooked on the first book of this Middle Earth adventure, nor even listened to the stereo, as the lyricality of this writing, and the characters, both human and demiurge (sometimes even animal) has enraptured all of my senses, especially my own little dreamworld. He has also led me into new forays through the almost-forgotten magical pleasures of my local library, seeking further illumination on Celtic, Drudic, Christian, British, magical and other tangential gems tossed out as asides in his tale. What an extra-special, unexpected treat! Challenge yourself to reasses your own "reality". Wrap yourself up in these tales.

I picked up the first book of this series because I am an Arthurian legend fan. At that time I had never even heard of Attanasio....I am now an avid Attanasio reader.

The Serpent and the Grail is a hard-to-put-down book and continues the fantasy world of Arthur's rule started in the earlier books. The only problem I have with this book is that this is still not the end of the series (I hope!). As an Arthurian fan, I hope that Attanasio will continue telling this story until the end of the legend and that the next book in the series comes out before I forget the characters again (that's another problem ... the wealth of characters!). If you're already familiar with the legend then reading this series is as if you've never heard of Arthur and Camelot before .... very refreshing.

As an Attanasio fan, this is another example of the diversity of Attanasio's vivid epic-telling talents. You need to read other Attanasio's works to appreciate what I mean (personal recommendations: The Last Legends of Earth, The Dark Shore)

My advice to all would-be readers .... get all the books in the series and read them straight through from the first to the last, in sequence. It won't be easy reading, but it will be worth it.

This review will not be "for everyone".... but here goes: We wonder sometimes about storybooks like this -- books that sound so much like a Bible story that we have to tell our kids, "God didn't really say that!" We don't want them to grow up wondering how much of what we told them was really the Word, and how much was just innocent "imagination" ABOUT the Word. I'm SELLING my copy of this book -- I had a hard time helping my kids understand that it is just "make believe." After all, it IS about Baby Jesus! It has a lot of truth IN it! It's got Bethlehem, the stable... It looks like something that MIGHT have been a part of the nativity story! However, We rely on Scripture in our family, and this one has a plot that is totally "out there." It's important to us that our children do not doubt what is true. The Bible is true: we don't want to confuse them with "bible-ish" stories. That may seem silly to some readers, but it is important to us. If you're concerned about filling your kids' heads with stories that "sound" like Bible stories, but aren't Scriptural at all, this book is not for you. There are so many great stories about Jesus that are TRUE, we find these "bible-ish" spinoffs to be unnecessary - and confusing for kids who need to hear the Truth!
Addendum to this editorial August 2002: Since I wrote this a year ago, I have received repeated e-mails from the author, Art Ginolfi, telling me "12 important messages I missed" in his book. I still stand by what I've written here, and hereby request to be removed from this author's mailing list. I've tried to ask this privately via e-mail, but I still hear from him one year later. (?)

we 'lucked onto' this book just before Christmas- and it's been a wonderful addition to our family's celebration of the holiday.
We're the grandparents of 4 kids- aged 7, 4, 18 mos and 8 mos- and while 2 are being raised in Christian homes, the other 2 are not. We've read, and re-read this book to all of them ( even the baby) and they all seem to love it. In fact, it's now January, and we're ordering 2 additional copies, because the 4 year old, the son of a non- religious mom, wants to take our copy home with him to put under his pillow each night. He LOVES little starlet.

BUY THE BOOK!!!

I am 17 years old, and, when the book came into my home, I was still a small child. I treasure the memories of Christmas time when my family and I would gather around and read this wonderful tale. Some reviewers from georgia whom the author of the book has sent many emails to may quote that the book has 'big imaginations' I say, the more imaginative ways we can get children to take interest in the bible, the better. so to that reader from georgia, don't hamper your child's imagination, it's their greatest gift.

What does Arthur Danto mean by his title "After the End of Art"? He starts off his stimulating, if rather repetitive book, by discussing the German art historian Hans Belting's book The Image Before the End of Art. That book discusses the history of devotional images and icons before 1400 AD, and how they were produced primarily as icons, and not as art per se. It was only with the beginning of the renaissance that images became part of what could be described as an aesthetic ideology. In the opinion of Vasari and others art, in particular painting, can be seen as a progressive narrative which progresses towards mimesis, or imitation. After the invention of the photograph, accurate imitation became less of a value, and the progressive virtue of this narrative became one of "shape, surface, pigment, and the like as defining painting in its purity." The climax of this ideology came in the great, flawed, critic Clement Greenberg's championing of the abstract expressionism of Jackson Pollock. But as abstract expressionism exhausted itself in the early sixties, one could no longer define art as a progressive narrative. To use Danto's example, one could no longer produce a theory of art which would disqualify Andy Warhol's Brillo Box as a work of art. Therefore, everything could be a work of art. "Art" or the old "artistic ideology" was dead. There is such a thing as art, says Danto, and there is an inherent essence in it, but it is vastly wider than the progressive development ideology that had previously existed.

At the same time, says Danto, one must take a historicist approach. Very simply, "Manyof the artworks (cave paintings, fetishes, altar pieces) were made in times and places when people had no concept of art to speak of, since they interpreted art in terms of their other beliefs." Danto goes on to discuss how much art of the present day would not have been considered art in the past. He provides some interesting aspects of this historical anomaly. For example there is the 19th century artist Anselm Feuerbach who painted a grand, academically precise picture, the sort that would soon by overtaken by impressionism, of a scene from Plato's Symposium. But he made a mistake in his meticulously accurate historical reconstruction. He includes a painting in the background which portrays Xenophon's variation on the same events. The problem is that the painting is not in the style of a fifth century BC Greek painting. Danto goes on to discuss the inevitable failure of the Vermeer forger Hans Van Meegeren, how Russell Connor combined Picasso's Les demoiselles d'Avignon and Ruben's Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus, and finally ends up with "America's Most Wanted" the painting the Russian artists Komar and Melamid painted after conducting an elaborate opinion poll.

One should be aware of the many criticisms that have been made of this thesis. For example, there is the ironyof having a narrative which amounts to the end of narrative. And as Terry Eagleton sourly puts it "if art these days is a realm without rules, it is so, among other reasons, because there is not really that much at stake. If art mattered socially and politically, rather than just economically, it is unlikely that we would be quite so nonchalant about what qualified for the title." One should also read Perry Anderson's The Origins of Postmodernity for another perspective on the postmodernist moment. Still, this is an important book, and one should pay particular attention to Danto's chapter on the nature of monochrome art. There is also a nuanced chapter on museums and the conflict between them as purveyors of the beautiful and the artistic and the possibilities of anti-museum based community art. There are also discussions of Kant, Heidegger and particularly Hegel; amusingly enough, the last thing in the book is a caricature of Danto showing a Brillo Box to a disconcerted Hegel.

Danto is one of the most influential but at the same time misconceived philosophers of art today. People have widely misunderstood two of his major thesis. Danto's notion of the "Artworld" has been mixed up with George Dickie's institutional theory of art and the end of art has been taken to mean the death of art. Both of these misconceptions are quite severe. In this book Danto tries to clarify his thoughts and express what he doesn't mean by these notions. For him the end of art means that a certain historical development has come to an end and that pluralism reigns in the artworld. There are no a priori conditions for being an artwork and basically any item in the world can also be an artwork. Danto doesn't see the end of art as a bad thing but he even seems to think that a new golden age of art can begin. But there are also threats if artists aren't ingenious enough. The end of art has also many consequences. Art criticism becomes much harder because all basic guidelines of appreciation and evaluation have disappeared. Every artwork has to be taken as an individual. The philosophical consequence is that the philosophy of art has to change. If anything can be an artwork then no definition of art can be founded on perceptual properties. Danto sees the history of aesthetics as relevantly barren, because philosophers like Kant have considered beauty to be an essential feature of art.

Danto also discusses his notion of the "artworld". In this book he says that he means by this concept that when an object is transfigured into the artworld, this object is set in to a relation with every other artwork in the world and therefore it can posses meanings that mere real things lack. He also takes up an old and neglected idea of the style matrix, which he introduced already in his classic article "The Artworld" that appeared in 1964. I truly find Danto's ideas of the artworld extremely interesting and it is shame that people have misunderstood him so badly. The last article in the book "Modalities of History" is one of the best Danto has ever written and it shows how important the history of art is for him. In the article he tries to show with the help of some examples what he means by the phrase that he inherited from Wöllflin "not everything is possible at every time."

Like always Danto's writing style is very fluent and eloquent. His knowledge on the history of art is just astounding. Many of Danto's books that have appeared after The Transfiguration of the Commonplace haven't been that important for his general theory but this book is absolutely vital if you want to understand his philosophy of art.

In this valuable book, Danto is not speaking of the death of art as one might speak of the death of God. When he speaks of 'the end of art', he is speaking about the end of art history as we know it and have thought of it; the way of viewing art history that we were taught in 'The History of Western Art 101'.

"To say that history is over is to say that there is no longer a pale of history for works of art to fall outside of. Everything is possible. Anything can be art. And, because the present situation is essentially unstructured, one can no longer fit a master narrative to it....It inaugurates the greatest era of freedom art has ever known. (p.112)"

The history of art up to this point has been a history of exclusion, legitimizing and highlighting only certain works which fall within the pale of this narrative. Danto's point is that there is no longer a pale of history.

But it is possible, I believe, to see something even larger in Danto's analysis, something that would be interesting to pursue by someone with a good grasp of history and culture. One might see further into his thesis and find that the history of art has been one of an evolution of individuation. Starting from the Egyptians, where art was an umbrella covering the entire culture, a culture in which the individual was of little value, to our present age in which art has moved to the opposite extreme, no longer controled by anything or anybody (except perhaps the art industry itself), heralding a new stage ( about 1964 by Danto's reakoning) in the idividuation of the planet.

If, as Teilhard de Chardin says, the impulse of evolution is toward greater consciousness and greater complexity, then what we are seeing at the present time is not something unstructured (as Danto posits), but rather, something of far greater structure, something much more complex than we have witnessed before. A stucture and complexity perhaps presently beyond our comprehension. (Of course, the conservative view of this will be that we are witnessing an encroaching chaos that will destroy civilization as we know it.)

From this new perspective, the present radical pluralism would be, rather than an unstructuring, a further step toward something of a far deeper order, an order we have not seen before, one which reflects an important moment in the individuation of humanity on this planet. Taking Danto's basic thesis, one might write a new history of art from the point of view of the evolution of individuation in art. But then this would be another master narrative and would undermine Danto's thesis. Or would it? For this is not a master narrative of art but of evolution itself as evidenced in art.

And who better to herald this advance than the artists!

I found the writing style of this author incredibly sloppy, fuzzy, and patchy. He provides very few graphical examples, which are poorly presented and minimally explained. The text is disjointed and scattered--high on vague generalities and hype, and low on specifics and detail. Unless you are an experienced astrologers, you more than likely would have a hard time in getting much original practical information out of this work. I could have extracted some usable original information out of this work for all the time I spent reading and rereading it had the author focused on some core concept/technique and had provided more detailed and well reasoned graphical examples. In that case, this work would have been no more than 150 pages long and much more rewarding to read. The author is just guessing on how Chaldeans did their astrological work, and I am afraid most readers, in turn, would just have to guess on how to put this guess work to practical use. It was a rather frustrating experience to try to read and understand this work--and I do read a lot of books. I had thought that Indian writers of Hindu astrology are lacking in their writing skills, but this work clearly indicated that that deficiency is not endemic to Indian writers only. I hope that the author and the publisher would seriously revamp this work in their second edition to make it cohesive, accessible, and worthwhile to read.

This book is written in a very educational way: every chapter can be read alone without reading the whole book, the layout is superb so that your mind can grasp it easily. Wonderful. It is remarkable how much new information this book contains, though some of the material did remind me of the books by Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson ('the moon last over', stacks in declination rather than in longitude, etc...). I like the style and approach of the author though I'm not sure if it all works the way it should. I'll have to try calculating the sunset charts in the sidereal zodiac and use the stacks (30 degree wheel) and other techniques for some time. I have not found a delineation for the moon mansions (nakshatras in vedic astrology) in the book and miss it because I'm not sure if the same interpretations of the vedic or arabic mansions can be used. Some chapters are rather brief but the most important information is there. This book is recommended reading because of the fact that it opens our eyes for ancient techniques that may possibly be worth incorporating in our astrological work. I'm not sure if it can convince tropical astrologers to switch to the sidereal system. I think that both systems have their validity and that we should use them both as long as we respect the appropriate rules of the respective systems. Again it will be welcomed if some astrological software can incorporate these techniques so that delineating gets simpler and less timeconsuming.

Arthyr Chadbourne is an original and when orignals speak we ought to listen, there is much to be learned from the mind of this starship. Mr. Chadbourne has researched and unlocked keys of precise timing based on the knowledge Babylonian astrologers/astronomers learned from their years of observation and calculations. Mr Chadbourne's sunset chart hypothesis is, as he states, "a unique and bold idea of astrology." In adjusting his knowledge of ancient ideas to modern knowledge, Mr. Chadbourne leads us down no ordinary garden path; rather it is one of dynamic growth, and learning, much like the Babylonian idea of finding the date and time for any given phenomena, unlike Greek astronomers who searched celestial locations for a given time. Like his Chaldean predecessors, Mr. Chadbourne's methodology has a singular ability to personalize a chart that is rarely accomplished by others. In using his tools and techniques, I have found it's as he states, "the birth chart is so powerful it may be considered a cosmic DNA program..."

For serious astrologers, interested in moving into uncharted territory this is a must buy book full of ideas, mathmatics, tools,and rules for re-examining the chart. You will see yourself and your clients/friends/family differently. What a gift!

very disappointed in this book. The art work is hideous. The cover shows a modern looking Arthur, but the illustrations show Arthur and his family looking more like rats than bears. My kid didn't even recognize Arthur. He kept saying "That's not Arthur".

If they redid the illustrations inside the book (as they did the cover), I would give it a much better rating. But the story is very mediocre, and the horrid artwork has made me regret purchasing this.

Arthur rolls on, this time--it appears--pant-less.

Arthur remains, deservedly so, a hit with kids. All of the Arthur books are worth owning, because they're fun for kids and parents will not be dulled to sleep when they read them.

This a great book, it shows that everyone gets embarrased. Ever if it is as bad a not haveing any pants on.

marc brown is scraping the bottom of the barrel with wafer-thin plots for the humanoid/aardvark arthur and his gang... consider this book a big waste of your time.... not even the guest appearance of a passe boy band can redeem it... (although perhaps if new edition or the jackson five had been included instead.....)

I loved this book! it is about Muffy telling Francine that the Backstreet Boys are sellouts. Soon we see her starting a band called "YOU STINK!" Even Arthur and his friends start a band called "WE STINK!" I thought that the book was great... It deals with crushes, and what it may be like to be in a band...

After reading the other review where this person called the Backstreet Boys Passe really should go and listen to their CDs.. They have been around for 10 years.. It took the book and the DVD of this show to prove to me that these kids were great...

It even took a concert to show Muffy that the Backstreet Boys were not sellouts... Great book!

For the age that this book is written for, it is really a well written story. The pictures are incredible, and the dialogue is great. The Backstreet Boys rule!

I was reading the Battlefield Ghost. The main people are John, Lisa and the Mom and Dad and the Ghost. This book is about when they move to a house and it is hunted. I did not like how short the book was. It is OK and I liked the book because it was like a forth grade book, and I'm in fifth grade. The ghost was a little pushy, but he was nice. I liked the ghost. He was cool. I would recommend you reading this book. I liked the end. The ghost goes to the place he should go to, and I like that kind of book.

If you have not read this book, you should. It's about a boy named John and a girl named Lise. One day John, his sister and their mom and dad moved to a haunted house. The ghost that haunted the house was named the Hendersen Ghost.
Something that I did not like about it was that they talked too much. I think there should have been more action. Anyone who likes suspense and a lot of fun you will like this book.

I read a book called the "Battlefeild Ghost" and it is about a boy named John and his sister Lisa who move into their new house that everybody says that it is haunted... and it is. The only strange thing is that the house is haunted by an Hessian soldier and they're wondering what he's doing in their brand new house .To find what he's doing in their house read the best book in the world the "Battlefield Ghost".

The sequel to "The Seeing Stone," titled "At the Crossing-Places," is less interesting than the first book of this trilogy. While Crossley-Holland has clearly researched the historic details thoroughly, there doesn't seem to be much soul behind the actual narrative.

As Arthur found out more about his past, his life has gotten more complex. He's learned who his father is (the fierce Sir William), has learned that his now-ex-betrothed is his half sister and is a squire to Sir Stephen. He also still has the ability to see the life of Arthur of Camelot, whose life somehow (don't ask me how) reflects Arthur of Caldicot's. And he doesn't know who his unknown mother was.

As it is a medieval era, Arthur follows Sir Stephen to the Crusades while he continues to search for his mom's identity, while watching the ancient king who is him -- and not him. And as he goes to Champagne and then back to Britain, he comes closer to the truth about the connection between Arthur de Caldicot and Arthur in the stone...

Arthurian fiction has been around for a long time, and many readers have a particular affection for it. But, within the framework of another, different story, it just doesn't work. It worked better in "Seeing Stone," but in "At the Crossing-Places" nothing much happens to Arthur de Caldicot. Things happen, sure, but not very fast. Most of the focus is on King Arthur. And while that isn't really a problem in other books, it's a little frustrating to see things through Arthur de Caldicot's eyes, and not get a strong sense of what's happening in his own life.

Unfortunately, Crossley-Holland's writing hasn't improved much either. It's still very bare-bones, almost like a play. The narrative improves when the focus is on the past, or when something really spectacular happens. The rest of the time, it's just rather boring. (Especially when dealing with Arthur's romantic involvements -- he has no chemistry with Winnie at all)

Arthur is a rather flat lead character, who serves more as a window to the plot than an actual character. Winnie is also quite two-dimensional, but Sir Stephen is a likable enough guy. Unfortunately, Merlin is pretty much absent except through the seeing-stone, and it's hard to get a sense for Arthur and Gawain and the rest. It's like reading a book about someone watching a TV show -- I got little, if any, connection to the Arthurian people.

"At the Crossing-Places," like "Seeing Stone," had potential that never gets realized. At the end I felt frustrated and only slightly curious about "King of the Middle-March," the forthcoming third volume of the trilogy.

First, let me say that I absolutly adore the first book in this series. The Seeing Stone is on my top ten list of favorite books.
I was looking very forward to this sequel. Here's what was wrong with it:
*I missed Oliver, Sir John, Serle, and all of the other characters at Caldicot. In this book, Arthur is at Holt, where he is training to become a knight with Lord Stephen. While some of the characters at Holt were interesting, they weren't as much fun as those at Holt. And the "bad" characters and what they did didn't matter in the long wrong (their villiany wasn't too interesting, either.)
*Where is Merlin?!
*In the last book, I almost wished there had been more of Arthur-in-the-Stone. But this book is FILLED with Arthurian legand. Don't get me wrong-I love stories about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. But there were so many stories about knights who either weren't too interesting, weren't developed into the story enough,or didn't have enough details. Plus, most of the legends didn't reflect in Arthur de Caldicot's life, as they are supposed to.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't read this book. But maybe you should borrow it from the library. Just know that whenever I read Seeing Stone (and I've read it more than once) I always wish that it would never end. But I couldn't wait for this book to be over!

The Crossing=Places by Kevin Crossley-Holland was the second book in this fantastic trilogy "Arthur".

This story is about a young boy, becoming a man, named Arthur de Caldicott.

This is VERY hard to write without saying stuff about the 1st book

*First all of please read book 1, Arthur: The Seeing Stone*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In this book, The Crossing=Places, we once again meet young Arthur de Calidicot, now a squire to Lord Stephan of Holt.

In this story, Arthur meets Lord Stephan's daring neice, Winnie, and also many other important faces.

He is forced, yes literally forced, by Lord Stephan to visit his real father Sir William at Gotermore, one of his father's manors. It was not a pleasant visit but yet Arthur was not injured like their last meeting.

Arthur has mixed feelings.

His half-sister, Grace, (in the first book, she was his cousin) can no longer be betrothed to him and both are very upset. Grace is even ANGRY at him!

His new friend, Winnie, Lord Stephan's neice, has been kissing him. He has begun feelings of romance towards her and blushes every time her name is spoken.

You'll have to read this awesome, amazing, magical book to find out more about Arthur's continuing tales!!

((A little description of Winnie, Lord Stephan's neice: flaming red-gold hair, chestnut brown colored eyes, age 12 or 13, a year younger than Arthur))