systematic methods of chemical process design. optimal design of multipurpose chemical plants. downstream process economics in seperation process in biotechnology.

The first chapters deal with economics, really elementary material. However, it is a worthwhile discussion of plant sizing and costing. I liked the later chapters on optimization: HENS, MINLP, scheduling, flexibility in processes, etc. Traditional books on optimization will not help you here because they will not show you how to set up your optimization problem. Systematic Methods does this! The book also contains some discussion of liquid-liquid separations.

As far as content is concerned, the book deserves a 5, but there are problems which reflect its first edition status. The index needs reworking (where is the entry for Fenske's equation?), and there are numerous typographic errors which mar the appearance of the presentation.

The book is not example intensive. The reader is expected to think, and to follow the given example requires paper and pencil, not just casual glances. What should be appreciated is that this book is written by the leaders of the field, and the material is absent in other texts. Much of the text reflects research conducted by the authors.

When I was about seven, I used to make a point to read Uncle Arthur whenever I was at the dentist or doctor (the only place I ever found the books) and I enjoyed them. Now, at the ripe old age of twenty-nine, I sometimes flip through the whenever I'm back in the waiting room and I find that my opinion has changed drastically. The stories are quite cute and many of the values are universal, but as a non-Christian I feel uncomfortable reading some of them. I'm particularly concerned by Maxwell's apparent belief (implied in a story about a broken radio) that one cannot be a good person if one is not a practising Christian. Also in the same story he tells his young audience that Jesus would "have to get rid" of those who had not opened their hearts to him. I take this to mean that those who are not Christians are doomed to hell. I realize that this is religious doctrine and that the stories were written with a certain audience in mind, but all the same I would not feel comfortable knowing that this book was being used in my child's school (particularly in a city as diverse as Toronto.) There are other ways to teach moral values without giving the impression that one group of people is better than another.

If you have ever doubted that God takes a hand directly in the lives of children, or that he tramples out the grapes of wrath among them, or that punishment for greed and vanity is swift, sure, inevitable and irrevocable, or that compassion is like a great, warm mother, read Uncle Arthur. His stories have the power to rivet children to the spot. They know he is talking about them. Each story is a moral or Biblical lesson entire. For example, Johann is driven out of the house into the snow on Christmas Eve by "an angry and brutal stepfather." Turned away from fine, large houses, where do you think he finds unquestioning and loving mercy? The cottage of a poor old woman. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My chldren..."

I bought this book hoping for great insight on Key West (an infinitely more desirable and intriguing locale to write about than Miami) and was sorely disappointed.

I really enjoyed Sehlinger's Unofficial Guide to WDW and frankly, expected more from this book. A lot more.

To be fair, most guide books don't pay nearly enough attention to the Keys, instead imparting more information than I ever wanted to know about Miami, a city that I've come to deplore.

It might be me; I just don't get the hype and focus on a sullied, soulless, filthville of a town like Miami over the glorious, exquisite keys.

At any rate, if for whatever unfathomable reason you really want to spend lots of time in Miami, this book is for you. If you're looking for Keys information, look elsewhere (though I haven't found a good alternative myself).

Just be forewarned that there's a good reason MIAMI has a huge typeface on the front and "the Keys" is shrunk down in size. It's a damned shame.

This book rates hundreds of hotels on quality, 1-4 stars, and also rates them by price. But the really excellent part is that the quality/price ratings are rolled into one more listing, and that is the VALUE listing.

Looking at the value lists, you can spot in the top value hotels a couple that are in your price range, and are high quality (relative to the others in that price range). When I was a college student in Florida this was a fantastic way to find a low priced hotel, and still be confident that it has good quality.

Unfortunately the (first edition) book does not have text descriptions of all the hotels, but really, that is not what I am looking for. I just want the best quality I can find for a certain price. It does have amenities listings, and phone numbers so you can go ahead and call the three or four hotels that look best value.

Now the first edition is seriously out of date in this very dynamic tourism market. The third edition is about two years old so it may be out of date, too, but the value guidelines will still hold for the key properties.

The first half of this classic by Doyle The Tragedy of Birlstone is exciting mystery, Doyle at his absolute best. A wealthy man turns up dead, and Holmes must find his killer, or so everybody thinks. The mystery ends up taking a 180 degree twist, one I never would have predicted. It's absolutely thrilling.
The second half of this book The Scrowrers, I'm not even sure why Doyle bothered. It is supposed to be a "prequel" to the first half of the book, and it falls flat. Holmes and Watson play only a bit part at the end of the book. I will say this however, the action is fast paced. There is much more violence in this section of the book than I've found in other Holmes mysteries. It does explain some details found in the first half of the book, but in my mind it didn't need to have an entire 100 or so pages dedicated to this detail. You can read the first half of the book and skip the second without feeling like you're missing a thing.

At the year 1893, Doyle was sick of Holmes. Some people say he was jealous that the character he made up was more famous than he was, and he claimed that he wanted to concentrate on more "serious" writings.

By the year 1902, people have boycotted all the writings of Doyle, and they even quit going to his clinic for counsels. He was about to declare his bankruptcy. And he was trying to write a story about a myth of an enormous dog haunting the life of people in some area of Britain. He wrote the story with some new characters, but finally found that writing it with Holmes as the hero would make much better, and it would be easier than making up some new environment for the characters. People were happy, but the problem was that the story takes place in a time interval before his acclaimed death in the "Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes."

He, then, is forced to resurrect Sherlock Holmes in the "Return of Sherlock Holmes," at the year 1905, which is a collection of 10 short stories. He, then, stops writing Holmes's stories, without killing Holmes, which was a clever move. But then people were at a rage and wanted some Holmes's adventures, and Doyle had to write something, but this was not any earlier than 1914, in "The Valley of Fear," 9 years after his last appearance.

In this book, he uses almost exactly the same method of writing he used in his first book, "A Study in Scarlet." That is, he cut the story into two parts, the first one featuring Holmes, and the second one does not mention Holmes at all accept at the very end of it. People did not like that because Holmes only appears at half of the story.

And let me tell you, that the first half, which features Holmes, was not all that insightful. It was not all that clever. It was the second part that appealed to me. It was a very nice plot. And, as a matter of fact, it explained the story of the villain in the first part. There was a twist at the end, and I am sure that Mme. Christie had used it in one of her detective, Poirot's, major mysteries. I am not going to mention it, since it is going to spoil the plot of both mysteries. If you really need to know it, send and email at karitaru at hotmail.com.

And after all the book is a nice read, and is much better than its predecessor, "The Hound of Baskervilles," and I really recommend it.

This was a mediocre book relying on the success of the other two books to boost sales. I don't think it would have gone very far on its own. The writing was much more shallow than most of Clarke's other books, and the characters were even more uninteresting.

One thing I really love about Clarke's books, especially 2001 and 2010, is the description. 2061 didn't have much of that; there was a sense that we had already seen these things before so they didn't need to be described again.

The book wasn't all bad. The redeeming feature is the premise. In the beginning Dr. Heywood Floyd (who I was glad to see again) was on a ship that landed on Halley's comet, which was an interesting twist. I've never read a SF book about landing on Halley's comet before. In the meantime, another ship is hijacked and ends up stranded on Europa, a moon of Jupiter that mankind has been forbidden to land on. The ship that Floyd is on is sent to rescue the other ship. It was an intriguing plot line and more could have been done with it. As usual the characters are uninteresting, and there seem to have been more useless characters in this book than in most of Clarke's books.

I certainly wouldn't call this a must-read for anybody. It's a fast book to read and somewhat entertaining while it's being read, but I doubt I'll remember it very long.

I think Clarke's 2061 stacks up well with the two preceding odysseys. I believe the plot was well-developed with its two separate, yet inevitably linked parts. The famous Dr. Heywood Floyd relaxes while on his way to rendezvous with Halley's Comet while his grandson sets his sights with Galaxy on his way to the forbidden landing satellite of Europa. With the beautiful twist of the force landing on the Jovian (now Luciferian) moon and the rescue mission that the Universe is then sentenced to, the suspense becomes great and the awe plentiful. Clarke's lucid description of the planets, moons, and new-found life are real, stunning, and exciting. The recurrence of the 'spirit' of Dave Bowman and the secret of the mysterious Monolith in a more subtle manner simply add to the essence of the well-formed plot. The characters come alive about their realistic struggles in the Space Age. Clarke is a remarkable author, and has proved once again his superiority with the wonders of Space in his third odyssey.

It's true that 2061 doesn't add much to the series in terms of learning about the monoliths or Bowman -- in fact, it would probably be LESS confusing to skip this book and read 3001 instead (the "Trinity" and "3001" chapters don't mesh well with what comes later). But if you truly appreciate Arthur C. Clarke's writing, you'll probably enjoy this book. Just like with 2001, 2010, 3001, and Rendezvous with Rama, Clarke takes you on a voyage into a world of his creation, giving you the chance to explore it and marvel at it. Although the voyage to Halley's comet is completely unnecessary in plot terms, it is a classic example of Clarke acting as a tour guide on a fascinating voyage through his world. Also, this book is another milestone in Clarke's progress as a character author -- a change that can be seen as you move through Clarke's 2001 saga. Don't expect any answers to questions you may have about 2001/2010, but if you enjoy Clarke touring you through the universe, it is definitely a worthy read.

Although I am not interested in investing, I found the book useful and interesting. The book can be broken down to three sections.

First section is an introductory tutorial to how stock exchanges operate and how to understand the corporate financial statements. This section was easy to read and enjoyable. For example, the author compared NYSE to an auction house, while Nasdaq is like a "flea market." I never knew the fundamental major differences between the two.

The second section is about the personal experiences of Mr. Levitt who was the Chairman of the SEC. During the stock market boom he describes the various attempts made by SEC to rein various aggressive accounting practices and conflicts of interest. As expected, politicians on the payroll of big audit and brokerage firms and various businesses do their best to block all SEC's attempts to change things.

The third section is on how to be a better small investor. However, I should warn the readers. This book can do more harm than good to the small investor. The book seems to be delivering two conflicting messages. The first message tells you all that is/was wrong with the stock market system. The second message is that by reading this book and knowing about some of the scams you can now invest with some confidence. The first picture drawn is dismal, with politicians on the payroll of special interest groups, buddy system, CEOs getting paid huge benefits, people in the know how taking advantage of outsiders. It is true that some of the most outrageous events of the past might not be repeated due to new legislation. However, can an average investor ever compete with the various people and groups who will always be in a position of advantage, people knowing the inside details of how the system works, the real health of some of the companies, etc.? You might argue that by doing some work the investor can tell the total fraud from real players. But, if this is so, then most other people could have also figured this out before you and me and the stock value would have already reached a value to reflect the true potential of the real company. The book never asks the real questions because the public doesn't want to hear them. We all want to believe sayings like "You have worked hard for your money, now let it work hard for you." After inflation and taxes, and potential of total loss, etc. can savings really grow in real terms on the average? When people quote the average increase in stock values of the S&P500 do they include all the companies that went bankrupt that are no longer in the exchange? How about the ones that never made it to the S&P500? I guess asking these questions wouldn't sell too many books. (Or newspapers, or TV advertisements.)
We love to dream about "Buying low and selling high". But as they say in poker " If you don't see a stooge when you sit at the table, then you are it."

Ozdal

I found the book informative in some areas, but somewhat disappointed in it's rehashed discussions of areas which have been previously covered by more knowledgable individuals. An entire section of potential for accounting irregularities is something that can be found in Mumford's book "The accounting numbers game". This is a book by an expert in accounting, which Levitt is not.

I found the discussion of lobbyists and the accounting and technology industry interesting. There are obviously great stories which can be ventured into, but i don't think Levitt went into too much depth. He is passionate in his protection of the investors, but seems hesitant to take a stand against the special interests. They are lining there pockets at the expense of the individual investors. It is a collabarated efforts on the part of politicians, the brokerage industries, accounting industries, and ceo's and numberous others. Unfortunately they hold all the power in the U.S. & this will continue to increase the discrepancy between the wealthy & poor / working class. I guess what I'm saying is Let's call a spade a spade not tapdance around the issue.

He explanation of hidden commissions is good for people who are unfamiliar with this area. There is a book called "License to steal" who spells it out in plain english what this is really about. This is a story written by a broker / salesman.

Overall, I thought it was a good read, & somewhat informative. Well worth the few days or so it took to read.

I'm really shocked at all the negative reviews this book is getting. I think they are totally unfair.

A lot of the criticism of this book is by people who claim to be disgruntled investors who lost big in the stock market. They seem to be taking it out on former SEC chairman Levitt. They are dead wrong!

Arthur Levitt championed the cause of small investors. He championed investors' rights against tough opposition from the Big 5 (now Big 4 sans Andersen) accounting firms, some (but not all) Wall Street financiers, etc. Levitt stuck to his principles in spite of tremendous opposition, personal insults, and threats to the SEC. The ONLY reason he lost in his attempts to defend small investors was because some members of Congress were bought off by Levitt's (and investors') enemies. This isn't just something that Levitt believes; almost everyone who has followed the issue on Wall Street and on Capitol Hill (EVEN Levitt's enemies) ALL agree that the above were the facts. In spite of the opposition, Levitt did manage to get some issues on the table (Reg FD - 'Fair Disclosure' - and trying to make accounting for derivatives as well as the co-habitation between accountants & consultants issues for public debate). All of that was accomplished by Levitt even when some in Congress threatened to cut the funding to the SEC.

Mr. Levitt's book recounts his heroic efforts, in the face of fierce opposition, to reform a flawed system. His book should be applauded for those reasons alone! On top of that, Mr. Levitt offers some sound advice to investors that would have helped to prevent many of those who have lost their shirts (and foolishly bash Levitt's book) from getting fooled into bad investment decisions.

Do I think Levitt's book is perfect or all that it claims to be? No. But if people are going to bash a book, they better back it up with facts and review a book in a thoughtful and logical manner rather than getting the facts wrong, lying, and/or going off into a world of their own.

Bottom-line: If you want the truth about Wall Street and politics, Levitt's book is a great read. If you want to criticize this book AFTER you actually read it, then please do so in a honest, factual, and logical manner rather than in a dishonest and irrational manner as some of the other reviewers have (unfortunately and unfairly) done.

Edit (11/17/02): I whole-heartedly agree with the review by Phillip Brown (Pennsylvania, .... Note (11/20/02): Apparently the rest of my edited review was deleted by Amazon thus making me look bad. Which begs the question: Why aren't they similarly editing out the 1-star reviews of this book that are clearly slanderous? I'm actually doing Amazon a favor by making sure that accurate, fair, and positive info about this book gets out there which will lead to more sales for them. The looney 1-star reviews would lead to poorer sales. So what gives?

GUENEVERE Queen of the Summer Country is a novel that makes for easy reading. It's a cinch to follow the events of the book, especially if you have prior knowledge of the life and times of King Arthur. It was just all right; I actually give it 3 1/2 stars.

I just choose not to give it a five-star review despite its redeeming qualities because, although Rosalind Miles gives the old legend a different spin, there still wasn't much to make me feel that this was more than a recycled story. It also felt like the characters are a safe distance away from the reader, like we can't get inside their heads and really sympathize with them. And how could we, when very few of them (and these are the characters who don't play a huge role in the novel) are portrayed as likable?

In my opinion, if you want a really fresh--and CLEARER--take on this tale, THE MISTS OF AVALON by Marion Zimmer Bradley is the book for you.

But if you've a keen interest in anything Arthurian, then this first installment in the Guenevere trilogy is an okay read.

I was a little leary of reading this book - the reviews did not sound all that great. I am fascinated and passionate about the Arthurian legend and have read various wonderful fictional series as well as non-fictional accounts of the "real" Arthur and the characters associated with him. What has always seemed to fascinate me the most was the "religion" of the legends - primarily the "Great Mother" Goddess worship - the female rule - and it's real relationship to the introduction of Christianity in religious history. It is fascinating to me that this is in fact a very real part of Christian history and heritage - and it was portrayed in this book in a potent manner despite it's simplicity.

This was basically a very simple book to read - but this in no way distracted me from loving it. It very passionately portrayed Gwenevere as the queen she was revered as. I did not understand the various reviews which described her as cold and unfeeling. She was the ruling queen of her people - she was a strong woman - sensual and bold in her own right - capable of the greatest love and compassion. Love is the tragedy of her story. I loved her character. I loved her spirit. I loved her story in this book.

It is true that this book adds no new "twists" to the old legend - the same characters appear (though not always in the same roles) fighting in the same battles - in their hearts as well as their battlegrounds - but for those who read a story such as this because of a love of the romance, chivalry, magic and mystery of the legend it will not be a disappointment. The re-telling of this story through Genevere's eyes and heart was simply a good "twist". It has the same aura (though not quite) of the incomparable Mists of Avalon - a high compliment coming from me! I look forward to reading the sequels.

Rosalind Miles has created a wonderful world that I just immersed myself in. This was a total reading experience--transporting me through the mists of time with lyrical flowing prose. There are a lot of books out there about the Arthurian legend, but not many that focus on the women's side of the story, especially the story of Guenevere (by the way, this is much better than Alice Borchardt's Guenevere book, which is ridiculously overwritten). I could identify with these characters and was absolutely drawn into their experiences.

I was delighted to find this in a bookstore and I will definitely recommend it to my friends and read the rest of the trilogy.

In these times when we're all looking for reading that's somewhat escapist, but without sacrificing quality of writing, this is the perfect read for you. If you read Guenevere, you are really in for a treat!

Ok.... I admit that I have enjoyed reading the RAMA books, but not in the same way I enjoy reading other books written by Arthur C. Clarke, a man I consider to be one of the greatest writers ever. These books, except for the first one, are just action adventures/soap operas. There is nothing deep or anything that will make you think in these books. Reading this series is like watching Pro-Wrestling: you know it is ridiculous, but it keeps you entertained, so you keep watching/reading. For anyone who is not really into Sci-Fi, and is not looking for original ideas, but is looking for a bunch of pointless sex, this is a great book. I am really bothered that Clarke sunk to the level of writing a series with pathetic cliffhangers at the end to sucker a reader into buying another book in the series. He should leave that up to Diane Carey and Peter David who think that writing Star Trek novels is the same thing as writing Sci-Fi.

Allow me to be a little retrospective . The first book was a gem. Not often are there books which concentrate purely on the technological side and get away with little or no character development . The second was pleasing only towards the end although I found the need to explain life stories of characters profoundly irritating and often irrelevant . Who cares if Francesca is a slut ? I was hoping for a redemption of sorts in this third book but nope , didn't find it . If this book were set in an urban 20th century environment , it would be a mid-day soap opera with sex and drugs thrown in . As a science fiction novel , it somehow manages to discard most science . Maybe it was Lee's influence , maybe I just lost patience with the black and white characters . This book could have done with better characterisation , less politics , less pointless sex , less Shakespearen quotes and finally , a helluva lot more science fiction . Ultimately I was disappointed since I started reading this series with much enthusiasm and ended up flicking chapters just to see who would cark it next.

While still plagued with the Clarke/Lee incompatibility syndrome, it turns out that this book makes up for the general mediocrity of its predecessor, "Rama II". The first 200 or so pages of this book are among the best science fiction I have ever read. Unfortunately, as some other reviewers have pointed out, the last half of the book has an over-density of smut (thank you so much, Gentry Lee) and ridiculousness.I would recommend it. If you suffered through Rama II, you shall find this third installment in the Rama books to be somewhat more rewarding.Plus, the cover's cool! The scene depicted on the cover actually occurs in the book, precisely. That's a nice change...so many books in this genre have cover art without any real application to the text.

Rama II will most likely be disappointing to the majority of readers who enjoyed Rendezvous With Rama. This isn't the worst thing I've read, but it is certainly a letdown after Rendezvous. My time could have been spent on a better novel -- though, I am, unfortunately, doomed to finish up this series due to a bothersome sense of duty.

Clarke (or Lee -- who knows who wrote the majority of the novel?) takes a lot of the focus off the engineering marvels of Rama in order to follow poorly developed character histories. I am not opposed to good characterization in science fiction -- it's great when an author can manage a successful marriage between hard sci-fi and compelling character development. Clarke/Lee, however, in his attempt to pull off such a marriage, instead causes both aspects to suffer.

I found the religious aspects of this novel irritating -- but that's probably due to the fact that I'm an agnostic (leaning in a heavily atheistic direction) with little fondness for organized religion. My own beliefs aside, I thought the religious aspects of the novel were clumsily handled and offered little insight.

I'm curious to see how the series ends, though from the reviews I've read, I fear I must expect more of the same mediocrity I found in Rama II.

I enjoyed rendevous with rama, and therefore thought I would like this book. No such luck. The writing is really bad and the characters are one dimensional. About 50 pages into it I realized that around 30 pages were missing from the book. I put it down, disgusted, but not disappointed. I'm glad I didn't waste my time finishing it.

In the year 2200, a second of the alien spacecrafts designated "Rama" enters our solar system, sparking another expedition to try to learn the secrets of its mysterious purpose and origin. This book is the sequel to Arthur C. Clarke's landmark First Contact novel Rendezvous with Rama, that showed an intrepid team of Earthmen exploring an apparently abandoned alien spacecraft that passes through our system. This is the second book in a series that will continue with The Gardens of Rama, and Rama Revealed. This time around Clarke is writing with NASA scientist Gentry Lee, whose knowledge of space engineering adds some details that the first novel had missed.

The first half of the book is fairly interesting, showing how the beautiful, ambitious, unscrupulous newscaster Francesca Sabatini manipulates the decision-makers who are nominally in charge of the racially, religiously, and nationally diverse expedition. Squared off against her is the heroine, Nicole des Jardins, the French-African Life Sciences Officer, who has secrets of her own. Once underway, a deadly accident causes a shift in the expedition's power structure. Then, once the remaining crew is aboard the Rama spacecraft, Clarke and Lee's scientific skills come to the fore, describing the peculiar features of this enormous vessel, and the seemingly inexplicable activities of the creatures (?) found within.

The second half functions as a more straightforward space adventure story, featuring Nicole des Jardins' perils aboard the Rama. All the intrigue gets lost in the excitement of wondering how Nicole will escape her doom on Rama, and while the resolution may be satisfactory enough for some, perhaps, it does require a good stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately, this book's ultimate conclusion really cuts the entire first half adrift, and the whole is less than satisfying. Perhaps the next volume, The Gardens of Rama, will once again pick up the plot threads that are left dangling in Rama II. One can hope so, at least, and the three-star rating reflects that expectation to a considerable extent, because without any further resolution this book would be very weak indeed.

This book has a great premise and an ambitious objective. Phillips uses wonderful prose and an avant guard style to portray the life of five North American expats living in Budapest during the early 90s. The Americans are unable to comprehend what life was like under communist rule. They are extremely self-interested and have no appreciation for the culture or history. There is a great deal of irony and tragedy concerning the character's ignorance, which remains a central theme throughout the novel.

This book has received much praise and criticism, and both are well deserved. There are moments of brilliance followed by pages of complete boredom. The first couple of chapters act as an excellent hook but then finishing the book becomes a laborious task. Prague may be a good choice for a book club because so many people either love it or hate it and the author's style is very original. However, it's hard to imagine that the average reader won't be at least a little disappointed because the story never reaches its full potential.

As a voracious reader and former English major, I feel compelled to defend this novel. A year after reading it, I find myself still thinking about it, about John Price and his Budapest. Simply put, the characters in this novel--and the city of Budapest is a character--got under my skin. I suspect critics may have missed Phillips' subtle humor (e.g. a character works on a thesis on the history of nostalgia), Prague's pervasive understated emotion, and the clever little treats along the way (e.g. the juxtaposition of communist Budapest and the clueless hipsters of the '90s; a character's imaginary wife of a photo left behind in the apartment he rents). Both heartbreaking and hopeful, Prague is top on my list of favorite books of 2002. I only regret I can't read it again for the first time.

I hadn't heard of Arthur Phillips before I began reading Prague, but by page 6, I felt I had read 50 other books by him. Alienated youth, joined by a sense of ennui in a habitat not their own...sound familiar? Then, by page 20 I realized that this was, indeed, something remarkably fresh. And incredibly well written.
Don't open this story looking for a party in Prague itself, for the city merely plays Emerald City to Budapest's Oz. The 5 main characters of Phillips books are forever looking toward Prague while chasing money, love, and in one interesting case family through Budapest in the early 1990's. There isn't a whole lot at first to like about Emily, Scott, his brother John, Mark and Charles - but as their adventures roll along the pages, it is humor that makes these characters endearing.
Phillips use of the English language is awe-inspiring. It's clear that he recognizes the kudos showered upon Michael Chabon for taking time to perfect language and idioms in his storytelling. I kept thinking of Chabon's "The Mysteries Of Pittsburgh" while reading this book, and if you are a fan, you will greatly enjoy Phillip's storytelling skills.
I've read this type story so many times over the years (Bright Lights, Big City, Less Than Zero, The Secret History are less worthy members of this literary club). When I finished Prague, I felt like I truly cared about not only the outcome, but the characters themselves. That's difficult to pull off in a novel about self-absorbed, capital-hungry Gen X'ers, but Phillips does a great job in achieving this.