I've had this book for sometime (bought based on the first recommendation here ...), but found it hard to characterize this book: the humor seems to gear towards the young adolescent reader, the content--simple, simple instructions on table manners--seems to aim at the 2 or 3 year olds, the art work in the book (and the odd inclusion of photographs of headshots) seems to beg for appreciation from an adult reader (and it is not my cup of tea). I suggest that before you shell out ... look through the sample pages here to make sure that this is for you.

This book on table manners has charming art and dryly funny text -- for an adult. The manners taught in it are way, way too simple for anyone but a 2 year old (eat with a spoon--not your hands, wipe on the napkin--not your sleeve, Don't put food in your hair), while the pictures and text are far too advanced for a two year old. A Ten year old might be tickled by the elaborate Russian names, but a child young enough for those lessons can barely talk yet. I bought Tiffany's Table Manners instead, and while it describes too many advanced manners for young children, it has a sufficiency of the ones they need, with plenty more to grow into.

For all parents who sit at mealtime giving directives, shaking their heads, and sighing as they watch their children chow down, there is finally a book about table manners kids will just eat up. Chris Raschka and Vladimir Radunsky have provided the logical reasons in word and art, for all those things you've been telling your kids for years...please chew with your mouth closed, don't play with your food, use your napkin, wash your hands before you come to the table, no dessert until you eat your vegetables... Written in hip, kid-speak language, their hilarious text is complemented by bold, bright and expressive artwork that will have readers laughing out loud and rolling in the aisles. Perfect for kids 4-8, Table Manners is a high spirited, manic romp through the ins and outs of basic eating skills, and youngsters will have such a good time poring over this busy book, they may not even realize there are subtle messages and simple lessons behind all the fun.

I really feel that the first review I wrote was not specific enough, and for that I do apologize. As a long time rereader of Nabokov, the thing that MOST glaringly turned me off about Mr. Wood's book was his propensity to incorrectly refer to the original Nabokov text. (Example: On page 208 Wood writes, "...and the word [incest] hovers in the children's Scrabble games (insect, scient, incest)..." The incest, scient, nicest word play is on page 85 of the Vintage editon. Ada is playing anagrams with her governess on pencil and paper. The Scrabble game enters the novel on page 223 and the ensuing game makes no reference to incest. I know it seems a nitpicky criticism, but the detail is all.) I opened with his chapter on Ada, as that was the book I was most involved in, and was immediately turned off by his lack of precision. I skimmed some of his critique of the short stories, but then gave up on the whole thing. When writing the previous review, I believed that any attentive Nabokovian would agree with me, but it appears I have erred, and possibly offended. I must admit that even Mr. Boyd gave Mr. Wood a certain amount of credit as a scholar in the opening of his most recent book. So...so I've reread the Ada chapter and looked at a few other chapters and I still can't bring my self to think that's this book is good for much more than helping me solidify my opinions of VN's work by refuting about 95% of Wood's arguements. Apologies for my too strong condemnation, it was ridiculous, but I still do not like this book.

Please don't support Wood's little Dabble-Fest. He didn't read any Nabokov more than once. You are a thousands times better of if you go with Brian Boyd's biographies.

I've been reading Nabokov for about 27 years, and re-reading it just as long, including almost every novel, short story, essay, and criticism I could find, as well as the Boyd two-volume biography, to which the previous customer referred. While Boyd's work is thorough and might be called "definitive," Wood's book is purposefully limited in scope. However, I certainly found in-depth analyses of the points and themes Wood chose. The subtitle of this book should also inform the prospective reader, i.e., "Nabokov and the Risks of Fiction." The book is made up of relatively short (the entire paperback is only about 250 pages), somewhat overlapping critical analyses regarding a specific point in six of VN's novels, two short stories, and his translation of EUGENE ONEGIN. Perhaps a few examples from the table of contents will help clarify: 3. The Cruelty of Chance: BEND SINISTER, 'Signs and Symbols', 'The Vane Sisters'; 4. The World Without Us: SPEAK MEMORY; 5. The Language of LOLITA; 8. The Demons of our Pity: PALE FIRE; 9. Happy Families: ADA. I have underlined so much of Wood's text and written so much in the margins that it is difficult to pick out a single example that might illuminate Wood's approach. But here's a try: In "The Language of LOLITA" Wood approaches the novel from Nabokov's games and play with language, and uses them to go into the many oppositions, ironies, and mysteries that abound in the book. For example, Wood cites the passage, "No matter, even if those eyes of hers would swell to myopic fish, and her nipples swell and crack...even then I would still go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of your dear wan face, at the mere sound of your raucous voice, my Lolita." Wood notes the apposition of "wan" and "raucous"; and then goes on with his analysis (within the context of this and other previous essays), "[these] are the notations of desperate love, and Humbert writes here the purest, most precise Nabokovian prose. What we question is not [Humbert's] passion but his supposed new respectability. The whole of [LOLITA] has been asking us to trust Humbert's obsession, even as we are repelled by it. We can't leave off trusting it now...[when the obsession] is so lyrically mourning what it claims it won't miss." Wood goes on to say that it may not be necessary for us to believe what Humbert believes at the end. "Indeed we may understand his crime more fully if we are sceptical about his repentence and altered love...It is easy to confess...and it may actually be to Humbert's credit that he is not entirely convincing in this line, in spite of his ambitions." These critical essays clearly are not meant to go into deep and thorough dissertations of a given work by Nabokov. Rather, I feel Wood is trying to give an overview of Nabokov by examining these particular works, each with a different, purposefully limited thesis. Wood may offend some Nabokov lovers perhaps because he does point out specific places in which he finds VN's prose and/or approach lacking or perhaps too gamesy for its own good. On the whole, however, I found Wood's book an excellent example of literary criticism "dedicated to the appreciation and interpretation of a single author, addressed to the general reader," to quote David Lodge from THE NEW YORK TIMES REVIEW OF BOOKS. I am also in agreement with John Banville of THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, who writes, "[Wood's book] offers us an entirely new set of insights into the work of a modern master." I feel this book is a MUST for the reader who is, say, on his/her second or third book by Nabokov. Yet I would also recommend MAGICIAN'S DOUBTS to anyone who is thoroughly familiar with Nabokov's life, his work, and its criticism for a fresh, cogent look at some of VN's work. I found it an especially good book for aspiring writers, as Wood dissects many of Nabokov's techniques, such as the way VN uses inversion, the use of connected references to accrue power, surface detail to reveal the object's depth, and how VN maintains the mystery in his work without losing its narrative drive. For myself, I most enjoyed reading THE MAGICIAN'S DOUBTS with the subject of each chapter (i.e., the particular Nabokov work) alongside, re-examining with delight the points and overall themes Wood expresses so elegantly in this compact but dense-with-insight book.

The full title is "Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution: A Debate." However, as this is a publication of the American Socialist Party, there isn't much debate in it. While there are minor points that the various writers disagree on, none of them bring up anything unique. This magazine-type publication is only 68 pages long, and only 4 of those were written by Lenin. $9 seems way too much to pay for so little.

Pozner was a prominent journalist at the time of the coup that ousted Gorbachev and he gives a good account of the events of those days on the barricades, but he has a tendency to engage in far too many flashbacks and always at the most inoportune moments. If he had stuck with a linear narrative, and left out about half of the tongue twisting names (you'll need an Excel spreadsheet to keep all the minor players straight), it could have been an excellent book.

The book assumes that the reader has an exceptionally strong background in mathematics. One would expect that no matter how "obvious" the proofs to the theorems in the book may be (as the author claims), the author would at least present them. Slight inconsistencies and unclear definitions are scattered throughout the book. I highly recommend that you search for a different book.

As the subtitle indicates, this is not a reconstruction, but materials for one. Before they can be made general use of, they have to be screened by specialists of the different subfamilies. In the present state of the work, Orel & Stolbova's comparisons are often laxist both on the phonological and the semantic sides. In addition, the tables on pages 1-5 have several printing errors. See review article (in German) by Kammerzell in Indogermanische Forschungen 101, 268-290 (1996).

This book details the life of a KGB agent, his career in the organization and an overview of what they do and how they do it. It comes off as a very high level, average and uninspiring work. There is just nothing new here. The book was a little run of the mill. The story sounded like it would be full of interesting stories from this former KGB agent. We get some interesting details on how operations are planned and carried out, some detail on the trade craft and recruitment, but overall the wooden written and the lack of large amounts of new information make this a book only suited to someone that is really interested in learning everything they possibly can about the KGB. There are better books on this topic.

This Introduction to Quantum Computers reads like a textbook on a subject that does have material to it, but nothing that demands a textbook. At this stage in the game of Quantum Computing, the material that has been discovered is more than enough interesting fodder for a book, but a textbook-boring approach is not something that is going to make this book sell. There are probably not many Quantum Computing classes in colleges, and unless the book is made for people directly working in the field (it's not), there isn't enough interesting information to keep the reader awake.

I didn't like it because it was [slow]. It didn't have action. I thought it was WAY too short. The author could have improved by making a ending that had more action. It clearly was more of a love and sentimental book. Thank you.

When one comes across a book with such a long title as this one is graced with, one usually thinks that either the author is trying to be funny, or the author is fond of long-windedness. In this case, it is the latter. The prose is so turgid, the buzz words and ideological terminology so prominent, no one but the most obsessed Marxist-Leninist academics can even begin to comprehend this work. Stay away! It's boring and you're definitely not missing anything.