If you turned this in as your creative writing assignment, you might get a 'B'. You'd expect better from an published author. The cover of the book looks so good... glamorous and cool, a brown haired girl smirks at you while a guy's sprawled body is reflected on her sunglasses... above the epitaph ... 'She's smart. She's fun. She wants to kill you.' Trust me, those words have nothing to do with the story inside. You expect a mystery. You expect a charming, popular and ruthless stranger who comes into Elizabeth's life and takes over, maybe even turning her old friends against her. You expect to wonder 'who is this girl?' and 'Is this really Amanda'? You expect people around 'Amanda' to start mysteriously turning up dead or have near fatal accidents. Well, that isn't in this book. It doesn't deliver. I was not only disappointed, but mad. Once she moves into Elizabeth's house, 'Amanda' doesn't do a thing that is particulary smart or charming or fun, neither does Elizabeth. There is no mystery to it. You know who did what to who right off. Elizabeth is the only one in the dark. It would have been a much better book if Nicholas Adams had lived up to the synopsis and kept what really happened to Amanda a mystery until the end instead of putting it all in the front of the book. It might work for you if you're one of those readers who flips to the back of the book and reads the ending first, but for the rest of you I recommend sticking to Stine or Pike unless you're into collecting book cover art.

Prince Nicholas of Greece had an interesting family background, being the son of King George I of Greece, married to a Russian grand duchess (Elena Vladimirovna) and related to most of the royal families of Europe. Unfortunately, this book is not very interesting. The author dedicates it "to the memory of KING CONSTANTINE [of Greece, his brother] in the hope that it may clear the name of a man cruelly wronged a great king a great gentleman and soldier and a great Hellene". This essentially sums up the entire book-- a zealous defense of King Constantine. It goes on and on for three hundred pages.

When the author lets himself go, there are a few interesting moments in the book; his description of Pavlovsk Palace in Russia, where he stayed with his mother and her brother's family for several months, is interesting and amusing. Unfortunately, he takes the title "political memoirs" seriously and sticks almost entirely to politics; and his point of view is so biased that it reads like a propaganda piece more than anything else. The writing suffers, too, during these sections, making the book almost impossible to wade through. I have not read Nicholas's earlier memoirs ("My Fifty Years") but honestly can't say that I found this particular book of much interest.

This was the worst book in the series. Why you ask? Because it was boring. Dull. I just couldn't get into it. Everything about it was boring. In fact the only reason I'm even going to read the last two books in the series is because of the time I've invested this far. (and I never did see the Spanish conquistadors mentioned on the back cover)

From June 1940 through to June 1941, Britain stood alone against an alliance of European countries, led by Germany, that were hell-bent on the destruction of freedom and the subjugation of all non-Germanic peoples. Cull has studied Britain's attempts to gain itself an ally against Nazism, but concludes oddly that these attempts were in some way sinister. He fails to convince. Britain's role against fascism was surely a heroic one, a subject for our admiration, and Britain's desire to obtain American help is surely neither insidious nor surprising.
Cull describes in detail the propaganda methods used by the British. They sent American radio stations recordings of British news broadcasts, and wrote articles in American newspapers seeking support. This rather mundane activity is related as if it is quite spine-chilling. Now, if Cull could prove that the British terrorized America and then framed the Germans I would sit up and take notice, but the fact is the British did nothing of the kind - they were, after all, the champions of the free world and not about to erode the very principles of justice they were fighting to preserve.
One of Cull's main grudges revolves around a "Nazi map of German plans for South America" which, he says, Roosevelt used to convince Americans of German villainy and which, he says, was forged. Having already convinced himself of British villainy, he concludes that this map can only have been foisted on the American people by British spies. Cull seems to have moved mountains to obtain evidence that his theory is correct, but admits to having failed. Undaunted, he concludes that his theory is correct, the map must have been forged by the British secret service, but - here's Catch 22 - they were so crafty that they ensured no-one would ever find any proof. This aside, it still makes no sense to blame Britain for America's entry into the war. Pearl Harbor happened because the Japanese were smarting at American economic sanctions - and America had put sanctions on Japan because Japan was attacking Indo-China. This had little to do with Germany, and nothing at all to do with Britain.

Roerich, Nicolas. Shambhala. This is a collection of dispatches during travels in Tibet and the borderlands of the eastern Russian frontier by the Russo-American painter, poet and mystic which date from the late 20's and early 1930's. If you like Gurdjieff, Roerich will interest you. He believed that Beauty was a divine principle that could be used to transform the world.

Though the central section did not hold my attention, the first chapters about a Tibet long gone were fascinating. This was partly due to Roerich's idiosyncratic spelling which cast a new light on the meaning of certain Sanskrit words.

Roerich, Nicolas. Shambhala. This is a collection of dispatches during travels in Tibet and the borderlands of the eastern Russian frontier by the Russo-American painter, poet and mystic which date from the late 20's and early 1930's. If you like Gurdjieff, Roerich will interest you. He believed that Beauty was a divine principle that could be used to transform the world.

Though the central section did not hold my attention, the first chapters about a Tibet long gone were fascinating. This was partly due to Roerich's idiosyncratic spelling which cast a new light on the meaning of certain Sanskrit words.

This book is advertised, as being a "puzzling mystery" but it really isn't. There really isn't even a "puzzle" to solve, only one factor is left out of the book, and the reader has to figure out what it is. I am very bad at figuring out endings to mysetry novels, but this one was so painfully obvious. The plot was interesting, and the characters well-developed, but it is also outdated, and littered with Cold War paranoia. If you're looking for a "puzzling mystery" please don't read this book.

A police procedural with little of the taut tale that I am used to. The sniper begins to assassinate men who for one reason or another have eluded the death penalty by being acquitted of murders they had very likely committed. The police are baffled and at a loss on how to proceed as the number of victims increases.

Good solid writing and plot but a bit weak on character development and excitement. 2.5/5

Exhaustive detail fills this Brickhouse & Smith book, neglecting Socrates the person. This is yet another philosophy book that reduces Socrates to a mere series of arguments. Concerned with synthesizing and/or refuting interpretations of other scholars, this book joins the several that fail to present the trial of Socrates in cultural context. The authors also fail to show the dissident character of Socrates, choosing instead to bury him under a mound of philosophical abstractions. Undervalued in this book is Socrates the civil disobedient. The reader is led to think that this great ironic philosopher, as represented in Plato's CRITO, was opposed to civil disobedience. Misreading the CRITO, this book portrays Socrates as a mere apologist for the status quo rather than the political dissident that he actually was. If the Socrates of history depicted in this book is the true one, he probably would not have been tried and executed.

Like many philosophy books, this work is not reader-friendly, making one wade through myriad sections and subsections.

A far better book is the recent one by James Colaiaco, entitled SOCRATES AGAINST ATHENS. Praised for its clarity and elegant prose style, Colaiaco's book captures the drama of Socrates' trial better than any other one, and makes the dissenting philosopher relevant for today. As Colaiaco persuasively argues, Socrates represents a radically new conception of a hero-- the hero as philosopher. Colaiaco's account of the Socrates in Plato's CRITO is illuminating and accurate, with due appreciation for Socrates' brilliant use of irony. Looking for the best book on the trial of Socrates? Read Colaiaco's.

Why should I or anyone else spend more than thirty bucks for "Special Edition using KDE" when nearly everything in it can be found online or in help files? Another work, "Practical KDE" (also from Que) is absolutely full of relevant information obviously gained by first-hand experience (which I strongly suspect Wells is lacking) and also costs considerably less. I'm really sorry I wasted my money on Wells. Never again...