with a little bit of editing and etc. this could have been an excellent sequel..

Very cool book. Pretty cool story line, most of the drawings are very cool. Others, it looked like they didn't know what else to put in and still be able to put in all the dialogue. Seemed that they were trying too hard to make her outfit look like the crow in the movie (minus the trench coat). Definately worth seeing to see a chick kicking butt!

veGAMan infErior

i bought this for a road trip. i like it and the art is great. one thing got me though. the chick who comes back as the crow, why did she come back? she wasnt even going to keep her baby, she didndt love it. but it was good

I thought the art was reasonably well-done, though it ain't James O'Barr's drawing. The story wasn't all that bad, pretty original, but it seemed kinda stupid to me. I mean, Confederate soldiers reincarnated as a biker gang. Not really all that far-fetched, but why would the Crow wait that long? I mean, let's look at our past Crows...one year, months, weeks, days, same day... I guess, revenge requires a sense of timing too, though it really didn't work for me. I also didn't feel a lot of the emotion I felt with O'Barr's story. I guess, I'm so used to the lyricism and poetics of the original, that anything less just seems like crap to me. Anyway, this book is work a look, but I honestly do not think that any Crow comic will ever be as good as the original.

This book is an excellent read based on the comic by J. O'Barr The Crow saga continues in this new story of in which a Crow warrior is awakened 100 years later to get revenge for the injustices done to him and his family.

This book was a good series, but it was hard to understand and figure out how the crow and the enemies come back 130.years later so that Joshua could have revenge, I mean was the crow tied up for 130 years and joshua was just on a waiting list for that time, but still, cool book and I am still wanting to know where the hell is waking nightmare#2 and whats taking so long

Comics like "Two-Fisted Science" serve nothing but a good purpose. They remind us that comics - like other art forms - can be about anything, and are not captives of the humor, fantasy and adventure genres.

A science-themed comic is especially appropriate, as the art-text combination inherent to comics would seem perfect for conveying complex/cosmic ideas. This collection features some terrific artists - notably Bernie Mireault, David Lasky, Colleen Doran and Sean Bieri - but I was a bit disappointed in the writing. Ottaviani's stories so intent on being unorthodox and different that they instead become meandering and confusing. Oftentimes I was unsure of what exactly was at stake for each story and why we should care about what was being told. And I would expect to actually learn more about SCIENCE in such a book. Also, the organization of the book into seemingly random sections, and the clumsy, unimaginative publication design diminished the effect.

I give the book high marks for effort, nice artwork, and the especially interesting portraits of Richard Feynman, but overall I'd rate "Two-Fisted Science" a noble failure.

We have given this book to various friends who have enjoyed the hard science topics in the 'comic book' format. We also have given it to nieces and nephews, who may not realize that they are being exposed to science and history. We can chat with them about it later, to see how much they have absorbed and to encourage them to reread it (comics are fun after all).

Although a title like "The Last Hurrah of the James-Younger Gang" is good from a marketing standpoint because of the "celebrity" status of Jesse James and Cole Younger, it unfortunately does not recognize the real heroes of Robert Barr Smith's book: the ordinary citizens of a small Midwestern town who in 1876 repelled an invasion by a criminal gang. Smith makes no secret of his sympathies (which I share) when he describes the outlaws as being "no more than orinary criminals, bullies who stole the fruits of other's labors because it beat working and did a good deal to inflate their twisted egos." In other words, don't buy this book if you expect to read praise of Jesse James!

Smith's research into the Northfield, Minnesota, raid is broad, but the nature of the evidence prevents him from constructing a simple narrative with all details laid out in a straightforward, no questions manner. Quick, violent events such as the Northfield gun battle inevitably leave witnesses confused and contradictions are inescapable. Moreover, the outlaws' own accounts appear more concerned with providing excuses and whitewashing their activities than relating the truth. And, finally, the stories from both sides were very often exagerrated and distorted by the newspapers and books which reported them.

Time and time again, Smith relates several different versions of some particular incident, pointing out improbabilities and sometimes identifying the most likely truth, but very often only a best guess at what really happended can be made. Nonetheless, Smith's reconstruction of events held my attention and, in the end, I celebrate with him the victory of those Minnesota farmers and shopkeepers over the hoodlums who thought they would be easy picking.

Overall I've enjoyed the storytelling very visual until the end.It just seemed the end was rushed,and was saved for the very last few pages of the book. It left me puzzled I was like "Get out of here, You must be joking all this great storytelling,and it ends in such a tame lame fashion". Did the author have a plane to catch? Too bad all the energy and excitement 3/4 of the book is drained away by the 1/4 ending what a shame.

As a fan of the "Dark Fiction" (alright, horror!) genre I have enjoyed the various entries into the Crow universe. I must point out that I truly loved both Poppy Brite's and David Bischoff's entries into the field. Sometow leaves me flat. Flat is the best word to decribe the entire work. I've not read much written by the man, but the reader is left with a distinct sense of distance throughout the thje piece. Perhaps this is an embodiment of the often stated Bhuddist notion that life is illusion, so we should not be overly concerened with what goes on on earth. Unfortunately, this philosophy acrries over in the book and one doesn't really care about the characters, the events, or the settings. Its a great deal of beautiful fluff waiting for plot and characterization to save it.

this to me did not seem like a crow book. it was to magical and the crow is only in the book himself for about 15 pages its a alright book but dont read it expecting to see the crow.

I have been fairly impressed with some of James Barr's other works in different areas (eg. 'Semantics of Biblical Language') and I ventured into 'Fundamentalism' with an open mind, but was disappointed. By 'fundamentalist' he basically means most conservative evangelicals; his particular gripe is with the doctrine of inerrancy, though he levels plenty of other charges at conservatives: they don't believe non-fundamentalists are 'true' Christians; they only make use of critical scholarship when it suits their own agenda; they elevate their own traditions to infallible status. Of course all these have been true of some evangelicals at one point or another, but Barr makes all of these more or less blanket accusations that he wants to make out are an inherent part of conservative evangelicalism. He frequently draws attention to extreme examples that many (or most) thinking evangelical scholars would disown, eg. Harold Lindsell's infamous harmonisation of Peter's denial (which had him postulating a sixfold denial). He picks on Howard Marshall for harmonising the two ascension accounts in Luke and Acts, suggesting that this is typical of evangelical harmonisation whose only motivation is to protect the Bible from error, when in fact it is only common sense to assume that the SAME event recorded by the SAME author is more likely than not to be able to be harmonised. Barr's work is full of double standards: he despises the way conservatives, when asked by a layman about liberal theology, will be directed to a book written by a conservative intending to refute the liberal position, and yet Barr himself writes with the intent of introducing non-conservatives to HIS interpretation and refutation of fundamentalism; he complains about the animosity shown by some conservatives towards biblical scholars, and yet his own work is marred by a hostile and unfriendly attitude. In fact, if it weren't for the blatant hostility demonstrated towards conservative evangelicalism throughout the book, and the fact that every accusation he raises he tries to elevate to 'typical' status within 'fundamentalism', he might actually have some good points to make. He doesn't seem to realise, however, that many of these criticisms have been raised WITHIN evangelicalism, by people who hold firmly to inerrancy, which Barr seems to see as the Achilles' heel of evangelicalism. Barr thinks that evangelicals have been wrong to reject biblical criticism? Good! Many evangelicals say the same thing, and it is only one narrow stream of evangelicalism who have rejected it outright, whereas many conservative scholars have used biblical criticism honestly and responsibly. Barr is fed up with crass harmonisations and ludicrous attempts to explain away 'errors'? Good! Many evangelical scholars are equally fed up, yet they remain inerrantists. Barr is tired of partisan propaganda from fundamentalists, of their failure to interact sufficiently with non-conservative scholarship, of being uncreative in theology and unwilling to step out into new territory? Good! Join the rest of the world of evangelical scholarship who have been raising the same objections for many years, from within a Bible-believing, inerrantist framework. Barr would like his readers to think that all the problems he finds in conservative evangelicalism are as a direct result of holding to inerrancy, but the evidence is against him. I have recently done my BA thesis on Barr's criticisms, particularly as they relate to inerrancy and interpretation, and I have come across many evangelical scholars who share Barr's concerns, and yet feel no need to abandon inerrancy (Craig L. Blomberg and Moises Silva were those who impressed me most). I found 'Fundamentalism' misleading and, in fact, almost vicious at times. I had to restrain my anger just to be able to learn from Barr's criticisms, because the underlying tone completely obscured any positive contributions Barr might have had to make. Barr is generally a good scholar, but he went beyond the bounds of good scholarship this time, and 'Fundamentalism' is more akin to the 'rubbishy partisan literature' he so despises than any fair, academic treatment of a subject which deserves attention.

Until reading this book I pretty much assumed fundamentalism (Christian, anyway) was mostly a U.S. phenomenon. Barr seems to be mostly occupied with British evangelicals. Actually, I was surprised at how *liberal* many of the evangelical/fundamentalist scholars he examines were by the standards of U.S. fundamentalists. For example, I imagine most garden variety U.S. fundies would be appalled that many of these scholars claim to be inerrantists and yet do not accept a literal six day creation and a young earth.

Nevertheless, Barr does an excellent job of exposing the difficulties inherent in the concept of biblical inerrantism. The previous reviewer notes that many evangelical scholars also oppose the reflexive apologetic/harmonization stance espoused by the scholars Barr cites. That may be so, but if rank and file evangelicals/fundamentalists knew that these people were in their midst, they would run them out of town on the proverbial rail, or at the very least withdraw their support from the institutions that employ them.

Barr's goal is to understand the fundamentalist positions and arguments. He certainly does submit submit them to sustained criticism, but makes every effort to be fair and provide reasoned criticism. He is a very competent biblical scholar who has contributed to the field.

He points out, fundamentalists are not really biblical literalists, as they keep adjusting their interpretations to somehow cohere with modern knowledge. They are really inerrantists, believing that the Bible contains no errors of any kind, if properly interpreted. "Inerrancy is maintained only by constantly altering the mode of interpretation, and in particular by abandoning the literal sense as soon as it would be an embarrassment to the view of inerrancy held." (p. 46) In other words, when literal interpretations conflict with established knowledge, they abandon them for nonliteral ones, often in ingenious, if highly implausible, ways.

A second note of fundamentalism is hostility to modern biblical scholarship and modern theology. For example, does it really matter to the validiy of our faith whether the book of Isaiah is divided into three main groups of material from different times? (Pre-exilic period, First Isaiah, chs. 1-39; exilic period, Second Isaiah, chs. 40-55; and post-exilic period, Third Isaiah, chs. 56-66.) Does it really matter our faith whether Deuteronomy was written several centuries after Moses? Does it really matter if Mark was the earliest gospel? Does it really matter whether the first creation story in Genesis was written after the Exile and uses contemporary imagery? Whether the story of the "man" and "woman" in Gen. 2-3 is an aetiological (everyman) story? The liberal positons actually take nothing away from faith in Jesus Christ. Why do so many fundamentalists think they do? Ad hominem arguments, really. They tend to read motives into modern scholarship, falsely accusing modern scholars en masse of trying to destroy the credibility of the Bible. According to Barr, they are actually stuck in the past with the 18th century deist controversies. Many deists did argue against revelation, but this is not a necessary presupposition of critical scholarship.

But of course, fundamentalists like to compare the ordinary nominal church going Christian. The must undergo a conversion to become true Christians, and it is expected that they will then hold conservative evangelical views. This has a danger of being a form a gnosticism, an elite group, whose primary faith is in the inerrancy of the Bible rather than in Christ Jesus. One peculiarity is that fundamentalists often prefer to read only trustworthy books by safe authors, and these do not seem to include critical scholars. Barr points out that they usually simply do not understand where modern scholars are coming from, nor do they really want to, and so make up all sorts of charges against them which have little basis in fact.

Strangely enough, the fundamentalist cannot agree on many things important to them. Pre- and post-millenarism and dispensationalism are cases in point.

Barr holds that fundamentalism is a particular type of religion, and acceptance of this religion controls how they interpret the Bible, rather than the other way around. The three elements of fundamemtalism he chose to deal with, inerrancy, the hositility toward critical scholarship and theology, and the distinction betwee the nominal and true Christian, are obviosly not given in the Bible. For example, the "Bible" could not declare itself to be inerrant because when the texts cited were composed, there was no 'Bible' in existence. It hadn't been put together yet by the church, and indeed, some had not been written yet! I haven't the space or inclination to go over the spurious 'claims' that fundamentalists 'claim' the Bible or Jesus made about the Bible, using passages that are clearly concerned with other issues.

This is not a sociology of religion book with survey results and statistics. Rather, Barr takes on the positions and arguments put forward by many fundamentalists. He documents them in the literature and shows there is a variety of opinions, something missed by another reviewer. He also argues that evangelical Christianity is not, and need not, be tied to fundamentalis, something also missed by the the same reviewer. Anyone who thinks that he is arguing against straw men just hasn't dealt with fundamentalists. I have, and I am grateful to Barr for helping to show me where those with whom I have controverted are coming from.

The Crow: Vengeance collects issues 1 - 3, 5 and 6 of Todd McFarlane's Crow comic series. It follows Eric Draven, star of the original graphic novel and film, through his revenge and then further.

Jon J Muth does a great job of writing this, and the artists, Jamie Tolagston and Paul Lee, also have talent. Unfortunately, the idea behind the series was not so good, and eventually the series was cancelled, after issue 10.

Book, II, "Evil Beyond Reach", is also available now.

The book is like a general introduction to Model Airplanes. It does not focus on anything, I found it of no use at all. The pictures inside are worth seeing: the R/C equipment shown is so old that it's a real fun to see.

I do not recommend this book to anyone who is trying to learn to build or fly R/C airplanes. While the information on the basics of flying is pretty good, but all of the equipment shown is very dated, and the information on available equipment isn't very good either.

The book is very informative and can provide the rank beginner in the hobby with some good start up information. Although the book overall is really outdated it shows the basics of flying really well. The book does show alot of dated equipment one model shown in the book and recomended by the author has been out of production for over ten years and the radio equipment shown is also of the same vintage. I recomend this book to some one getting started or to someone interested in the history of the hobby. It is a ok book overall.