Russell Bourne's book is an excellent read, and a fine introduction to the complex subject he addresses. I especially appreciate the new perspective it gave me on the New England I've lived in much of my life. Place names that have been merely interesting are now much more meaningful.

Bourne's notion - that the conflict between the European and Native peoples beginning in the 1600's is essentially a religious conflict of spiritual orientation - is an interesting perspective on very inteteresting times. It is a worthy discussion, indeed.

One thing I found somewhat disturbing was the superficial knowledge he displays with regard to the Puritans. It seemed to me that he might well have read a good deal about them but not read their works, or at least not read them in depth. His take on Jonathan Edwards and David Brainerd in particular seemed pointedly dismissive, and that simply does not do them justice.

It would have been been well to illustrate more fully that European spirituality was not all of a kind and that Native spirituality (also not all of a kind) was often in tune with several streams of theology that made the trip across the Atlantic. He correctly points out that there were not mass conversions, one way or another, but it would have been great to illustrate how the evolution of streams of spirituality on each side influenced both cultures.

One other point that bothered me was how he tended to lump together things a little study would have shown do not belong together. Charles Finney cannot be considered in the same camp as the Puritans - Finney's theology was heretical on too many points - and the Mormon faith bears no resemblance to the Puritan orthodoxy of New England, nor, in fact, any flavor of Christian orthodoxy. Finney's theology represents a stream of thought that is distinctive for the centrality of subjective experience, and gave birth to a kind of revivalism that the Puritans would have found completely abhorrant. The Mormon faith elevates another book to the place of the Bible, and that would also have been abhorrant to the Puritans of an earlier generation. The point here is that Bourne tends to treat these streams of spirituality as equally "Christian" which they plainly cannot be. The fact that they are not actually STRENGTHENS Bourne's thesis, and I wish they had been treated with a little more depth.

Still, this is a very fine work. I found it thought provoking and educational. The section on Hiawatha was particularly enlightening. I actually went back and re-read that section a number of times to be sure I understood it. The book also spurred me to want to understand the origins of my own New England culture with some depth. I recommend the book highly.

Russell Bourne's book is an excellent read, and a fine introduction to the complex subject he addresses. I especially appreciate the new perspective it gave me on the New England I've lived in much of my life. Place names that have been merely interesting are now much more meaningful.

Bourne's notion - that the conflict between the European and Native peoples beginning in the 1600's is essentially a religious conflict of spiritual orientation - is an interesting perspective on very inteteresting times. It is a worthy discussion, indeed.

One thing I found somewhat disturbing was the superficial knowledge he displays with regard to the Puritans. It seemed to me that he might well have read a good deal about them but not read their works, or at least not read them in depth. His take on Jonathan Edwards and David Brainerd in particular seemed pointedly dismissive, and that simply does not do them justice.

It would have been been well to illustrate more fully that European spirituality was not all of a kind and that Native spirituality (also not all of a kind) was often in tune with several streams of theology that made the trip across the Atlantic. He correctly points out that there were not mass conversions, one way or another, but it would have been great to illustrate how the evolution of streams of spirituality on each side influenced both cultures.

One other point that bothered me was how he tended to lump together things a little study would have shown do not belong together. Charles Finney cannot be considered in the same camp as the Puritans - Finney's theology was heretical on too many points - and the Mormon faith bears no resemblance to the Puritan orthodoxy of New England, nor, in fact, any flavor of Christian orthodoxy. Finney's theology represents a stream of thought that is distinctive for the centrality of subjective experience, and gave birth to a kind of revivalism that the Puritans would have found completely abhorrant. The Mormon faith elevates another book to the place of the Bible, and that would also have been abhorrant to the Puritans of an earlier generation. The point here is that Bourne tends to treat these streams of spirituality as equally "Christian" which they plainly cannot be. The fact that they are not actually STRENGTHENS Bourne's thesis, and I wish they had been treated with a little more depth.

Still, this is a very fine work. I found it thought provoking and educational. The section on Hiawatha was particularly enlightening. I actually went back and re-read that section a number of times to be sure I understood it. The book also spurred me to want to understand the origins of my own New England culture with some depth. I recommend the book highly.

A former editor of American Heritage argues that the religions and religious leaders of indigenous Americans affected in profound ways the Europeans-Protestant and Catholic-who sought in our early centuries to convert and/or massacre American Indians. History has let its glance linger overlong on the mostly destructive influences of missionaries and pioneers on the religious beliefs and practices of Native Americans, ignoring influences that coursed the other way, asserts Bourne (Floating West, 1992, etc.). As he points out, hundreds of immigrants abandoned their traditions and went native, though the totals are hardly overwhelming. In a persuasive voice evidencing prodigious knowledge of early American history, the author begins at Plymouth and tells the stories of Squanto and Samoset, Myles Standish, Roger Williams, who despite his biases sought to understand Indian ways. In his sequence on the Pequot War, Bourne reveals one of his great interests to be frontier warfare. In fact, for a study of religion, the coverage of martial matters is so extensive that relevance becomes an issue, although it must be admitted that the account of the two-hour Battle of Tippecanoe, among others, is a corker. In general, the narrative is spun with a pleasingly light touch. Of great interest are the author's portraits of prominent individuals in both camps: John Eliot, who for two years studied the Algonquian language before going to preach among them; Samuel Kirkland; Joseph Brant, the Mohawk who refused to shake the hand of George III; Peter Gansevoort, grandfather of Herman Melville (not mentioned); Tecumseh; Cornstalk; Sequoyah. Bourne describes the Indian encounters with Puritans, Roman Catholics, Shakers, Mormons, and assorted frontier Bible-pounders during the Great Awakenings. He closes, appropriately and poignantly, with the Trail of Tears. Though sometimes obscured by war whoops and thick flights of arrows, a fascinating examination of what happens to religions when worlds collide. (maps, 8 pages b&w photos, not seen)

The cover description of this novel grabbed my interest when I saw it in the bookstore, so I decided to give it a try. It's the first book I have struggled with in a while. And it's not because it's hard to read; far from it. The characters are, simply put, not interesting. I didn't care for a single one of them, not even the "detective" of the story, Robert Audley, or the "enchanting" and "mysterious" heroine herself, Lady Audley. There was some good bits of suspense, and a few bits of mystery, but because of the flat characters this really did little to compensate.

This novel tells the story of a beautiful woman whose secret becomes her undoing.
She uses her beauty, helplessness, and coquettish manner to achieve her end desires, but behind the innocent facade is a woman who is clever, manipulative and ruthless.
Lucy's secret and her extreme desire to keep it ruins the lives of the people around her (as most closely guarded secrets do).
I can't say anymore without giving the plot away.
The secret may be obvious, but the actual path to its discovery, its revelation, and aftermath shape the novel.
I could hardly put this book down and will certainly re-read it to see if I missed something the first time. A marvelous read - you will enjoy it if you like Victorian novels.

...I was suprised at how much I liked this book. I am not one for Victorian "sensationalists" preferring swashbuckling but Miss Braddon (as she was then called) is a great writer who gives explainations for her character's wild behavior. Considered quite a trashy novelist in her day, her stories are much tamer than what is on network television.

Read, enjoy this escapist novel

This is a book for the yachting purist and technically minded. Few design offices have achieved the success of S&S. The book covers meter boats to fast cruising designs as well as out and out racers. This volume is a must for any sailor with a knowledge of the hsitory of yacht design. One dissappointment is the lack of colour photographs. It is difficult to appreciate the true beauty of "The Classic Yachts" when all are depicted with line drawings and black hulls.

Generally a good read with interesting insights into the personalities and motivations of Rod and Olin Stevens. Some heartfelt commentary is woven throught the pages by folk who knew the brothers well.

I would recommend the book to serious sailors but not for those seeking a coffee table book.

I¹m afraid this book is a bit of a disappointment. For me and, I suspect, many others, S&S is synonymous with the Stephens brothers, especially with Olin. Although, with characteristic modesty, he would probably be the first to disagree, his successors just did not live up to him. So, for me, the book should have covered designs only up to the late seventies. Besides, I would argue that to an unbiased observer (which the authors are not) the best 100 S&S boats are all from that period. It seems strange, for instance, that none of the boats from the winning Admiral¹s Cup teams of 1971 and 1973 is featured. What about Kialoa II and III? No disrepect intended, but most of the designs from the eighties ‹ while undoubtedly good and competent ‹ are just too uncharacteristic and bland. No sparkle. Certainly not worthy of S&S¹s former glories.If anyone could have taken up Olin Stephens¹ mantle at the helm of S&S and kept the firm true to its traditional innovation and genius, it is German Frers Jr. He is the master¹s true spiritual successor. Since he chose to set up on his own, S&S after the Stephens brothers¹ retirement became a different firm, and this book should have stopped there.Apart from those, let¹s say, philosophical, disagreements, I also find the text somewhat boring, sycophantic in parts, and I am disappointed that there aren¹t more lines drawings and more detailed specifications.Having said all that, the book is worth every penny of its price, and no-one interested in yacht design and the history of yachting will want to do without it.

An interesting read around Thanksgiving as it sheds new light on the initial settlers' relationships with the native americans. The book is informative but seems to skim over some interesting events and leaves you wondering.