This book lacks everything which it needs. Past the third chapter, the story begins to roll, but before that, it reads very much like an abolitionist pamphlet. I am very much in favor of what the novel tries to express, but the blatant way in which the message is conveyed takes away from the entire book. For a look at the institution of slavery and several examples of brutality from the Frederick Douglass' life, this is a good book, but do not expect to be moved or to feel as if you experienced the horror of the time. It could have been done better.

This is one of the most eye opening pieces of literature that I ever had the pleasure to read.I really feel that if everyone read this book the there would not be such a problem with racism. I think that the book has not recieved the commendation that it deserves because many people are afraid of its contents and what it means to their lives - their ancestors were the cause of much of the horror and abuse that follows the abomination of slavery. It is one of the best books that I have ever read and I would certainly recommend it to those who are not too scared to read it. As for it being a piece of abolitionist rubbish-No way!Douglass was certainly not the only writer to portray his life of slavery in this context- they all can't be lying. Also, what right have we to be so critical of his life- This is his autobiography, not a pamphlet to try and rouse the masses against slavery and racism.

Fredrick Douglass provides a remarkable look at the daily life of a slave. He explains the mechanisms used to maintain the slave system and how it affected the people involved. Many of his observations about education and economics are still valid. The writing style is not dated or affected. The stories are interesting and move quickly.

This is the book that gives good introduction into the historical bacground and the form and sources of the civil law. It also shows some of the characteristics of Roman Law, and how did Roman Law contributed to the modern Civil Law. Students who have a reasonable knowledge of Roman Law and who have taken this book have made a necessary step towards understanding the modern Civil Law. However, they have still far to go. This book also tried to show how the Civil Law has become unfamiliar to roman lawyers because it has developed, often beyond recognition, ideas derived from roman Law. In addition it shows the non-Roman elements, which are to be found in familly law and in the law of succession, which is its natural appendage.

After the death of Elizabeth, James VI of Scotland was welcomed to the English throne by wildly jubilent subjects. Most of their joy came from relief over the smooth succession and the avoidance of the devastating civil war that many of the Virgin Queen's subjects anticipated with dread. Suddenly the nightmare of an uncertain succession was a thing of the past. Here was an experienced king, a relatively young man wed to a king's daughter, and the father of three healthy children. England fell in love with the heir to the throne, the handsome, athletic, effortlessly regal and highly promising Prince Henry.

This book is not so much a biography of the young prince, but a study of his "personation." From his birth, Henry was the focus of myth-makers: clergymen, poets, noblemen, all eager to impose their own agendas. He would be a warrior king -- Henry V reborn. He would be the Protestant champion who would unite Protestant Europe and drive the Papists into oblivion. He would undo the lifework of his peacemaker father and rekindle the age-old conflict against Spain. He would promote English patriotism not only through war, but through aggressive colonization. He would rebuild the crumbling navy, and make England a power to be respected and feared. And he might have done all this and more, had he not died at the age of eighteen.

In a very real sense, a study of the myth -- the personation -- is a study of Henry's life. The young prince apparently absorbed these expectations and attempted to mold himself to fulfill them. He excelled in martial sports, was a fine horsemen, and was fascinated with naval and military history. He carried on correspondence with Henry VI of France, befriended Sir Walter Ralegh, supported the colonization of Virginia. The Puritans held up his austere, disciplined life as an example, as well as a rebuke the decadence of the Jacobean court.

It's tempting to speculate on what might have been. What if the athletic prince had contented himself with another tennis match rather than swimming in the highly poluted Thames? What if the medicine that the imprisoned Ralegh sent (probably quinine, which might have broken the debilitating fever)had been administered earlier? If Henry lived, could he have averted the Civil War that shattered his younger brother's reign? Or would he have led England into a disastrous continental war? This book suggests some interesting possibilities.

Not recommended for the casual reader, but an excellent addition to the library of anyone who is interested in the history of the early 17th century, and the fascinating story of the Stuart dynasty.

Reuss's previous novel, _Horace Afoot_, was wonderful; this one is...pretty good. The difference? The narrative technique. In both books, Reuss explores the way people use the stories they read to make sense of the world they see. In the first book, we heard Horace in his own witty words; in the second, we hear the child Henry in the third person and it unfortunately comes off as condescending. "Oh, isn't he cute with his big words and his big ideas -- let's chuckle at him." It's really too bad, since _Henry of Atlantic City_ deals with serious moral and theological questions in possibly funny situations. Who's responsible for the world? What powers do we have in it? I wish I could say that I found the narrative a gripping medium for these problems, but I didn't.

On the other hand, the allegory -- reminiscent of _The Pilgrim's Progress_ and eighteenth-century moral novels like Sarah Fielding's _David Simple_ -- is an interesting form and deserves more attention. Bravo to Reuss for trying.

This weird book about a brilliant kid stuck in the weirdest family situation is set, like many contemporary novels, between the old world (the church, an orphanage) and the bright, shiny, new one (Atlantic City). Many authors are using playlands -- Las Vegas for Tim Powers, theme parks for George Saunders -- as metaphors for contemporary society. Thus the bizarre casino land in which Henry is raised, and the makeshift families he moves between, are something he may need to escape from but can't. And Reuss perhaps says this is a good thing. What is this novel saying about gnosticism and faith? And what's that whole zoo thing? Of course, in every novel there's a supreme intelligence hovering over the action -- that of the writer. Here the writer's hand seems to be forcing the action into the form of an allegory. Don't get me wrong; it's an enjoyable read. Do the good guys win? Not necessarily.

This was an unusual story, but also very well written. This is the story of a young boy whose life is very confusing. He is being raised by his father in a big Casino and then things rapidly change. The young child is intelligent and has read many books. The problem is that at his age he confuses reality, history and fantasy, and therefore lives in a world that is rather strange to the reader. Staying with the story is while at times difficult was worth the time. This is a very different type of story from any that I have read before.

These stroies are worth reading,but the translations in this book are fairly bland. In fact, the translation for Ajax is pretty bad. I don't think I've ever seen the word twinkie used in a Greek trajedy before. I would recomend picking up other versions of these plays.