When a crow steals a hen's (Ethel) egg and drops it in an eagle's nest, a chick (Dylan) is hatched to an eagle alongside two eagle chicks. Named E-awk, Dylan, like a vegetarian born to a carnivorous family, eats corn while his siblings eat fish, bugs, and snakes. Dylan proves his mettle by saving his mother, like a chicken-hawk-eagle, from the clutches of a fox, proving that not all chickens are chicken. The illustrations are clear and enjoyable, but the text has peculiar asides, such as twice mentioning that the mother eagle's name is too hard to pronounce (is this some sort of hip inside joke?)

This book just wasn't what I was expecting/hoping for. Many companion books to a series, especially one of a series of trilogies like Shannara, are written from the perspective of trying to give the reader actual information from an external point of view. In the case of this book, however, it's written from the perspective, albeit omnicient, of someone within the world of Shannara rather than the author or a fan of the series. Basically it told me what I already had read, just with some refreshers, reminders, and the occasional new info.

I've been reading the series since I was a kid in the late '70s and have gone back to re-read the first books several times (something I have not done in more than a decade). I would like to do the same now and think this book would be an interesting reference companion, but as stated earlier, it's more for the die-hard fan who can use its incidental reference rather than a truly revealing and in-depth guide to the series.

This hefty tome is a companion to Terry Brooks' Shannara books. Written in the form of a narrative penned by someone with access to the Druid Histories, it attempts (and largely succeeds) in presenting all of the known facts about the world, its history and its inhabitants. It contains fifteen (if I counted right) chapters, each on different subjects, complete with maps, diagrams and sidebars on fascinating subjects.

Overall, I did like this book. I enjoyed that the authors put the information from so many books into a well organized, deeply informing narrative. Having the world condensed and organized so well brought back so much of the fascination I felt when reading the first Shannara books so long ago.

The downside is that the book really should not be read instead of the storybooks. As I read, I quickly realized that the book assumes that the reader has already read the other books, and as such leaves certain information out. Having not read certain book in so long, I found that I had to stretch to remember key facts, so that certain parts would make sense.

That said, though, this book is quite fascinating. I loved the plentiful illustrations, the maps, and (especially) the diagrams of such things as Paranor and Dun Fee Aran. So, if you are a fan of Terry Brooks, then I highly recommend that you get this book!

Terry Brooks' "Shannara" series have become classics of fantasy fiction, and The World of Shannara is an excellent companion to the series. I thought the format of the book was very good. Each area of the Four Lands had a chapter devoted to it, and all of its important characters were described. Also, a chapter was devoted to the Druids and their reign over the Four Lands, another chapter described Paranor, the great Druid's Keep, one described the relationship between the Ohmsfords and the Leahs, and still another dealt with the evil creatures mentioned throughout the series. The text is well written, and the illustrations add faces to the images of the characters. I've read all three Shannara series, and i found this book to be an invaluable resource. Read this book and see the world of Shannara come alive before your eyes!!

If the merit of a book were to be exclusively rated by virtue of readability and entertainment value, then this book is going to be a well-deserved and predictable best-seller. However, if one reads books s to become a more aware, better informed, and intellectually astute citizen, then this is a trite, superficial, and absolutely worthless tome. Like cotton candy, a sweet experience, but almost absolutely devoid of any substantive nutritional content.

Brooks admits in the opening chapter that he considers his work an exercise in what he refers to as "comic sociology". Well, at least he got the comic part right. Please don't misunderstand me; he is obviously a talented, perceptive, and entertaining writer, and one finds the text quite readable and easy to follow and absorb. The problem here is that his analysis is too far superficial to be worthwhile. He admits, for example, that he is no Max Weber (a famous turn of the century sociologist and social theorist who was an astute and amazingly prescient critic of modern capitalist culture). Perhaps if he had read Professor Weber more closely (or at all?) he might have recognized the dangers of placing too much stress on one aspect of a complex social envionment and then overemphasizing its importance in the overall scheme of that particular cultural milieiu.

This is the theoretical mistake Herr Weber accuses Karl Marx of making with dialetical materialism; mistaking the observable fact of the progressive alienation of workers in 19th century manufacturing factories of being alienated for being the central motive force in history. What Marx didn't recognize, unfortunately, was that all participants in large modern industrial societies are by course of the organization of that society into social institutions ritually expropriated from the means of participation in it. Thus, individuals can express their talents and capabilites only though participation and cooperation with large-scale social institutions (read bureaucracies here).

Moreover, this is exactly what Mr. Brooks does, mistaking some colorful and paradoxical symptoms of the critical breakdown in the integrity and cohesiveness of modern society and its accompanying cultural ethos for a new culture ethos itself. Indeed, his choice of books for reference here is telling, all dated in the unusual and historically atypical period of the the Affluent society of the 1950s. He studiously ignores a plethora of more traditional and more recent and relevant monographs, such as "Technopoly", by Neil Postman, "The Power Elite" by C.Wright Mills, and "The Cult of Information" by Theodore Roszak.

In essence, Brooks seems amazingly ignorant of the fact that with the rise of a number of related cultural phenomena in the last forty to fifty years, the majority of urban and suburban Americans (especially those who are habitually electronically connected to the media) are deeply confused and disoriented in terms of their cultural orientation. In fact, most Americans feel no cultural constraint to be consistent in terms of what they believe in each of the various aspects of their lives, seeing them as completely disconnected and absolutely independent phenomena.

This is, in fact, the end-point of the alienation process predicted by Marx, Weber, and Durkheim long agao, and is often referred to in more recent terms as "individuation", or absolute cultural fragmentation, disintegration and dissipation into irrelevancy. In this manner we can say that these citizens don't have an integrated cultural ethos so much as they have a grab-bag of ideas, opinions, and views that they feel no need to better understand and integrate into anything approaching a coherent and intelligent world -view.

The main culprits in this evolution has been 1) the rise and domination of dissemination of public information by the electronic media, 2) the segregation of Americans by virtue of income and lifestyles, and 3) the progressive vitiation of all integration and meaning in our cultural values with the astounding confusion and disintegration of all our social institutions as a result of the ongoing changes associated with the technological revolution.

Seen in this way, reading this slim and silly volume is like spending an afternoon watching old Sylvester Stallone movies; entertaining but unconsequential in terms of what one learns from the time so spent. The real danger with watching such movies, of course, is that one may begin to believe that Sly's problem-solving approach as depicted in Rambo is an accurate model for how to conduct one's own life. Here the danger is that too many gullible bozos will read all about bobos and believe it is an accurate depiction of the cutting edge of America's upper class.

Shake off the demons, friend, and pass this one by. This book is, in my opinion, silly and specious nonsense written by someone so insulated in his experience and so lacking in socio-historical perspective that he has little or no idea of what he is talking about. No doubt, however that this book will become a smash best-seller and be the talk of the nation for the next several months. I expect to see Mr. Brooks on Oprah any day now. But then again, as our old amigo Arlo Guthrie would say, "That's America". Go figure!

Nobody wants to be called a yuppie these days. As a social phenomenon, the yuppies, with their power suits and moussed hair, are now looked back upon with about as much affection as the Hitler youth. They were pushy and arrogant, yet they seemed to be everywhere.

So where did they all go? David Brooks ventures an amusing answer in Bobos in Paradise, in which he defines and describes a new social class, the 'bourgeois bohemians', or bobos. A bobo combines the solid fiscal sensibility of the village burgher with the daring lifestyle choices of the left bank. Brooks thinks bobos reconcile the great social cleavage of the 1960s between the squares and the counterculture.

Bobos in Paradise is a very funny, entertaining book, and it's highly readable. Brooks is a very clever salesman -- much more so than his brutally honest predecessor in 'comic sociology', Paul Fussell, whose 1983 book *Class* is a much more pointed analysis of the American social system. Fussell heartlessly dissects and illustrates his three major classes, i.e. upper, middle and lower, all of which he sees as roiling moshpits of status consciousness and envy. Brooks is much less brave: as a self-professed bobo, he only tweaks his upper-middle-class, book-buying, bobo audience, satirizing bobo sensibilities yet carefully avoiding any violations of serious bobo taboos. He's good at seeming to be a bad boy.

But bobos aren't upper-middle class, you protest! Doesn't Brooks himself identify them as the nation's new 'upper class'? .... Fussell, wherever he is these days, would chide Brooks for missing the ways in which bobos are in fact achingly middle class. Fussell nails down the primary distinction between uppers and middles: uppers don't care what other people think of them; middles, on the other hand, inhabit a very universe of social insecurity, made manifest in slavish devotion to correct tastes and trends.

In fact, I'd argue very little has changed in the overall American class structure since Fussell wrote Class, except that the upper-middle class have simply decided they'll ape bohemian egomaniacs instead of upper-class twits. This is not insignificant, in that the upper middles dictate much of the nation's popular culture, but it doesn't mean the bobos have supplanted the real upper class, either.

Brooks is also very, very kind to bobos in assuming they're so generally beneficent, and that they're likely to be such a stable, self-perpetuating phenomenon. When times are good, it's easy for people to spend their money trying to appear socially correct and even trendy. But these bobo characteristics don't seem very deeply rooted.

Brooks's chapter on bobos' spiritual lives exposes their deracination. Brooks makes a facile identification of a 'civil society' that exhibits 'social cohesion' with true spirituality. But bobos can't re-root themselves in the spiritual depths of a genuine faith by acquiring a few of its liturgical accoutrements. Buying a 1950s-style toaster doesn't transform your life into Ward and June Cleaver's -- it's just a toaster, in the end. In the same way, the bobos who collect congenial bits of ritual from a variety of religious traditions don't get any closer to God, even if it does make them feel vaguely better.

It's only self-denial that opens up the depths of true spiritual commitment. From Brooks' description, this crucial little nugget is completely indigestible to bobos, whose personal autonomy must override any demands from another power, no matter how high. The only rein upon this autonomy, predictably, is peer pressure -- in bobos' case, their abhorrence of appearing intolerant or 'fanatical'.

To be fair, Brooks realizes all this, and tries to show how bobos might sidestep this dilemma. He calls the bobo spiritual compromise 'choice reconciled with commitment', and suggests that 'maybe it can work'. Later, though, he admits that 'the thing we [bobos] are in danger of losing is our sense of belonging'. But belonging to what? At this point Brooks retreats, like a good bobo must, from pressing the issue deeper. It would be too dangerously fanatical to ask gauche questions about whether or not God, well, exists -- and if so, if he can make any demands on us.

As Brooks admits, '[bobos] prefer a moral style that doesn't shake things up' (p. 250). But this is again a hopelessly middle-class validation of the status quo. When conventionality and nicely-judged social respectability trump belief, then choice wins, commitment loses. Committed believers are therefore anathema to the bobo ethic. Bobos are afraid of any power that might upset their little worlds, since deep down they know those worlds float untethered on a shallow sea of trivial lifestyle choices.

Herein lies the most serious criticism of boboism, which Brooks turns tail and scampers away from: it is shallow, especially when confronting questions of life, death and eternity. Bobos too will die, no matter how many decaf lattes they drink, no matter how often they get in tune with nature's rhythms on their eco-holidays.

So is the bobo way of life here to stay, like Brooks thinks? I doubt it. Their upper-middle class sensibilities will surely long be with us, but who knows what fashions they'll adopt when their current bohemian trendiness goes stale? For now, though, they're infesting America much as the yuppies once did, and Brook's entertaining book at least gives us the chance to chuckle about it.

This book gets 5 stars because it succeeds magnificently in what one ultimately reads any book for -- to delight or entertain oneself. It manages this despite a weak main argument. The author hyperbolizes by imputing the standards and tastes of a small liberal, fashionable, and self-righteous subset of elites to the group of high-achieving Americans as a whole. He did NOT do a good job convincing me that the bobos have really "taken over" the establishment rather than simply compete for attention with those of other sensibilities. What Brooks does provide is ample evidence that business and the media have in the past decade catered extensively to the bobos' interests -- but merely, in my opinion, because they will always chase after where there is money. He also does a good job of comically and accurately describing the bobos and their habits using his acute powers of observation, but this by itself does nothing for his thesis that the bobos now "rule."

I truly enjoyed this read. It may help to listen to the audio cassette beforehand. I find Thoreau inspirational. Many times you step back and realize how beautiful all of life's intricacies are, how wonderful life truly is & how lucky we are. Thoreau has embraced every minute detail of natural life, as it was meant to be & has successfully captured it in print. I love the fact that each line is a "novel" in itself. I loved the book and listen to the audio cassette often. Buy it, buy it, buy it.

They can't appreciate this book due to the fact that they live in a world of pop trash. Im only 19 and I like it, it's one of the best books I've ever read (besides Waterland). No author describes images and scenery as well as Thoreau, at least that I've read, and his dislike for society is well argued. So, if you're one of those MTV-watching, mall loving, stylish-car- driving, conforming, TV junkies, or an educated uppity know-it-all than this book isn't for you.

I read this book about every five years or so in
order to take inventory of my personal life. Soon
I find myself forgetting about DVD players and software
applications and begin to focus upon bringing
my life much more in tune with the harmonics of
nature. Thoreau has the ability to cut through the
messages of nonstop consummerism and force the reader to
evaluate the cutural norms of greed and individualism.
Why is it so hard to accept that man is of this planet
and we must learn how to balance our species goals and
desires with those of the other species of life which
inhabit this biosphere?

This book contains several generally accepted principles in creating learning environments. I was actually shocked by an original thought somewhere near the end. The author is very vague, and contradicts himself several times.

He says "A major advantage of the Internet is that teachers do not have to worry about software and hardware issues as much as in other situations." This is absurd. It is a major barrier to learning. Teachers often have to cope with just those things before any learning on the subject matter can take place. It was not any easier in 1997 when this book was published -- it was more difficult because the technology was still young and far less stable, and because learners were not nearly as comfortable in the environment!

I feel that in his push to get his book to market early in the game, he sacrificed content and ideas for (what was then quite forward-thinking) technology.

You can learn something here, but watch your step.

The book does a good job of discussing teaching theory and how it relates to web-based instruction.

Alas, its technology discussions, which make up half the book, are quite dated (like the book says Java hasn't really shipped yet -- ok, quiet you cynics -- but will be incredibly influential).

I found Brooks' account of the instructional use of the web as practical and thought provoking. He does not portray the internet as the saving grace for all aspects of education but, demonstrates proven strategies for instruction

This book may be about great directors at work - but the stories themsleves are told in not sucha a great way. If you are familiar with their directing forms - you shall not find any surprises; however, if you are planning on starting up your "directors" studies, this might be a neat start, that is, if you are into anecdoctes with academic airs. I suggest reading the masters themselves without Mr. D.R. Jones' transposition to the mise en page.

As an avid follower of the more satirical innovations in theatre, I was surprised to read a wonderful book that made use of a singular technique in conveying what might otherwise have been distinctly dry academic material. Choosing Stanislavsky, Bert Brecht, and Pete Brook is a stroke of inspiration given a critical technique that writes close to the bone with great sardonic wit! Jones' connection of Stanislavsky with the tradition of Russian "clown"(ing) is especially awakening, particularly vis-a-vis the chapter on pratfall, pedantry and logorrhea. Here David Jones plays the method actor's part to a "T." The chapter on Berthold Brecht and epic theatre is told in epic style, as Jones recounts--Homer-like--the daring theatrical exploits of this great proletariat warrior, swelling to epic proportions in descriptions of some of his finest work. What is somewhat confusing is the inclusion of Kazan with little reference to Kazan's ironic connection to Senator McCarthy's "UnAmerican" hearings,where Kazan "named names," in a highly misunderstood fashion. Much as Stanley in "Streetcar" names Stella with muscular, brute and feral but ambiguous elan. As a professor of 20th Century Aeolian Elaboration and a Narcissus Foundation for Literary Studies Fellow, I highly recommend this book! Kudos to David Richard Jones on his crowning achievement.

A good introduction to the work of Frank Lloyd Wright. The book focuses primarily on Wright's residential work ("Fallingwater" is included), though there are a few churches, a civic center, and of course, the Guggenheim Museum. The photographs are terrific, but the writing is, while eloquent, nevertheless a bit lacking; one gets the impression the poor writer was hired merely to wrap words around the pretty pictures. Still, if you're new to the work of this masterful, prolific artist (as I am), this book serves as a good introduction.

This book is a pretty straight forward and easy to carry in lab coats during calls on pediatric floor.The author tried to incorporate most of the common problems faced by the house officer on the call. The organization of priorities and therapy is excellent.The only negative aspect is that it does not replace any textbooks or manuals in pediatrics; one has to read other books for individual diseases and their management. Overall it is absolutely worth it's price and useful for junior pediatricians

The value that this book has is probably due to the fact that you can carry around some of the most important documents in human history. It's just such a shame that I can do that better and for free using the Internet.