First off, let me say I enjoy most of Huxley's work. The style of this book is totally different from the usual Huxley method. I've never read anything else by Christopher Isherwood. This book starts out boring, and ends boring. That's really the sum of it. The characters are flat and extremely simple. In his early work (say, pre "Brave New World"), Huxley's characters are an embodiment of one single trait. However, they are always developed well, and their thought processes are complex while remaining within this one trait. This book has the same characterization - Jacob, for example, is moronically kind and simple (think Forrest Gump). There are also the classic evil tricksters, and so on. It's not done well at all, and I left this book with a bad taste in my mouth.

Interesting how Hollywood types embrace such spiritual ideas without commiting to one chosen path. This work starts with an incredible insight into some of Jesus' words yet speaks to healing as a natural and mystical experience. I'd think the Creator would be more included in the reasoning.
Well worth reading. Many, many thanks to Sharon Stone for recognizing the beauty of this fable and giving it new life at this end of the century.

This screenplay is the collaborative effort of Christopher Isherwood and Aldous Huxley. This work has an unpolished feel to it and may have been an unfinished work. However, the stark and unadorned quality of the work adds rather than detracts from its message.

It is a fable about a ranch hand, Jacob, who discovers that he can heal animals with his touch. The owner of the ranch is a widowed college professor with a physically handicapped adult daughter. The professor resents his daughter and wastes no effort in hiding his feelings. The daughter desperately wants freedom and independence. She asks Jacob to heal her.

The screenplay's uncomplicated message is that physical health alone does not make a person whole or happy. This work is unlike anything else by Huxley in its simplicity and ambiguous final paragraphs. It is a short work and is easily finished in one or two sittings.

Unfortunately this book has not been updated in over 25 years. Taxonomic changes in some groups of mammals have left this rather inadequate. The illustrations aren't bad except for sea mammals which have black and white sketches for illustrations. It may have been a decent guide when it came out, but I don't see the point in publishing a book which may not have the animal you're looking at in it! This book needs a revision.

This book was issued in 1976 not in 1998 as I was led to believe...... I just received my copy and it is a 3rd edition, clearly copyrighted in 1976. Apparently it was reprinted recently, but not updated. Who knows how much has changed on our knowledge of mammals over the past 25 years? Also, the binding on this paperback has left little space for the inside margin which will make this a little difficult to use and probably shortern its lifespan. RK

Peterson's field guide to mammals is one of my standard references as a mammology student. I constantly use the range maps,color identification plates, and animal descriptions. The book provides you with good identification characteristics indicated by arrows on the illustrations of each animal and a brief life history of every species north of the border. There are skull plates at the back of the book that are good for comparing different families but do not include every species and in some cases are poor positions to see defining attributes. The color plates for the most part have good illustrations but a few look hoaky like the Mountain Lion. Nevertheless, they all still provide good size comparisons and coloration of the animals. Consistant with other Peterson guides.