This is a beautiful book--gorgeous photos--but not one that I find especially practical. I've owned it for a while now and seldom reach for it.

There are little bios of each chef (Michael Lomonaco used to drive a cab--who knew?) and the occasional story. There are occasional boxes throughout that are fun (Julia tells you how to make your own truffle oil, how to select apples).

The recipes range from the easy and practical (a very nice recipe for peach tarts) to the obscure (fareki) to the out-of-most-of-our-league (a Jacques Torres chocolate structure).

Because it's a collection by *chef* not by cuisine, there is not a lot of coherence.

So all in all if you like cookbooks, it's great fun to browse, and you'll likely find something you want to try. If you want a practical cookbook, it is not useful.

This book is a must in any kitchen. It covers many of the basic recipies and even some of wonderful deserts that compliment any meal, such as Baking Powder Biscuits, Fried Chicken, Peach Tart, Buttermilk Fudge Cake, and so on. The lists of ingredients are the kind that you should be able to find just about anywhere. And yes, it does have recipies included that are more complex, and elaborate as well as variations for many of he recipes. She has included several sorbet, custards, herbed butters, to name a few.
She has very descriptive and precise with her directions to accomplish even the more complicated dishes that are included in this book.
It keeps with Julia's normal format of telling you exactly what equipment is needed to complete the dish, to wonderful photo's of almost each dish, without going overboard on the number of pictures.
I have found the tips that are included on so many of the subjects/recipes, quite helpful and informative.
The book also does not get overly wordy when she tells you about each of the cooks that are included in this book.
I have found this book a great asset to my kitchen, and it has taught me quite a bit.

This is by far one of the best and easy to follow cookbooks. The recepies can be complex, but the execution is very easy after reading some of the tips and techniques that are embedded throughout (something very few other cookbooks do). Julia Child at once strips the mystery of gormet cooking away through easy to follow directions and helpful hints while at the same time demonstrating respect for each of the chef's talents. Jim Dodge's buttermilk chocoate cake is the best cake recepie--it is light, moist and airy. I've successfully made it many times and have also altered it slightly by brushing each layer with gran marnier and then fill each layer with chocolate mousse and topping it with chocolate ganache and candied oranges (instead of the chocolate fudge frosting).

Always treating his subject with humor and a bit of disrespect, Feldman tackles trivia and oddities found on the roadsides of Wisconsin. An excellent book to keep in the glove box when you're traveling around the state, or to keep in the house for fun reading any time.

Without a doubt, one of the finest guides to the most interesting attractions in Wisconsin.

Well, I never REALLY wanted to be a chef. Just a daydreamer. And after reading Ruhlman's account of the tortures experienced by the students as the prestigious CIA, I can now let my dreams go in peace. One has to be a sadistical perfectionist to willingly undergo the torments involved in graduating from the Culinary Institute --but it surely makes for great reading. Both this account and Ruhlman's second book, The Soul of a Chef, should be required reading for anyone with the slighest aspirations of going into the food world. Both books read like fast-paced, first-rate novels. It is humbling to realize that I would never make it past the entrance exam --and I consider myself a cook of some distinction! Ruhlman's experiences point out all to clearly that there are "cooks" and there are "chefs', and there is a world of difference between the two. He is a wonderful writer - may there be many more books from his pen!

I just finished this book, and I absolutely loved it! I am a stay at home mom with an interest/obsession with cooking and I found this book to be absolutely intriguing!

Michael Ruhlman does an amazing job at sucking the reader into being a student at the CIA (Culinary Institute of America). If you have ever wondered what it was like to go to culinary school, you will be fascinated by his account of what goes on behind the scenes at the most prestigious one in America (and, some argue, the world). If you think cooking school is a walk in the park, think again! These students get run through the mill day in and day out, in their quest to make the "perfect" meal!

If you are an aspiring chef...you must read this book. If you are a "foodie" (like myself) you will thoroughly enjoy this book. I, for one, am keeping it in my collection so I can read it again.

Bravo, Michael Ruhlman!!

Having lived in the Mid-Hudson Valley for many years, and having visited the Culinary Institute on many occasions, my wife and I really enjoyed this book. Especially for everyday "chefs" who fancy the idea of turning "pro", this book provides an intriguing look at the training that is provided at the U.S.A.'s premier cooking school, the Culinary Institute of America. As well, it provides a fascinating look at the people involved in the process: classmates, instructors, executive chefs, and the president of the CIA. We both enjoyed this book tremendously and recommend it to anyone who has enjoyed a fine meal out and has wondered, "How did they learn to do that?" Bon Appetit!

In his prior book, "The Making of a Chef", Michael Ruhlman wrote about what its like to attend the Culinary Institute of America and go through a rigorous chef training program. In "The Soul of a Chef", Ruhlman writes about the next step - being a professional chef and reaching for that always elusive standard of excellence. If you enjoyed TMOAC (a good book) and learning about the CIA, you'll enjoy TSOAC even more.

TSOAC is three stories. In the first, Ruhlman sits in and observes seven chefs, and one in particular, as they attempt to pass the ten-day Certified Master Chef examination, a rigorous test with a low passage rate. In the second, Ruhlman tells the story of Lola, a restaurant in his home town of Cleveland, and of Michael Symon, Lola's owner/chef and a rising star in his profession. And in the third, Ruhlman tells the story of Thomas Keller, the head chef of the French Laundry in Napa Valley, which some critics have declared to be the finest restaurant in America.

For the home cook who occasionally fantasizes about being a professional chef, TSOAC will be both stimulating and sobering. Being a chef may be interesting, but its not easy; in fact its damn hard work. The anxiety level created by the Master Chef Exam, the pressure Symon goes through to perform for reviewers and the demand for absolute perfection that Keller imposes on himself are all highly intense experiences - perhaps even to the point of being self-destructive.

Ruhlman is not only an observer, he is also participant in a sort of George Plimpton-like manner. In writing TMOAC, Ruhlman attended CIA classes as a student for a year. Between TMOAC and TSOAC, he worked as a cook for a period of time at a Cleveland restaurant. He knows many of the examiners in the Master Chef exam from his school days at the CIA. He helped out a little in Lola's kitchen. And while he did not cook at the French Laundry, he did spend part of his time there helping Keller write a cookbook. One gets the feeling that Ruhlman may be suffering from an identity crises - "Am I a writer about cooks, or a cook who also writes?", but for the most part his perspective is helpful. There is some enjoyment in hearing Ruhlman describe with some level of experience what its like for a restaurant to hit a rush on a big night, even if he is only a "paper chef".

Towards the end of his story about Lola (Part Two of TSOAC), Ruhlman is having dinner with a group of people that includes a restaurant critic of national repute. Ruhlman asks him whether he ever worries that being a food critic is in the end a shallow and self-indulgent way to spend one's life. The critic responds that he has thought about that and goes on to explain how a cookbook helped unite Italy by creating a common language and suggests that if a single cookbook can have such an impact, then the topic may not be so trite after all. Writing about cooking in America right now involves a subject of potential importance. There is lots of talk about a current culinary revolution, but no one has yet clearly defined exactly what that means. Ruhlman is helping us do that.

In the end, TSOAC is not just a book about a cooking exam and two cooks, its about what cooking and restaurants have become in America. Its a subject that is slowly becoming an important part of America's cultural fabric and, as with any such subject, it needs its commentators. Ruhlman is fulfilling an important role. We can only hope he will not conclude that the topic is too unimportant for further study.

this new hardcover, written by michael ruhlman is excellent. the first section in particular is truly gripping(esp. if you are a food nut like i am!) the almost blow by blow account of a group of chefs trying to pass a series of incredibly arduous tests (a ten day herculean nightmare)in order obtain the title of master chef from the Culinary Institute of America makes the Iron chef challenge look like a stroll though the park! one of the main themes of the book is the quest for

perfection in cooking and it's intriguing to say the least. it is like night and day, comparing the book to kitchen confidential by anthony bourdain where it focuses mostly on the dirt and the dysfunction that goes on. needless to say both capture many different truths about the restaurant industry. another exciting section is the fascinating behind the scenes of The French Laundry, a highly acclaimed restaurant and how the chef's personal philosophy affected the running of the restaurant.there is also a well written account of a dinner with john mariani, one of america's preeminent food writers. the author's journalistic objectivity has served the book very well especially in a field that is filled with hype.

Michael Ruhlman does an excellent job in his follow-up effort with "The Soul of a Chef". This book is divided into three different sections. The first recounts his experiences as an observer during the administration of the Culinary Institute of America's (CIA) Certified Master Chef (CMC) exam, a rigorous and controversial test of a chef's knowledge and ability. Michael does a wonderful job of communicating the pressure of taking this test. In the second part of the book, Michael gives the reader a taste of what it is like to actually be in the trenches of the restaurant industry as he spends some time with an up and coming culinary star named Michael Symon. In the third part, Michael travels to Yountville, California to visit Thomas Keller and his restaurant French Laundry, arguably the best restaurant in the country and possibly the world. Reading this book may possibly inspire the reader on to further culinary excellence in his/her own kitchen, and will certainly inspire a certain amount of physical hunger. Fortunately, Michael also includes an appendix containing several recipes gleaned from his experiences in each section of the book.

One of the things you can assume when you write about Shakespeare--given the hundreds of thousands of pages that have already been written about him in countless books, essays, theses and term papers--is that whatever you say will have been said before, and then denounced, defended , revised and denounced again, ad infinitum. So I'm certain I'm not breaking any new ground here. King Lear, though many, including David Denby (see Orrin's review of Great Books) and Harold Bloom consider it the pinnacle of English Literature, has just never done much for me. I appreciate the power of the basic plot--an aging King divides his realm among his ungrateful children with disastrous results--which has resurfaced in works as varied as Jane Smiley's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, A Thousand Acres (see Orrin's review), and Akira Kurosawa's last great film, Ran. But I've always found the play to be too busy, the characters to be too unsympathetic, the speeches to be unmemorable and the tragedy to be too shallow. By shallow, I mean that by the time we meet Lear he is already a petulant old man, we have to accept his greatness from the word of others. Then his first action in the play, the division of the kingdom, is so boneheaded and his reaction to Cordelia so selfishly blind, that we're unwilling to credit their word.

Then there's the fact that Shakespeare essentially uses the action of the play as a springboard for an examination of madness. The play was written during the period when Shakespeare was experimenting with obscure meanings anyway; add in the demented babble of several of the central characters, including Lear, and you've got a drama whose language is just about impossible to follow. Plus you've got seemingly random occurrences like the disappearance of the Fool and Edgar's pretending to help his father commit suicide. I am as enamored of the Bard as anyone, but it's just too much work for an author to ask of his audience trying to figure out what the heck they are all saying and what their actions are supposed to convey. So I long ago gave up trying to decipher the whole thing and I simply group it with the series of non-tragic tragedies (along with MacBeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar), which I think taken together can be considered to make a unified political statement about the importance of the regular transfer of power in a state. Think about it for a moment; there's no real tragedy in what happens to Caesar, MacBeth, Hamlet or Lear; they've all proven themselves unfit for rule. Nor are the fates of those who usurp power from Caesar, Hamlet and Lear at all tragic, with the possible exception of Brutus, they pretty much get what they have coming to them. Instead, the real tragedy lies in the bloody chain of events that each illegitimate claiming of power unleashes. The implied message of these works, when considered as a unified whole, is that deviance from the orderly transfer of power leads to disaster for all concerned. (Of particular significance to this analysis in regards to King Lear is the fact that it was written in 1605, the year of the Gunpowder Plot.)

In fact, looking at Lear from this perspective offers some potential insight into several aspects of the play that have always bothered me. For instance, take the rapidity with which Lear slides into insanity. This transition has never made much sense to me. But now suppose that Lear is insane before the action of the play begins and that the clearest expression of his loss of reason is his decision to shatter his own kingdom. Seen in this light, there is no precipitous decline into madness; the very act of splitting up the central authority of his throne, of transferring power improperly, is shown to be a sign of craziness.

Next, consider the significance of Edgar's pretense of insanity and of Lear's genuine dementia. What is the possible meaning of their wanderings and their reduction to the status of common fools, stripped of luxury and station? And what does it tell us that it is after they are so reduced that Lear's reason (i.e. his fitness to rule) is restored and that Edgar ultimately takes the throne. It is probably too much to impute this meaning to Shakespeare, but the text will certainly bear the interpretation that they are made fit to rule by gaining an understanding of the lives of common folk. This is too democratic a reading for the time, but I like it, and it is emblematic of Shakespeare's genius that his plays will withstand even such idiosyncratic interpretations.

To me, the real saving grace of the play lies not in the portrayal of the fathers, Lear and Gloucester, nor of the daughters, but rather in that of the sons. First, Edmund, who ranks with Richard III and Iago in sheer joyous malevolence. Second, Edgar, whose ultimate ascent to the throne makes all that has gone before worthwhile. He strikes me as one of the truly heroic characters in all of Shakespeare, as exemplified by his loyalty to his father and to the King. I've said I don't consider the play to be particularly tragic; in good part this is because it seems the nation is better off with Edgar on the throne than with Lear or one of his vile daughters.

Even a disappointing, and often bewildering, tragedy by Shakespeare is better than the best of many other authors (though I'd not say the same of his comedies.) So of course I recommend it, but I don't think as highly of it as do many of the critics.

GRADE : B-

This star-rating system has one important flaw: you have to rank books only in relation to its peers, its genre. So you must put five stars in a great light-humor book, as compared to other ones of those. Well, I am giving this book four stars in relation to other Shakespeare's works and similar great books.

Of course, it's all in the writing. Shakespeare has this genius to come up with magnificent, superb sentences as well as wise utterings even if the plot is not that good.

This is the case with Lear. I would read it again only to recreate the pleasure of simply reading it, but quite frankly the story is very strange. It is hard to call it a tragedy when you foolishly bring it about on yourself. Here, Lear stupidly and unnecessarily divides his kingdom among his three daughters, at least two of them spectacularly treacherous and mean, and then behaves exactly in the way that will make them mad and give them an excuse to dispose of him. What follows is, of course, a mess, with people showing their worst, except for poor Edgar, who suffers a lot while being innocent.

Don't get me wrong: the play is excellent and the literary quality of Shakespeare is well beyond praise. If you have never read him, do it and you'll see that people do not praise him only because everybody else does, but because he was truly good.

The plot is well known: Lear divides the kingdom, then puts up a stupid contest to see which one of his daughters expresses more love for him, and when Cordelia refuses to play the game, a set of horrible treasons and violent acts begins, until in the end bad guys die and good guys get some prize, at a terrible cost.

As a reading experience, it's one of the strongest you may find, and the plot is just an excuse for great writing.

This book is a profound study of nature. Characters such as Lear, Gloucester, and Edmund voice their opinions and questions on the subject of fate, the gods, human nature, and relationships between parents and children. I personally love Edgar, and think that he made this play great. He's as loyal to his father and Lear as Kent and Cordelia, but more creative and effective in his action. I believe that he was Shakespeare's favorite character too, because of his talent as an actor (as evidenced by his mad act and the cliff scene) and because he survives in the end! Shakespeare poses many questions of human, parental, and divine nature in this play, and some are resolved, but not all. Are we to the gods or nature as flies to wanton boys? We must all decide which opinion is right.

Yes, it's exhaustively comprehensive. Yes, it's district-by-district. And yes, it's over 1200 pages. However, the entire enterprise is in the end unsatisfying because of the constant undercurrent of bias.

Whether it's Barone comparing Bush's "more choice" to Gore's "more government," or his characterization of "observant, tradition-minded, moralistic" Bush voters opposing Gore voters that are "unobservant, liberation-minded, relativist," he continually finds ways to slightly polish conservative views and give a little tarnish to the liberal side of the spectrum.

The clincher for me was in the Presidential Politics segment for Florida when Barone writes of the beyond reproach fact of a Bush victory, while elaborating upon all the apparent shifty, underhanded tactics of the Gore camp. Whether or not the tactics were sinister is up for debate, but it's clear he didn't want to concede any points for the liberals, whether on Florida or on free-market ideology. This slight, but consistent bias isn't dangerous in and of itself; it's objectionable because it's coming from such a supposedly authoritative source.

I was a regular buyer of this series until I got so tired of Michael Barone's biases and editorializing that I ceased purchasing the new editions as I had been every two years. After hearing that the 2002 edition had (finally) toned down the flagrant lack of objectivity I decided to give it another try.

During my absence things have indeed improved. More facts and statistics have been added about states and congressional districts, political analysis Charlie Cook has added brief outlooks for every seat up for election in 2002, more information on redistricting is given, more extensive descriptions of states, districts, and backgrounds on office holders is provided and yes, Barone's editorial comments, while still present, have been drastically toned down and in some cases eliminated.

However, there are still obvious examples of his bias. Many pro NAFTA comments are made mentioning benefits states and districts have received since its passage while no mention is made at all of the jobs lost in those same areas (only to often be replaced by lower paying ones) and Barone regularly writes objectively about "cultural conservatives" while virtually anyone who isn't married, with 2.5 kids while living in the suburbs or a rural area (be it office holders or their constituents) is labeled, in a rather dismissive tone as part of the "feminist left," a term Barone does not seem to use in a neutral manner. Furthermore his recap of the Florida recount clearly takes a pro-Bush side, ignoring all his inconsistencies while maximizing Gore's despite blatant hypocrisy that was strong on both sides.

But overall this is a solid, if somewhat overpriced reference for political junkies elsewhere. If Barone can continue to scale back his editorializing in future editions, this series will has the potential to become one of the most important on the subject.

Michael Barone is clearly a man of immense energy and political insight. His biennial "Almanac of American Politics" has been a Washington tradition for 30 years now; and it keeps getting better.

I first discovered the Almanac in 1992 and have purchased copies every two years since. My '92 edition is dogeared, with pages falling out, yet I still consult it regularly.

Barone's in-depth background information in each state and Congressional district is a feature hard to find anywhere else (certainly not all in one place). His invaluable biographical information on members of congress (and governors) is essential to understand where these people are coming from, when one sees them on CSPAN.

But the statistical information is what I treasure most. The Almanac is a quick and easy reference for finding out how vulnerable an incumbant is, who ran against them before, how their state or district leans at the presidential level, etc. These statistics are really essential for a deep understanding of congressional politics today.

In the last few years, Barone has also been providing more information about state governments. Recently, he's added the names of the leaders of every state legislature and given longer biographies of the governors. In this era of devolution, such information is greatly needed.

Another newer addition is the predictions of Charlie Cook. Cook's analysis is appreciated although I wish he would be a little more creative in his writing ("...belies the competitive nature of the district" over and over).

Barone and Cook have an excellent track record in predicting elections, but naturally they are wrong at times too. For instance, they both considered Gov. Jesse Ventura a good bet for re-election (and Barone even hinted at a Presidential bid in 2004). Of course Ventura is not seeking re-election due to low approval ratings. Since the Alamanc comes out a year before the election its focused on, it is fun to follow along and see how accurate its forecasting ends up

Granted, Barone is a conservative and his bias does occassionally surface. This can be distracting and poorly placed at times (especially for an angry leftist like me). But objective journalism is basically non-existent in this country and Barone should be applauded for staying focused and unbiased more than most.

All said, the "Almanac of American Politics" is absolutely crucial for anyone who wants more than a superficial understanding of national politics today. Read it and you'll watch "Face the Nation" and "Meet the Press" in a whole different light. Buy it; it's more than worth the price.

This book needs to be considered alongside _The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated_ edited by Florentino Garcia-Martinez. Both are "comprehensive" translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls which have become available since the end of the embargo in the fall of 1991.

Wise, Abegg, and Cook organize this book primarily by the Qumran manuscript number. The exceptions are the manuscripts found in Cave 1 which have no number. These appear at the beginning of the book along with other manuscripts which relate to the same text. So for example, the Thanksgiving Scroll appears at the beginning of the book along with 4Q427-432. The Damascus Document also appears at the beginning of this book along with manuscripts Geniza A and B.

At the end of the book there is a helpful index of DSS manuscripts and the page(s) on which they may be found. There is also an index of references to other liturature, the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and Rabbinic texts. So for example the editors find some connection between 4Q525 and Matthew 5.3-10. Both are beatitudes.

It is not a disadvantage of this book that it contains no Hebrew texts. I find that I want to look at photos of the manuscripts and judge the translations for myself. Nor is it a disadvantage of this book that it does not contain any biblical texts. Those may be found in a translated form in Martin Abegg's _Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_.

The advantage this book does have is its commentary. The editors have brought numerous significant items to the the attention of the reader which the non-specialist probably had not noticed. Even so, the commentary will bring some enlightenment to DSS specialists as well.

This volume is an excellent book to either start or enhance one's study of the scrolls discovered near Qumran, commonly referred to as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Although there has been some negative critique, (see other reviews) this book is very unbiased and scholarly in nature. Yes, there is an added commentary, and words filled in where there were no words preserved, but that is besides the fact. There has been no cover-up attempt to claim that these added texts are somehow the original; a guide at the beginning of the book clearly explains how to see what was actually contained in the scrolls and what was not. The commentary is necessary especially for those who have never looked in the scrolls at all to begin with, to at least give a basic framework. By nature, any commentary will have a level of bias - but it's not as though the book claims to have an inspired commentary - ignore the commentary if you're solely interested in the text!

I have had Dr. Wise for several graduate-level classes, and he has been very scholarly in his teaching, presenting the information that is known, and only on rare occasion giving his actual opinion instead of simply what has been discovered. His area of specialty is the Second Temple period in which the Dead Sea Scrolls play a significant role, which is one reason why he is so involved with them, and why this particular volume is so well written: it from the perspective of one who really cares about the issues surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I would recommend this volume to anyone as a fascinating source for study.

[...] These texts were not filled in. The point is-this is what the texts say! The parallels in terminology and phraseology are astounding. These are the texts that the early Christian writers of the New Testament were familiar with. Though the New Testament gospels may be reedited and reworked documents of the 4th century, they were still largely born in phrase and genre, from these writings. These Jews were most likely the Jews who gave rise to the Christians. These Jews used a different calendar than the Pharisees, the solar rather than the lunar calendar. There is an ancient Christian writing called the Didache which begins with a piece called "The Two Ways," there is a scroll fragment of the same title, and on and on. It would be insane to attempt to bury these facts in the name of some perverse political correctness.

So many long held beliefs about the origins of Christian ideology have been attributed to Greco-Roman influence. We now know this wasn't the case. These early Christians were Jewish, not the Jews we know today, for the Pharisees were the only sect left in numbers great enough to route history after the great slaughters by the Romans at Masada and Qumran. These freedom fighters that were massacred are our scroll writers or carriers as some of the writings were from earlier centuries. These people were all but forgotten and unknown until their writings and sacred texts were found in these caves around Qumran.

This brings us to the next point I would like to make as to why you should have and read this book. The Universe doesn't revolve around the Earth, bleeding people (extracting quantities of blood) is not an efficacious treatment for the sick, ulcers are not universally caused by stress and the Dead Sea Scrolls were not composed at Qumran by the Essene's or anyone else. Where these scrolls came from, who these people were, what they fought for and how they died is important. This book does great service in helping to repair the unforgivable damage done through shoddy scholarship and attribution by Father Roland de Vaux in his early excavations. This is now the conclusion of most scholars who didn't already invest their entire identity as academics on the first hypothesis.

Excellent! Long overdue. Culinary Art Schools are rolling out baby chefs in record numbers and although they may have the culinary knowledge, only time and experience will give them the managerment skill needed to operate a first rate, organized, efficient and effective restaurant. Management is tough in any field, but particularly so in the restaurant business and I hope Chef/Owner Managers will read and apply the management practices discussed in this book. Chef Mangers who did not have the opportunity to get formal culinary training may also find this book useful. The information on Total Quality Management could and perhaps should have been a separate book. Simply written, The Chef Manager deserves two thumbs up.

This book is a must for every one working as an archivist or a document manager. But it is also interesting for anyone who has feeling with the subject. I learned new ways to look at and work with archival materials. Things are described in a manner that can be understood by anyone who has a little background on the subject.

This book covers theories of finite element better than most other books in this subject, but it does not have many worked out examples. The problems have no answers!

This book gives a very good explanation in finite element especially for engineer. Its mathematics is simple and to the point. A very good book for the starter in finite element. But the solution is separate from this book, it is in CD and it is difficult to get the CD. If this book can contain both in one book, it will be great.

I think this is one of the best books on FE. It is written from the point of view of an engineer and avoids unnecessary mathematics. The concepts are explained very clearly and there is a fair number of solved examples in each chapter.