Steinfeld's book is an excellent text for those who have a thorough background in Chemical Kinetics and Dynamics. However, for the introductory graduate level kinetics course or advanced undergraduate kinetics course, I would not recommend this text. Steinfeld does not illustrate any of the concepts with actual data or explanatory problems. Furthermore, the problems at the end of the chapter have very little to do with the material they are supposed to cover. Finally, there are many mistakes in this edition. They are mostly typos, but they add a lot of confusion to the material

I would recommend this book only to people who have a very complete background in kinetics and dynamics as a nice reference book.

This is an excellent book if you know the basis of chemical kinetics. I recommended it especially for university students in
this matter.

Blotner did a prodigious amount of research for this biography. Any later writer who wants to produce a biography of Faulkner will inevitably find himself or herself relying on much of Blotner's work. The reader, however, will not be so grateful. Blotner seems incapable of distinguishing between that which is important and that which is not. It seems as though he has dumped almost everything he learned into this book. And he learned quite a lot. Why we need, for example, to know the names of everyone Faulkner came into contact with? Finally, Blotner is not a gifted writer; his style is typical of the academic. I can only hope someone writes a shorter, more readable biography of Faulkner someday.

Originally published in two volumes, Joseph L. Blotner's biography of the imminent writer of the American South, William Faulkner, is often touted as THE chronicle of Faulkner's life. Blotner's style is really quite readable. Indeed, this text is so accessible, one must question his accountability on some instances of Faukner's words to friends and loved ones. (Who really remembers what his wife's father said to him on a particular day--famous or not?) All in all, though, this chronicle sits on the top of the biographical heap for the time being. And it probably won't be displaced for many years to come.

This book is overpriced and of poor quality. The paper and printing are well below current standards even though it was published in 2000. I really wasted my money on this. I did find his ranting about society in general somewhat interesting. Seems people complained about the same things in 1934 that they do now: Society is in a mess and the media is mainly at fault for this. What is the cure for all these ills? The Pilates Method.

If you are looking to get started with Pilates excercises don't buy this book. You can buy two or three of the others for the same price.

I am a Pilates instructor so I found the book immensely helpful in understanding the origins of the Method. I would, however, only recommend this book for an instructor or a serious student of Pilates as it is not an easy read. If someone is looking for a glossy, modern guide to Pilates, this is not the book. It amazed me that so many of the techniques he advocated so many years ago are so effective today. Both the vintage pictures and the text fascinated me! Again, this is an excellent book for people who really want to know and understand pure, unadultered Pilates.

I find this book very informative, not only historically but medically. As a nurse it's interesting to see what techniques are applicable to today and which we now know may not be safe. It's also interesting to see how Joe's original descriptions of his exercises have changed over the years, according to who is doing the teaching. I feel it was really overpriced for it's size, but for me worth it.

This book is a piece of history, but that's all it is. This was when Faulkner was hanging out in New Orleans with Sherwood Anderson, and Anderson told Faulkner if he wrote a book, he would get his publisher to print it. This and Mosquitoes are the result. They are both terrible, and it takes longer to read them than it took Faulkner to write them.

The interesting thing here is Faulkner's obsession with the war hero and the tragedy of war cliche's. Remember also, that Faulkner was walking around in a pilot's uniform that he made himself after failing to join the air force. This book is very much the same thing, and for that point, it's interesting. It's amazing that such a dolt became one of the true voices of wisdom for the century. The upside of this book is that it lets you know you have plenty of time to develop. If you love the guy, you'll read this anyway, but you can save your time and skip Soldier's Pay and Mosquitoes. Save them for when you've already developed an obsession.

This early novel by William Faulkner is interesting as an example of where his style and focus were as a very young writer, before both had settled into the predicatable Faulkner voice of his later and better known books. I enjoyed the book more when I first read it, I think, than I do now. But one thing has still not changed. I can remember having to read certain passages over and over and still not being sure what they were about. I still don't know. There are those who think this deliberate ambiguity is a plus but I prefer to be able to follow the plot of a book. I don't even mind working at it, as one must with a number of writers. But it is frustrating to come up against an impenetrable hedge of words that crowds out meaning, and this happens a lot with Faulkner.

I have read almost all of Faulkner's books and enjoyed many, if not most, of them. Frequently moving and always interesting, these books deserve a special place on the bookshelf of American literature. But admit it, often Faulkner - even in his later books - uses words the same way that Jackson Pollock used paint. He sprays, splatters and dribbles them into a squiqqly mess that might, like a good Pollock, be pleasing or meaningful in an 'abstract expressionist' way, but simply doesn't make sense on a purely cognative and narrative level. There is less of that in Soldier's Pay than one gets later, but you can sure see it coming.

Many people who review this book give it a bad rating because they have read Faulkner before and expect his writing to be of a certain style and intellectual caliber. Perhaps this book is not quite up to the level that people are expecting, but when you compare it with much of the other literature available dramatizing this time period (just after World War I) in a fictional manner, this book stands out as being a simply extraordinary peice of literature. While it lacks much of Faulkner's later literary intuitiveness, this book still demonstrates true Faulknerian style with its soap-opera-ish manner of storytelling and robust character development. Even this, one of Faulkner's least talked about and least admired novels, is better than the work of 99.9% of the authors writing today. What people consider "bad" as a Faulkner book is still leaps and bounds ahead of what other writers are able to produce. I found this book to be an excellent stepping-stone into Faulkner's style and literary skill from less "deep" books. I would definitely recommend reading this book first before reading other Faulkner novels. Once you finish this one, THEN try another book directly after this one - his style will be much easier to follow and understand.

Overall, a wonderful book for discussion and reflection!

I have read that Wilkie Collins had this to say about writing: "Make them laugh, make them cry, make them wait."
The Dark Clue:
a) is utterly devoid of humor (you won't laugh)
b) builds no sympathy in the reader (you won't cry)
c) at 390 pages (in my copy), it certainly makes you wait, but there is a total absence is suspense (your waiting will be tedious).
James Wilson has written a very accomplished novel, in that it recreates Victorian speech and settings quite proficiently. It obviously took him years of research and writing time. But where are the rounded, memorable characters, like Laura Fairlie's peevish uncle with his delicate "nerves" (from The Woman in White) or the terrifying Count Fosco with his white mice, or even the faithful house-steward Gabriel Betteredge (from Collins' The Moonstone) who consults his copy of Robinson Crusoe at every important turn in his life? Lastly and most importantly, what Wilson does with the brave, noble characters of Marian Halcombe and Walter Hartright is not only UNTRUE to their characters, but despicable. For a terrific Victorian novel, stick to Wilkie himself.

I don't like gimmicks in general and I find them a bit of a fraud when used to mislead a potential reader about a book. Wilkie Collins is generally considered the inventor of the mystery novel and whether you agree with that or not, he was one of the exceptional writers of Victorian England. "The Moonstone", and, "The Woman In White", are just two examples of his work that remain in print in the 21st century. Author James Wilson borrows 2 characters from one of Mr. Collins's novels, and, by insinuation at the very least suggests there is more than that of Mr. Collins to be expected. Borrowing these characters was meaningless to the telling of this story, a bit of vacuous name dropping is all that it amounts to.

The tale is the writing of a biography, a book within a book. The subject is the 19th century painter J.M.W. Turner, and the author has used all 7 major biographies of the man to write his novel. I have read none of them, but I cannot imagine any of them being less enjoyable than this book, and I bet they even have pictures! My complaints in general are that the book is too long, the story presumes the reader to be obtuse, the ending is completely unsatisfying, and this book must be amongst the entries for the most obsessive use of commas. The first two sentences have 4 commas, 2 hyphens, and a parenthetical. The cadence of this book is an uncertain staccato.

I have read Mr. Wilson's other book which was non-fiction and extremely well written. I don't know if he has the ability to eventually write a great or even a good novel, but he will never get there by trying to imitate the work of another. He makes his attempt exponentially more difficult by trying to mimic the writing of an author who has endured for centuries, and he even borrows a character from the man he seeks to emulate.

As the main character in this book sinks in to depravity, the story becomes confused, unsure of what it wants to be, and who is in charge. Many authors say they create their characters and then let them lead. Allowing them to lead, and allowing them to run amok are very different.

When I purchased The Dark Clue I had no idea that I had picked up a book that would entertain, intrigue, and educate me. Through letters and diary entries I was taken back to Victorian England and introduced to Walter Hartwright and Marian Halcombe, a brother and sister-in-law team searching for the "real" story of the renowned, reclusive landscape artist J.M.W. Turner. Through their research in writing Turner's biography I met wonderful characters that took me punting on the Thames, hiding around the corners in the backstreets of London's slums, and visiting the finest homes of the elite all the while feeling that the "truth" of Turner's life was just at hand. As the character's obsessions grew to find the truth, so did mine with an ending so surprising but so fitting of the bizzare life of Turner.
I say this is the best reading we can hope for... fiction combined with real historical characters and education combined with great entertainment.

After reading 'My Life Without God' & the reviews here of it, i'll say this. It's an interesting story; I could have done without the graphic details of his life & his mother, which is why someone compared this to 'Mommy Dearest.' Also, Mr. Murray did have a tendency to blame everything on Madalyn, including getting his girlfriend pregnant. Hey, Bill; you could have abstained from sex or used a condom. That's YOUR fault, not your moher's. Virtually no parents, even athiest parents, want their sons to get their girlfriend pregnant. Also, William Murray used to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, & was drunk most of the time. Once again, Bill; your choice, not Madalyn's. William Murray truly believes that the problems of our schools stem from lack of school prayer. I disagree; as a Libertarian, I believe it's too much Washington, D.C., not too little God. That's my opinion. Also, society was far from perfect in the so-called 'Fabulous 50's.' That supposedly pure decade was rife with war & juvenile violence in the USA; hardly the Ozzie & Harriet era it was made out to be. As I said before, it's an interesting book in some ways, but much too negative in others.

The subject of this book pretty much guaranteed the book would see print. As such, Murray didn't have to worry about style or form. Neither did his editors. Murray does try though, I suspect; at any rate, something is going on. Every verb seems to have been run through his word processor's thesaurus, and I wonder if this might be his idea of finely crafted writing. Rather than a winning narrative voice, however, in the end the book rings with the voice of someone who is not a native speaker of English.

If it were not for that complaint, I probably would have given the book three stars.

Murray doesn't so much document his life as he vomits it all over the pages. This is a man who hates his mother, and who seems to think solace will come from his readers hating her too. If that seems cruel beyond measure, I'm willing to mitigate it by Murray's enormous naiveté. Right on page one he writes

"Mine was not the typical American family, where a dad and a mom and the kids cuddled up on the couch with hot chocolate and popcorn to watch "Father Knows Best." (sic) At my house we argued about the value of the American way, whether or not the workers should revolt...."

If he really believes ANY family was or is like that, then he is sadly misinformed, or just not very bright. My family never cuddled on the couch, and we did discuss the value of the American way, albeit without throwing dishes, as the Murrays did. We also light Hanukkah candles, and pass the charoset at Passover, and I am quite grateful to William Murray's mother that in my generation, Jewish children did not recite the Lord's prayer in public school, as our parents had done.

Murray's story may be the study of an abusive childhood, but nowhere does he prove his thesis: he never succeeds in connecting O'Hair's atheism with her poor parenting skills. For this reason, and the bad writing, I consider this a less-than-good book.

However, this is still a book worth reading. Several chapters are devoted to biographical information about O'Hair. I learned all sorts of things about her I never knew, including things that suggest how she formed her values and opinions. The fact that her father used her when she was a very small child, to assist in his bootlegging, taught her the inconsistency of his values, and also how the fanaticism of a small group could oppress a larger group with normally formed ideas.

I recommend this book to people who want to know more about the Murrays, and O'Hair herself ("fans" will be upset, though). I DON'T recommend it to Christian apologists looking for ways to argue with atheists, because Murray's didacticism is just too weak.

First of all, for some historical context: William J. Murray published an earlier version of his memoir about his famous Atheist mother a few years after Christina Crawford's successful tell-all book about her late abusive adoptive mother, actress Joan Crawford, titled _Mommie Dearest_. Christina made a lot of money by breaking a taboo against revealing one's shameful family secrets to the public, and since then we've been assaulted by a series of similar whiny exposes by children of celebrities. William J. Murray, it seems, tried to cash in on the "Mommie Dearest" phenomenon, only unlike Christina, he had the bad taste to do so while his mother was still alive. Apparently he didn't consider breaking the Fifth Commandment sinful.

That aside, this book isn't what I expected from reading the other reviews. Murray may have had a miserable relationship with his mother, but that didn't result from "Atheism," which Murray clearly doesn't understand, especially regarding his mother's worldview. People who "hate god," or are "angry at god," or are "fighting god," are not Atheists. It's more accurate to describe them as "alienated theists." When you learn the real source of your Christmas presents in childhood, does that mean you henceforth "hate Santa Claus"? I have read enough of Madalyn O'Hair's writings to determine that she clearly was Atheistic in the proper meaning of the word. She understood the intellectual and practical problems surrounding this "god" business. But despite what Murray would have us believe, Madalyn's lack of belief in "gods" was independent of her defective personality and character. Murray sounds especially foolish when he tries to blame Madalyn's weight problem on Atheism, as if Christian churches aren't full of morbidly obese people like Jerry Falwell.

And despite Murray's portrayal of Madalyn's faults, I still came away from his book admiring her somewhat. Murray wants us to interpret Madalyn's single motherhood, strong-mindedness and inability to hold down a job as defects, as if she was bad for not living like a Christian Stepford wife. But I interpret these characteristics as evidence that Madalyn's real talents lay in entrepreneurship and celebrity, which she wasn't able to develop until late in life when she discovered that she could make a good living promoting Atheism. In a more Atheist-accepting society, Madalyn might have joined the ranks of successful businesswomen and media figures like Martha Stewart and Oprah Winfrey.

Murray also seems never to have met happy, well-adjusted Atheists, some of whom are well known. Plenty of miserable Christians come from dysfunctional Christian families, while plenty of cheerful Atheists have happy childhoods. Murray doesn't understand that for people traumatized by religious indoctrination (recovering Muslims take note), Atheism can become a source for liberation, enrichment and fulfillment. Atheists are certainly free of the anxieties Christians have about their salvation, the "end times," the activities of "satan" and similar primitive fantasies. If Andrea Yates had been an Atheist, her children might still be alive now, for Christianity and paranoid schizophrenia are practically made for each other.

I also find it ironic that Murray is unwittingly still practicing Atheism through his charitable activities. Giving distressed people tangible help -- food, medicine, clothing, etc. -- is consistent with the rules of a materialistic universe and an Atheistic worldview. Swiss Atheist Henri Durant understood that when he founded the Red Cross in the 19th Century. Religion as such involves symbolic, make-believe activities like prayer, preaching, witnessing about one's deity and so forth, which do no tangible good at all.

I give this book two stars for its literary competence and historical information probably hard to document elsewhere. But Madalyn O'Hair's troubled life in no way establishes the existence of "gods," regardless of what Murray wants people to believe.

What a bad book. I feel bad for all those students using this book in class.Half the time I'm not sure what the author is talking about. I just finished a college course using this book. I love the idea of being programmer, but at this point I don't feel confident enough to go on to the next level of programming.With this book I wasn't sure what was going on. I am going to take another Visual Basic's class, just so that I can get a better grip on Visual Basic. By the way I received a B+ in the class, no thanks to this book.What a terible book.

It has many practical examples including database access, DBGrid. It explans many commonly-use VB tools clearly.

The layout of content is very friendly and colorful. It is better than other colorful VB books which have many fantastic layout.

I would recommend this book to the VB beginners who like to read more pictures.

Great book for a beginning programmer, doesnt dwell with too much detail, just the basics to get going.

I was very surprised when I ordered this book and found out that yes, indeed, it was merely a very tiny portion of what I had expected. I suppose I should have known from the price, but the description (at least at that time) did not make it clear that it wasn't the entire dictionary.

While this may be a very thorough source for the words it covers, it should be noted in the basic information that this is ONLY 128 pages of a 15,000 page work. The description above is very misleading.

itz a dictionary. what more can i say

Have you ever seen one of those action movies where you have pretty much figured out what's going to happen after about ten minutes: who will die and how, who's going to be in trouble, etc.? This book reads like that. It's like a rejected Ah-nold movie script, completely lacking any joy, imagination, originality, etc. In about half an hour, I had pretty much guessed how the book would turn out and I got it all right except for one guess.
[SPOLIERS AHEAD]
The main character is a mercenary, but don't let that make you uncomfortable. He was a GOOD mercenary: made a lot of money, killed bad people only. He goes back to his boyhood hometown after thirty years or so only to find everyone has made a pact with the devil except for a few key characters like the plucky teenage girl / sidekick (I'm sure the character had a name, but it doesn't really matter). Luckily, Our Hero is a military expert (not much of a tactician, more of a "let's just shoot people and blow stuff up real good" sort of action hero). Still, even though he is warned that he is fighting the Supernatural Forces of Evil and that guns will not be the answer, it turns out that guns and explosives really do a pretty good job.
There are no surprises, no suspense, things pretty much work the way the characters think they will, they don't seem to be surprised by anything, scared of anything. I know that actors in a movie can look like they're sleepwalking through a role, I didn't think it was possible for characters in a book to do the same thing.
You may have seen the cover of the book, with the skeletal guy playing a piano. There is a possessed piano that we are introduced to early in the book. In a Stephen King book, there would be some doubt to the ultimate outcome. The piano would seem possessed to only one person or that person would have other problems that would make them question what they are seeing. After all, a haunted piano that plays by itself, rolls around the room and tries to kill people is pretty out of the ordinary. But in this book, you are told right off the bat that the piano is possessed. No question about it. It doesn't really figure in the plot except as a conversation piece to anyone who comes over and it does play songs with foreshadowing titles which leads me to believe that the authors scoured at least several albums looking for record titles that would fit. Probably the only original bit of thought in the entire book.

This is the first and hopefully only book that Mr. Johnstone writes with a co-author. The story is fast pace and very scary for the reader. It has some humourous moments and at other times seems a bit disconnected but overall the story leaves the reader wishing that the sequel would be written and released soon.
The story deals with a old mercenary returning home to retire and relax. The problem is a old friend of his is having a problem with a old upright piano he bought. The hero agrees to investage the history of the piano and the horror ride starts for the reader.
I hope that if they ever rerelease this book they won't change the cover. That skeleton dressed up in a tux peering at you (the reader) over his right shoulder promises you a wild and scary ride in the book. If you can find a copy of this book I would recommend that you read it in a well lit room because it will give you nightmares.

Basically a survey of classical writings on Africa, this book has been superceded by later, more comprehensive works, but is worth a look as one of the founding works of the study of African history and culture. Nice index too.