THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE HANDBOOK by Bruce Livingston, Physician, J.D., & Stephen Morewitz, Ph.D., is an excellent handbook, particularly for those who are unfamiliar with the field. It provides a detailed road map for the investigation, preparation, and disposition of a medical malpractice case.

After a long delay, the latest volume in the Hershenson-Allen behemoth series of movie poster books, "Not Nominated," is finally here.

This latest enterprise, in my mind, can truly be called, without apologies, a "reference" volume, possessing qualities consistent with what I associate to be the purest definition of what this word is supposed to mean.

The critical aspects are these: Beyond printing each "year" on the vertical edges of each page, this volume isn't all about images. It lists Oscar winners. It lists every film that was nominated for Best Picture. It illustrates, in wonderful color, posters of films that in most cases, were ROBBED of a Best Picture nomination. But the editors keep going. They list "honorable mentions," a concession that the panelists on its selection committee (for which I was honored to be a member), did not always agree with the choices that ended up in your book.

I'm conceited when it comes to Oscar. I'm a professional writer who happens to be an amateur film historian, who, in 1972, was a winner in the San Diego Union-Tribune's Academy Award history contest, having studied this subject obsessively, watching every Oscar telecast since 1962. So it's obvious why I would disagree with my fellow panelists on a number of selections, and in such cases, why it was a lousy feeling to see some of my choices "overruled" and put into the "Honorable Mention" category, or worse, not even listed at all. Yet the selection process was completely fair.

Some choices were obvious and expected, e.g., "Singin' in the Rain," "The Third Man," "The General," "Queen Christina," "City Lights," "Pinocchio," "North by Northwest," "Rear Window," "Some Like it Hot," "Breakfast at Tiffany's," "A Hard Day's Night" and "2001."

But some choices were baffling. How can anyone, for example, leave off films like "The Seven Year Itch (1955)," "Duck Soup (1933)," "National Velvet (1944)," "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945)," "Black Narcissus (1947)," "Key Largo (1948)," "The Miracle Worker (1962)," "Two for the Road (1967)," "A Man and A Woman (1966)," "Glory (1989)," "The Commitments (1992)," "Fearless (1993)," "Dead Man Walking (1995)" or "Three Kings (1999)?"

And some selections, forgive me, were overrated. What's a film like "Dracula" doing in there? "Frankenstein," yes, but has anyone tried to sit through "Dracula" in its original, un-musically scored version without unintentionally laughing? A film that stands the test of time does so without falling back on the post of the technical limitations of any era. Is the monetary value of the film's poster and/or its standing as an iconic title greater than the merits of good old-fashioned story telling? Dracula is a classic, but a Best Picture nominee it wasn't, nor should it have been, any more than "Blazing Saddles," despite my tremendous affection for the latter.

What about "Journey to the Center of the Earth" over "Pillow Talk?" "How to Murder Your Wife" over "The Flight of the Phoenix" or even "Cat Ballou?" "A Funny Thing Happened to the Way to the Forum" over Billy Wilder's "The Fortune Cookie?" Perhaps the worst was seeing the ponderous "Far From the Madding Crowd" selected over Stanley Donen's underrated "Two for the Road" and "The Day of the Jackal" knocking off Bogdanovich's enchanting, "Paper Moon." And the panelists who, in apparently sufficient numbers, were responsible for putting garbage like "Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls" even on the "Honorable Mention" list deserve 50 lashes with an well-oiled, leather whip.

Debating cinema as art (as opposed to posters) makes for great fun, and this is why this book is worth buying and talking about. But I was most happy with four selections in particular that were associated with the agonizing process the editors' chose to make this book historically credible.

The first was Ernst Lubitsch's "The Shop Around the Corner (1940)," that wall-to-wall Margaret Sullavan-James Stewart howler that still holds up as being done one of the greatest romantic comedy films from Hollywood's Golden Age. The second was "Say Anything (1989)," writer Cameron Crowe's first directorial effort. The third was Terence Malick's haunting "Days of Heaven (1978)." But the fourth, the one that brought the most joy, was the panel's selection of David Lean's wonderful 1945-46 collaboration with Noel Coward, "Brief Encounter (1946)." I can only count on one hand the number of people I know out here on the West Coast who have seen this near perfect 86-minute film. Yes, I disagreed with some of the choices, but this particular selection confirmed that the editors did their homework in their efforts to create a credible cross section of non-Hollywood industry historians to join their "jury." I applaud them for selecting this movie despite the higher profile titles released the same year, such as "Gilda," which even though was among my selections, I was only mildly disappointed to see "missing the cut." The latter is high grade "B" material compared to "Brief Encounter."

Moreover, I applaud the editors for assembling one of the finest pictorial books ever published about Oscar history, featuring posters associated with films that were shamefully overlooked by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Admittedly, not all of the posters feature great art, but the point is to document history. I hope there will be a second volume featuring the films that at least made "honorable mention." For this first volume (which no one in publishing history has ever done in terms of subject matter), panelists were limited to listing just five "losing" films each year. But we know that some years it was feast or famine in terms of quality.

Combining great images with great history, if Hershenson and Allen continue to keep the quality as great as this, they'll be publishing forever, and not just to the narrow band of hard core movie poster collectors who DON'T make up the greater body of book buyers in America.

A collection of seminars given by many of the most prominent Lacanians, this book is ESSENTIAL reading for anyone who claims to know anything about Lacan (this includes you, Lit. professors). The exposition is clear and elegant and makes for a damned rewarding read.

When faced with a difficult term paper I turned to this book. It provided me with invaluable information to include in my paper. Wright's work, in my opinion, is some of the most senstional writing in modern times and needs to be represented well. This book vividly describes his progression into authorhood and his works from there on in. I would recommend this book to anyone in search of the ultimate research resource.

The cliff-hanging drama that drew us back to theaters again and again is captured in rich, colorful poster art. Any movie lover should own this book!

There was a lacuna in the field of gastroenterology but with the introduction of this masterpiece, that gap too has been filled. Amazing insight and utmost simplicity of presentation has made this a prized posession, at least in my collection and I hope that it will be so for many many people across the globe.

According to the United Nations Human Development Report published in 1996, the 358 richest persons on earth control assets equivalent to the annual income of 45 percent of the world's population. In the United States, the top 1 percent of income earners receives 12 percent of the entire country's pretax income and holds 37 percent of the wealth. At the same time, evidence is accumulating that disparities in income have profound social consequences and that the social and economic structure of a society may fundamentally determine the health of its members. The Society and Population Health Reader provides the reader with the original reports on income inequality and its effects on public health.

That being poor is associated with ill health would seem to go without saying. Many studies in the past three decades have established that absolute levels of income or education or class are related to morbidity and mortality. The Whitehall studies of the British civil service, begun in 1967, showed that mortality rates were three times as high among people in the lowest employment grades (porters) than among those in the highest grades (administrators) in a relatively homogeneous population of office-based civil servants who had access to comprehensive health care. The Whitehall studies and the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial in the United States show that conventional risk factors (smoking, obesity, inactivity, and high blood pressure) explain only 25 to 35 percent of the differences in mortality rates among persons of different incomes. In fact, socioeconomic status is now understood to be the single most powerful determinant of health. This in itself is a stunning notion --one that is overlooked by physicians who are not oriented to population health.

Physicians are accustomed to think of the socioeconomic determinants of disease in terms of an individual person's risk factors. The story, revealed in these collected papers, is more complex. It now seems clear that absolute wealth or income is a less important determinant of health than the relative disparity in income or the income gap between the rich and the poor. Wilkinson is a leading proponent of the relative-income hypothesis. He finds no clear relation between income and health when comparisons are made between countries. For example, there is no relation between the per capita gross domestic product and life expectancy at birth in comparisons among developed countries with similar levels of industrialization.

Wilkinson and now a number of other scientists have, however, found a strong relation between income inequality and health. Countries with the longest life expectancy -- Japan, Iceland, and France -- are not necessarily the wealthiest, but they are the countries with the least income inequality. These relations are not limited to nations but can also be seen at regional and local levels. In the United States, for example, states with the narrowest, most equitable income distributions, such as New Hampshire, have longer life expectancy than less egalitarian states, such as Mississippi and Louisiana.

What connects income inequality to the health of individual persons? Biologic scientists have explored the connections between social rank and biologic determinants of disease, such as immune function and endocrine responses to stress. Several such studies are presented in this book. Social scientists have long asked why some communities have effective institutions, respect for the law, and healthy citizens, whereas others do not. Social capital, defined as civic engagement and mutual trust among community members, may be an important intervening variable between income inequality and health. Communities with high social capital, or cohesiveness, are associated with higher levels of political participation, lower levels of crime and delinquency, and better health status.

The conclusions reached by several of the book's authors, that socially engineered reductions in income inequality might produce substantial health benefits for the population, are certain to provoke controversy. The debate about an assured national income -- dormant for 20 years -- may be revived. The relative-income hypothesis has implications for matters of public policy, including education, poverty, and crime, and the authors suggest specific additional research that is needed to support the development of policy in these areas. Some policy makers are designing programs on the basis of socioeconomic research. Dr. David Satcher, the surgeon general of the United States, has, for example, made the reduction of inequalities in health based on race and class the priority of his office.

The Society and Population Health Reader is organized in four sections, each with an introductory essay that includes study questions and suggestions for further reading, followed by reprints of recent research articles - 40 in all -- as they appeared in the medical literature. About half the articles are by the editors. Although some criticism of the relative-income hypothesis is presented, for the most part, the book reflects the editors' positions. For the general reader who is willing to stay the course and plow through the 40 articles, I cannot think of a better introduction to this fascinating field. This book is uniquely useful for the professional student of these topics or for research scientists developing an interest in the field.

Michael McCally, M.D., Ph.D. Mount Sinai School of Medicine New York, NY 10029

The main contents of the book,please

What a magnificent publication once again. The range, the colour, the class of every one of Mr. Hershenson's books continues with this latest volume. The only critcism is that it isn't in hardcover. I will buy every book that is to be published. An essential volume, as are all of the volumes so far. Excellent. Dietmar Lederwasch

Ordered unseen and then attended exhibit. I was dissatisfied with color prints before exhibit and really disappointed afterwards. A graphic artist friend refused to buy the book after seing the color reproductions

I just returned with a friend from the Sargent and Italy exhibit , and I had purchased this book before going and thought the repoductions lacked vibrancy and did little for me, and after seeing the exhibit my thoughts were confirmed and I was even more disappointed , and a friend of mine who is a retired graphic artist and attended the exhibit would not purchase the book based on the reproductions

SARGENT IN ITALY does what many catalogues set out to accomplish but few achieve - document a magnificent exhibition while creating an art history book of great substance. The catalogue for the travelling exhibition SARGENT AND ITALY mirrors the elegance of the painter's touch, the intense infatuation and observation of the painter's favorite places (Venice in particular), and the intellectual atmosphere in which all of these works were created. Everyone knows of John Singer Sargent's finesse with the portraits of the wealthy and with figure painting in the studio and out on location, but few have the knowledge that Sargent found just as much life and senusality in the landscape as he did in the beautifully gowned patronesses of his career. Author Robertson is careful to include the treasurable quotes from the works of Henry James and other writers which flank many of the paintings in the exhibition and in the book. James and Sargent were close friends and colleagues, and that quality of shared observation helps make this show and this book the successes they are. The only minor flaw in the book is the quality of color reproduction which tends toward the muddy, dim side - hardly what this painter of light was all about. But the paintngs here are in other volumes where they are not as graced with the written word as they are here. A fine exhibition and a very fine catalogue/book.