There are few writers that can create such visually brilliant worlds using words and tapping into the reader's imagination, but Dave Duncan is one of them. "The Cutting Edge" marks the first book in the "A Handful of Men" series, the follow up to the previous "Man of His Word", where Krasengar's genius stableboy Rap tracks across country in search of the missing Princess who should be placed upon the throne as Queen. Along the way he manages to alienate the four Wardens and even defy the Gods themselves.

"The Cutting Edge" reveals what has happened to our characters many years down the line. Rap and Inos happily married with children and rulers of their beloved tiny nation. But it seems that all is not well in the magical ambience as many things Rap had done in the previous series come back to haunt him and throw the entire continent into disarray, not excluding the Wardens! The ex-warden Zinixo who Rap had stripped of sorcery is back from his imprisonment with a legion of magically branded sorcerers as slaves to do his bidding...

Most of the favorites from this first series have returned, including the little Prince Shandie who's now in the seat of power as the Emperor of the Impire! There are many surprises in store for those who have read the "A Man of His Word" series, and many things are revealed that had been left as speculation even as the previous series came to its close. The ingenious magical system is further fleshed out, and Duncan weaves an equally magical story to boot. Those that love their books very character driven with more than just the vague hint of fantasy will be delighted with this as well as the rest of the series.

One word of note: The first 100 pages or so are not quite as action pack or memorable as the rest of this book, or the other three for that matter, but they are necessary in setting up the story and a major player in the series...

Sit back and enjoy this one!

Although I am a long-time fantasy addict, this is the first Dave Duncan novel I have ever read. It will certainly not be the last. The world of Pandemia is peopled with diverse human races, all sharing certain characteristics of the mythic creatures of our world for which they have been named. Yet they all behave in such purely human ways that the reader comes to care for every one of the main characters. To my mind, that is the first mark of a good read. Then when the author produces such intriguing happenings in their world for them to react to, spinning a story that haves the reader wondering always where the next twist in the tale will lead them, and seasoning the story with humour well put throughout, there is no longer any doubt. Pandemia is a great place to get away from the neverending task of trying to make sense of the real world - even if only for a few hours. In this book the groundwork is laid and we get to know a handful of men - and women - whose strengths and flaws make them belivable if not always realistic. What they must do to save the peace and prosperity of their world I do not know - but reading "The Cutting Edge" has certainly made me avid to find out!

I picked up book two of this series in hardcover on the sale rack of a local bookstore. After that read I set out to find the complete series in Hardcover.

This first book in the series introduces all of the characters and sets the stage for a conflict that spans another three novels. The author weaves the story line into plausible embodiments of the quotes from great literature that follow many of the chapters. Although this work is high fantasy in the tradition of Tolkien I find Duncan's work easier to read. Further, Duncan posses a unique voice and an imaginative view of magic which distinguish him from other writers who merely rehash hackneyed plots.

A very enjoyable read that more than fulfills its role in inspiring the reader to find out how the whole epic ends.

The Genesis Debate allows 3 pairs of scholarly authors to present (and dialog on) the 3 most widespread evangelical interpretations of the creation days. The presented views are the 24-Hour (young earth created in 144 consecutive hours), Day-Age (old earth created over 6 extended periods of time), and Framework (Genesis 1 is a literary expression of actual non-sequential creation events at some unknown time in history). The book format allowed each team to present their view, the other 2 teams respond to that presentation, and then the view presenter responds to the responses. This back and forth format was better than many similar multi-view books.

Norman Geisler gives a very wise forward to the book. He states that "the creation-day debate is not over the inspiration of the Bible, but over it's interpretation...no one holding any of the views should be charged with unorthodoxy for the position he espouses in this volume...the Church needs to shift its focus to the real enemy - evolutionism - not to other forms of creationism that remain true to the historicity of the events recorded in Genesis". I think all believers involved in these discussions would be wise to heed Dr. Geislers advice and lower the intensity and frequency of their attacking of one another.

The 24-Hour view based their arguments primarily on tradition. They went to great lengths to show how most interpreters in the early history of the church (pre-1800) held a view similar to theirs. They also presented a bible overview of various verses that speak of creation. The main weaknesses (pointed out by the other scholars) of their presentation is that tradition has been wrong in the history of the church. While tradition is important, if evangelicals/protestants thought it was the ultimate authority then the reformation would never have occurred. The second weakness of their presentation was that their Bible overview had virtually nothing that contradicted the other two views. The verses basically all supported the concept that God performed special creation (something the other two views agree with).

The Day-Age view based most of their arguments on how well scientific discoveries correlate with the sequence of events in Genesis 1. The science presented was very convincing. Unfortunately, neither of the other 2 teams had the knowledge or inclination to dialog on any of those issues (other than a few feeble attempts to instill doubt in the scientific evidence). Perhaps another book where the 24-hour vs. Day-Age view, focussing primarily on scientific evidence, would be good. Another major facet of this presentation was to show how various Hebrew words have multiple meanings (e.g. yom - 24-hours, daylight period, or unknown period of time). There was some good dialog, especially between the Framework and Day-Age teams, on these lexical type issues.

The Framework view (surprising to myself) was actually the most interesting. They went into great depth of exegesis on Genesis 1 and several other creation related passages. Though I'd not seriously studied this view before, I found myself more persuaded by their presentation than either of the other two (though I wasn't convinced, I was persuaded to consider this a viable and legitimate option). Interestingly, Framework holders can believe in either a young earth or an old earth, since (as they interpret) the issue of "when" in creation really isn't covered in the text.

Overall, this was a good book. I wouldn't recommend it to someone new to this topic (as some level of previous knowledge is required to follow parts of the presentations), but for someone wanting to expand their understanding of the issues and read a relatively polite dialog on an often heated issue this is about the best book I've come across.

In getting two Young-Earth proponents to debate their ideas in a civilized format with proponents of other views, the editors of this volume have more than earned their 5 stars (I'd give them six if six were an option). Young Earth'ers are vociferous dogmatics who routinely castigate other believers as heretics for not subscribing wholeheartedly to their particular interpretation of Genesis - in arranging for a fair debate between Young Earth creationists and other scholars, this book reveals how Biblically hollow and unsatisfying Y.E. arguments really are. I was literally shocked to the point of revulsion at how weak YEC theories are - all the YEC team did was assert that ALL prescientific Biblical commentators (Calvin, Luther, various church fathers) believed that the Earth was 6,000 years old and that anyone with another view was a liberal-compromiser with evil "science." The YEC team's assertation that all pre-1800 Christians believed in a young earth was quickly shown to be false (although the YECs refused to accept the truthfulness of the Old Earth team's quotes!), and the YEC team was unable or unwilling to interact with or deal with the scientific evidence or the Biblical evidence. I came away from the YEC essays with a profound feeling of disgust at how so many Christians can be seduced by this blatantly false ideology.

But the book does one better: rather than casting the debate as strictly old earth vs. young earth, the book gets to the heart of the problem: how is the Bible rightly interpreted? Proponents of the Framework theory point out that the Bible is a literary account of creation, not a scientific one, and debates about how old the earth is may be scientifically interesting, but they simply aren't Biblically relevant. The Bible doesn't tell us how old the Earth is - it tells us that God created us in his image to love and know him, and man is lost because of disobedience.

I was raised, like many, to believe in Creation Science, but immediately I was unconfortmable with the position. The old-earth or "Day-Age" theory appealed to me, but I never felt that theory was 100% right. I am not a scientist, and I cannot debate the fine points of geology or chemistry. I do, however, have a degree in literature and an advanced degree in Writing. When I applied the techniques of my own discpline to Genesis, I arrived at the Framework view. The Genesis story has plain symbolic elements (e.g., the Snake), and from a literary standpoint, it's a parable. It is not against a "literal" interpretation of the Bible to say that a portion of the Bible with obvious symbolic elements is, well, symbolic. Even the most literalistic among us routinely recognizes this quality in other portions of Scripture, and even within Genesis 1 itself. (Relatively few people will argue that man really fell simply due to a talking snake...particularly since the Bible later informs us that the Snake was a symbol of Satan.) I'm glad that my insight was not an aberration, and that this view point is in the ascendency. I greatly respect Hugh Ross and other old earth creationists, but even their reasonable attempts to reconcile a literalistic reading of Genesis with modern cosmology, while a vast improvement over YEC theories, aren't really faithful to the Bible's own character. I work with engineers, and I know that scientific people are often very literal in their mindset and aren't the best people to interpret a poetic text. English majors are the ones who really have the goods on Genesis 1, and debates on the earth's age belong wholly outside any discussion about the meaning of Genesis 1.

Critique:

Each of the three pairs of authors have contributed something vital to the Genesis 1 discussion for which they should be commended and thanked for their time and effort. Duncan and Hall have rightly reminded the reader of the dangers that conformity to the present age presents to every generation. Their appeal to past interpreters further reminds us of the dangers of "novel" thinking and the importance of an orthodox consensus. Ross and Archer bring with them an arsenal of scientific understanding that has been used by the unbelieving community to attack the Bible and have sought to use it in support the Bible. They have found no reason to reject the Bible in the name of science. Their efforts affirm that the Bible can be reasonably interpreted without compromising inerrancy or a critically scientific mind. Irons and Kline offer a strongly textual argument reminding the reader that the Genesis 1 text had and has primarily a theological and a literary meaning. By offering an exegetical and theological argument that leaves ample room for secondary apologetic considerations.

Of the three arguments presented, the strongest by far is the framework view. Irons and Kline have put together an impressive work of exegesis and theological erudition that places the biblical text in its proper place without snubbing a literal treatment of the text or sidelining the concerns of science. On the other hand, Duncan and Hall do not present a unified and exegetically convincing argument. Too much rests upon the lexical use of a single word divorced from a broader context. Ross and Archer similarly offer a minimal amount of exegetical work and only that for which accommodates their pre-commitment to make science fit the textual data.

Presuppositions become clear in this discussion. The 24-hour view and the day-age view appear to come to the text with a strong commitment to something other than letting the text speak for itself. Duncan and Hall even chide Irons' and Kline's work for doing this. Yet the chiding reveals that they themselves have not done this. Duncan and Hall are set against a conformist's view and see anything less than a belief in their view as a compromise to worldliness. But the accusation only stands if the biblical text demonstrates their view convicingly. And while in actuality it might, it does not in their presentation. Their constant appeal to church tradition rather than a fully orbed exegesis appears to show a failing in their argumentation. Other voices have to shore up where textual evidence has fallen short.

Ross and Archer show a pre-commitment even more strongly than Duncan and Hall. They are unabashed about their belief in certain facts of science as irrefutable, requiring the text to accommodate for them. They assert that general revelation ought to share a proper place alongside special revelation. But in practice, it seems that general revelation is taken as "fact" whereas special revelation is subject to interpretation and is more subjective, thus the Bible can bend in places where its strict literalness can be questioned. Here Ross and Archer have not demonstrated the awareness that science is just as subjective and involving interpretation as biblical exegesis. Not only are the scientific "facts" today often overthrown or changed tomorrow, but most importantly, while the "facts" do not lie, the way they are interpreted, handled, systematized, and shown in relation to other facts (which cannot be avoided in any knowledge-based inquiry) is absolutely a matter of interpretation. The most recent hermeneutical discussions have not only crossed philosophy, theology and linguistics but are now branching into the realm of science which is beginning to see that it, indeed, involves interpretations of facts and the use of models to generate systems of knowledge. Ross and Archer seem to take the "facts" of science too much for granted, not allowing for immense complexity involved in moving from observation of phenomena, to understanding of said phenomena, to extrapolation of said phenomena from present observation to past reality, and then to abstract principles that govern theological issues such as creation. Each of these steps involve many levels of interpretation, especially since no one ever has "all the facts" even in scientific inquiry.

Hence, the approach of Irons and Kline not only takes us back to the proper focus-- the text-- but also to the proper focus of the text which is theological and practical issues. Since it is a theological conclusion we are attempting to reach, priority is placed rightly by Irons and Kline in the exegesis of the text rather than upon science or an appeal to a single lexical term or to church history. Duncan and Hall claim that when all is said and done the 24-hour view will stand when science and novel interpretations have fallen away. What is more accurate is that the Biblical teachings will endure when all else has fallen away, and Duncan and Hall have asserted more than successfully argued that their interpretation is the correct one. Irons and Kline have presented a more biblically convincing argument and have used their space in their essay to argue the text of Genesis 1.

Overall, the book was interesting, readable, and helpful in understanding three of the major views on the debate. I commend and recommend it highly.

Like "Shadow," another of Dave Duncan's early books, this is the story of an iconoclastic hero set in the far future, in a world that doesn't work exactly the way ours does. In this world, because of the way the earth revolves and rotates, the sun moves across the sky with agonizing slowness. It takes lifetimes for a region to experience dawn, midday and dusk. From generation to generation, the people of this world forget the catastrophes that occur when the sun moves -- except for the "angels," people who have preserved the ancient knowledge and work to try and save the other people from the destruction that threatens them when the sun moves. The hero of this book, Knobil, was born among the herdsmen, a savage race where the men kill each other and exile their sons so that every man can have as many women and children as possible. Knobil, however, is the son of an angel, and his destiny soon takes him among all the other people of his world -- the beautiful but mindless seafolk, the cruel slavers, the wily traders, the terrible spinsters whose secret he discovers nearly too late.

This was my first Dave Duncan book, and I find it hard to believe the others were written by the same guy.

An interesting Sci Fi concept, great profiles of cultures in a very different world, personal growth, voodoo, world conquest: this book's got it all!

After reading this book I had to return to the scene of the crime.
As a lover of Provence, I headed first to the local cafe in Maussane where all the regulars discussed this terrible misdeed.
I eyed every gypsy suspiciously, wondering if they were the culprit. After a few more Pastis, I thought about the day he was finally returned to his loving home. Yo-yo in Provence is in my heart.

A really unique book - interestly written and beautifully photographed by this award-winning photographer. A must for any dog lover or South-of-France lover!

Through his unique pictures David takes you to Province, the gypsies, their culture, the search for Yo-yo, and lots more. The kidnapping of baby Yo-yo is a canine story that won't let you go until you get to the last page of the book!
A great book for 10 to 100 years old dog lovers.

After a great start, this 2nd book is a major disappointment. Most of the interesting parts are given past tense, and basically dont hold any interest.... Sorry Dave, you didnt reach your usual standards on this one...

I had trouble getting into this one but it was worth it! Now, on to Round 3!!!

IMO, this is the best book of the Great Game. D'ward is perfectly balanced between human and hero. Wondefully characterized, this book was one I couldn't put down.

This books helps to understand the why of an extramarital affair - especially the Entangled Affair. I was the infidel and the shame of what I had done threw me even deeper into depression and a confused state of mind. My counselor recommended the book for me & my husband. I read the book - my husband did not. It helped me to realize I was not alone and not a horrible person. I stood by and took my husband's anger, because I felt I deserved it, but I feel if he had read the book, it would have helped him more than me. My personal belief is that both spouses should read the book to get a better understanding of why the affair happened and how to recover. I'm giving it four stars because I have not read another book on extramarital affairs for comparison.

Extra-marital affairs! - Whether you're having one, thinking of having one, married to someone who has had or is having one, a child of someone who had one, or a friend of someone trying to cope with one, or just trying to ensure your own marriage is safe from one, READ THIS BOOK! The book covers the three types of affair: one-night stand, entangled affair, sexual addiction. It will help you understand why it occurred, why you feel as you do about it, and what you can do. The phases of the affair, and of the innocent spouse's response, are explained, as also are ways of rebuilding trust, understanding forgiveness, and restructuring intimacy. Secret affairs - those not yet revealed to the innocent spouse - are also discussed. It's a Christian book, but not the "Come to Jesus and all will be well!" variety, so don't be put off. The author is an experienced psychologist as well as Christian minister - don't let THAT put you off either! It's not a substitute for "proper" counselling or therapy, but it offers a starting point especially where counselling is not available or where the pain and shame feel too great. It doesn't matter whether the affair leads to divorce or to "forgive and forget". Those affected still need to work through it and understand what happened, because otherwise the marriage cannot be strong, or the divorcees' future lives will be damaged, or the children will be affected in their own relationships and marriages. Those directly involved may find it hard to read this book, but if they do so they will find themselves reflected in it. Their friends will find it a lifeline, as they offer support. The book has one flaw: NO INDEX!!! - so you end up reading it three times while looking for the good bits you remember seeing somewhere in it. But the table of contents is quite full, which helps fill the gap. Okay, so this book is not "The First Wives Club", but it's still worth reading. There is hope. Get it now, BEFORE you need it

This book is a must for all couples who are dealing with the devastating effects of an affair. Dave Carder looks at the different types of affairs from both sides, giving the spouse insight into the "infidel's" emotions, and vice versa. Reading this book was about the only thing that had a real impact on my husband (who had the affair). Before he read the book nothing and nobody could get through to him. Reading the book won't heal a marriage, but it helps to identify the issues that need to be resolved to start the healing process. For the first time in 5 months I'm hopeful that we may be able to reconcile our marriage.

A Rose Red City is a short but enjoyable book. As I recall -- and I admit that it's been a while since I read it -- the tale is one that centers around the "saving" of individuals, by offering them Greek-style immortality. This device allows for an examination of the differing attitudes and priorities of mortals vs. immortals; further, because "rescue" attempts ensure that immortals are temporarily rendered mortal, it allows us to see how they deal with vulnerability, and ultimately, being human.

I thought this book was awesome!!! It was well written. Dave Duncan makes you sink into this book and visualize you were there. I'd recomend this book to anyone!!!! Trust me... you'd have a few suprises along the way. Being a short book I didn't think it would've been as good as it was, but it WAS!!!!

An excellent, in-depth book that reads very well. It gives a wonderful narration and visual on every painting in this special collection. I was fortunate enough to visit the museum in Washington D.C. and see the actual works of art. It was an awesome show and the book follows suit. A very worthwhile book for the artist, student and those who just enjoy art!

This is a so-so account of man's attempt to map time. On the plus side, Calendar gives you a good and broad account of the main developments throughout the last 2500 years. It's a bit cheesy in places and really only deals with events surronding the development of the Julian and Gregorian calendars. But it's not bad as a first attempt at the story. 'Marking Time: The Epic Quest to Invent the Perfect Calendar' by astronomer Duncan Steel is much better though.

On the negative side, it's far too long and lacks credibility when dealing with numbers, astronomy and almost anything technical. Imagine a book written by an author who can't work out that if Jesus of Nazarath was born in 4BC, and there is no year zero dividing the BC and AD eras, then the year 2000 is actually 2004 and the new millenium began on 1st January 1997. If he's claiming that 1997 was really 2000, then he's also wrong. That honour went to 1996.

Just run an excel spreadsheet. Begin column 1 with -4 and then column 2 with 1 (omitting the zero between-1 and +1 in column 1). Run them side-by-side up to 2004. You'll get the answer in a flash. Why couldn't DED or his editor(s) have done this? It's very easy. In any case, there is still considerable doubt about the actual date of Christ's birth - with estimates ranging from 7BC to 3BC.

Also, its explanation of the Easter Computus just doesn't work. Nor does it explain why the calculation doesn't use the actual full moon, but uses ecclesiastical time instead - since this means that Passover and Easter (almost) never coincide. It's account of the failings of the Atomic Clock are sheer nonsense. And there is nothing to show the reader why the Gregorian calendar was designed to reflect the time between successive vernal equinoxes.

There are some bits I did like about Calendar. There easy bits on the development of the Julian calendar, placement mathematics in Arabia and India and then the decimal system involving the first use of the concept of zero. These chapters are quite good since it was mathematical developments that proved pivotal in increasing the accuracy of calendars.

This was also the first time I read about the confusion that reigned after the Gregorian calendar was adopted in the mid-16th century. Only Catholic countries obeyed the Pope's orders. Protestant states eventually joined in (mostly for economic reasons), but at different times over the next 250 years. The result was total confusion in Europe and it's colonial territories. I also now understand why the United Kingdom's tax year begins on seemingly bizarre date of 6th April - a throw back to the Julian calendar, the old New Year and the usual religious jiggery-pokery.

Overall, not bad. ...

I agree with all of the criticisms by previous reviewers -- there are some easily caught errors (which speaks to poor editing as much as anything) and some goofy narrative speculation (not only the reindeer-clad moon-watching Cro-Magnon but also the weary Roman foot soldier). I started the book several times and, confronting these weaknesses, put it down again. But I always wound up going back because the subject is so interesting, and did eventually finish the book.

Having acknowledged the faults, though, I must say that I learned a lot reading this book, which is filled with interesting anecdotes as well as respectful nods to the many people who contributed to the development of our present-day calendar. The author does a good job of balancing specific information with the big picture, and one learns quite a bit about the history of Europe and the Catholic Church (and other areas and institutions to a lesser extent).

There is a good index.

Some years back I studied the calendar, especially with eye to the Hebrew one, which I found quite fascinating. I still found a lot of new information in this book that I did not know about. The book is interesting and well written, and I can very well recomment it to anyone who is interested in history in general, and the calendar in particular.

There is one glaring mistake at the front of the book, though, and one may wonder if it is ment as a test to the reader. It is the list of what year 2000 AD will be. The first item says "1997 according to Christ's actual birth circa 4 BC". A simple calculation will show that the item should have said "2004 according to Christ's actual birth circa 4 BC".

I suspect that whoever created the list (David Ewing Duncan himself?) has confused year 2000 AD with the beginning of the next millenium if reckoned from Christ's birth, as we would have had year 2001 (the first year of the next millennium) in 1997 AD if our calendar had had Christ's actual birth as the starting point. As it is, our calendar begins 4 years too late.

Although recognising that this is an anthology, and not (as a previous reviewer seemed to want) a critical or biographical account, I found some problems with it.

How does Duncan Wu decide how to choose the best, most representative poems and works of these writers?

For me there is simply too much variety in this volume. It ranges from poems to philosophical works to diary excerpts in very short space.

The introduction is full of vague and largely useless generalisations: 'Women of the romantic period, like those of any other, had a good deal to say about experiences peculiar to their social and political situation'. Why does this need to be stated? It's a bit like saying, 'right we better get the feminist credentials in', even if it's not appropriate. Why social and political in particular? Why not all other kinds of experience? It's just that lazy literary critics use these terms rather than admit that they don't know what to say.

I don't feel that this is a good way to teach literature. It is a bit like saying 'we've condensed it all down for you and this is all you need to know'. It is impossible for a reader to read 6 pages of Burke for example and then start applying his ideas in essays as if they knew exactly what he was talking about.

Recommended: 'Wordsworth: The Major Works' ed. Stephen Gill.

Being certainly one of the most comprehensive and sensibly assembled collections of English lyric between 1790 and 1850, this book still disappointed me like so many other anthologies. At the end of the day, it is only a large collection of poems, nothing else. Okay, a short paragraph introduces every poet and there is the odd footnote and cross-reference (often stating obvious or unimportant things, while explanations are missing where they are really needed). But interpretations and comments is what makes an anthology really good. I could put some poems together in a book and publish it, especially if I would be a lecturer at Oxford, that's no big deal. If you want to see some really great anthologies, written by an author who shows real love and enthusiasm for his subject, look at Richard Holmes' books on S.T. Coleridge !

The above reviewer has criticized this anthology for not satisfying criteria it isn't intended to satisfy. You cannot fault a well-assembled and well-indexed anthology for not being a work of literary criticism or a critical biography. Critical anthologies do exist--William Harmon's 'The Classic Hundred Poems' is a fine example, but Wu's compilation sits more appropriately beside the Norton 2A or Mellor and Matlak's 'British Literature: 1780-1830.' Wu's text is a comprehensive and teachable option among these, but none will meet everyone's needs; that is a necessary condition of anthologizing. As for the other reviewer's dismissal of Wu as someone who has neglected his duty as a critic, I think his body of published work capably defends itself.