I liked the information I got from this book. Occasionally the written description was a bit "fuzzy", though mostly clear. Though the illustrations were usable, they were too detailed. I would find myself unable to use the charts as I was giving a massage or just learning. Otherwise, the writing was fine. I found this book useful in my career.

The author enthusiastically (perhaps too much so) the hard working appetites of the pioneers. I mush enjoyed the descriptions of the "stick to your ribs" food enjoyed by many cultures comming together on the frontier. However, the bulk of the book seemed to be made of depictions of feasts and picnics, rather than everyday fare. There was some material on the origin of the various dishes (for example, the "Boilermaker" with its origins in the "Sean O'Farrell"), but not enough for my tastes. For those searching for the origin of common dietary staples, I would instead recommend "The Potaro".

A story Emory Thomas relates in his recent bio of General Lee shows the general, now a private citizen, in church after the war. At time to partake of the Eucharist, a black man comes into the church and kneels at the altar to take the Lord's Supper at the all-white church. No one knows what to do and the air is full of tension. The first person to rise, go to the altar, and kneel by the man to eat the Body of the Lord is Robert E. Lee.

Robert E. Lee was notable for freeing slaves left to him and his wife. His first impulse at the beginning of the war was to serve in the U.S. army -- in fact, Lincoln's administration offered him post as commander in chief of the U.S. forces. Does that mean he believed in equality of the races, as we do today? Of course not, it implies nothing of the kind.

This is the basic flaw with Mr. Fellman's book. Like most p.c. revisionists, he seems to demand that all the light of his subject be reflected through the prism of modern sensibilities. Most _modern_ people couldn't abide such scrutiny. The problem of p.c. revisionism of all kinds is that p.c. people see only one point of view and do not recognize any other as valid, and anyone who disagrees with them in a jot or tittle is "intolerant" (tolerance defined as being what they believe) and they destroy posthumously anyone in a past culture who does not reach their exalted level of "tolerance", despite the fact that they haven't had the advantages of a modern educative process where the mind is carefully groomed.

Lee was a model citizen for his time (perhaps for any time). Loyal to his family and friends. Second in his class at West Point, and he got through with no demerits. He had the benefit of name; but his father was poor, and died from injuries received protecting the free speech rights of a printer who opposed the War of 1812, and Lee inherited little from his father except his surname, a love of country and Constitution and an admiration of his father's dear friend George Washington (Lee even married into the family of Washington's step-son).

Every aspect of Lee has recently come under attack. His generalship has had many books and articles assailing it. Now the man's character is dismantled, piece by piece, by an author who seems to have no sympathy for his subject at the start.

One of the most abhorrent features of modern biographers is their need to "psychoanalyze" their subjects in retrospect. He puts Lee on the couch, so to speak, but whereas in psychoanalysis the doctor and patient exchange questions and answers, the biographer supplies both, so naturally whatever his research gives him dovetails with his presuppositions.

I won't go so far as to say this is a pure hatchet-job, though I wouldn't be surprized if it was. I'll assume the author made a genuine attempt to understand his subject and failed.

Not a recommended biography of the general who did more to knit the two factions of this country into a whole than any man after the war. If you're wary of Douglas Southall Freeman and Clifford Dowdy, both of whom spent their lives studying the man, using the same sources as Mr. Fellman, then I would heartily recommend Emory Thomas'_ROBERT E. LEE: A BIOGRAPHY_. Prof. Thomas taught at UGA when I was a grad student there; he's a fair man and his book is a BALANCED treatment of his subject. It's well worth the money.

However, if you already are predisposed to think that anyone who joined the Confederacy, for whatever reason, is inherently evil and don't want to read books that challenge your preconceptions, you'll enjoy this book immensely.

Fellman attempts a survey of sorts of Robert E. Lee's musings on a myriad of topics. As usual with political correct revisionism, Lee's OWN thoughts don't get in the way of Mr. Fellman's own bias and conjecture. Sure to be a big hit, however, with those of an anti-Southern slant.

The author largely ignored the legendary Lee for a more realistic, if less likeable, portrayal. Although I appreciated Fellman's research, I believe some of the conclusions he drew went a little overboard and led to a darker portrayal of Lee than warranted. The narrative was also somewhat dry and Lee rarely came alive for me in this book.

The development of Lee's character began with his roots. He was the son of Light Horse Harry Lee, the revolutionary hero whose reputation was ruined by gambling and dissapation. He was also the great grandnephew in-law of George Washington. Lee became a man absorbed with his own honor, reputation and family name. In many ways he seemed a bit out of his own time and more like a southern gentleman of the 18th Century. His legend, of course, was the result of one year of great success in the Civil War. However, his overconfidence led to recklessness at Gettysburg. After the war he became increasingly political and developed white-supremacist leanings. To his credit though, he was an advocate of peaceful political change rather than mob violence.

My favorite parts of the book were Lee's letters to his children. In an 1845 letter to his son, Custis, he wrote, "If children could know the misery, the devastating sorrow, with which their acts sometimes overwelm their parents they could not have the heart thus cruelly to afflict them." He later wrote to his daughter, Mildred, "Experience will teach you that, notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary, you will never receive such a love as is felt for you by your father and mother. That lives through absence, difficulties, and time."

Palmer, Palmer, Palmer! How's the weather in La-La Land? When I read your work I was excited because the subject seemed to be original and it was a study that somebody needed to undertake. What I read was a substandard attempt to defame Robert E. Lee at the cost of logic, any basic understanding of what happened from 1861-1865, or a grasp of the discipline of writing history. In short, this book is a farce. I'll end with a plea for someone to write a full-length and competent history of Bristoe Station.

Having read several books on Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia, and having a very high opinion of General Lee, I decided I should try and be objective by reading some books that were critical of General Lee. But I was very disappointed in Palmer's work. I was hoping to read some well researched criticism. What I got was a joke. Most of Palmer's arguments have serious flaws to them, any some don't make any sence at all. Don't waste your time with this one.

Understanding the military campaigns of the numerically weaker side is one of the more challenging issue in history. Unfortunately, Mr Palmer displays a thorough lack of historical perspective in this very weak presentation.

Palmer's protrait of Robert E Lee as lacking all the necessary mental capacities when it comes to undertaking offensive warfare is completely devoid of historical understanding of the campaigns involving generals such as Hannibal, Caesar, Frederick the Great, Napoleon and many others who commanded numerically inferior armies. And of course, Palmer offers absolutely no supporting evidence to prop up his claims because in this book the outcome of the campaign is proof enough.

I agree with another reviewer here that this piece is very agenda-driven, simply because of the thin presentation, no supporting evidence, which could only come from a lack of understanding of the campaigns involving the Great Captains.

This book is garbage. It is just thrown together for the publisher and author to make money. It is a very superficial review of cost accounting.

I was pleased with with this book. At the end of each chapter, a demonstration problem is provided with step by step instructions. Also available are template spreadsheet at the Southwestern website which are very helpful in understanding some end of chapter exercises.

Even though no one will probably read this, I feel I have to warn Holmes fans if they find this book and want to read it. I'll put it bluntly, it was very boring. I had to force myself to finish it, mostly because it was due back at the library soon. I have no idea what the author was trying to do writing this book, since it obvisously didn't get much attention. The book is not really a biography, he (Holmes) does not start out saying where he was born, in fact he never goes there but sort of skips to his childhood in the middle of the story to explain why he never talked about his childhood with Watson. Which isn't reason enough to read this book. Some things that annoyed me was the fact that the author tells us that "the woman" was actually a famous (or is that infamous?) prostitute; Holmes had never gotten married because the type of women he liked were of "a certain occupation." Holmes? Never! All in all a very bad, boring, and not worthy of Sir Author Conan Doyle.

This is a book about two people who used each other. Priscilla used Michael for his modeling connections and Michael used Priscilla just to be part of Elvis's world. I felt Michael was more in "love" with Elvis than he ever was with Priscilla. What he wrote about Lisa Marie I thought was really sad. She was a neglected and sad little rich girl. When Michael wrote about himself his actions were embarassing and egotistical. He was always comparing himself to Elvis. Priscilla sounded more into herself than with him or Lisa. It certainly did not help his career after his involvement with Priscilla Presley. The pictures in the book were wonderful! I think the book would of been better if Michael had help creating the stories in a format with better wording and deleted stories that had no basis to his life with Priscilla and Lisa.

I finished this book because I was stuck on a plane and it was all I had to read, but it is so bad that the experience was painful. Nothing in the book is either believable or engaging. The characters are facades with no clear motivation and the actions are simply beyond all belief. It should have been a clear indication when I noticed there was no author's picture or bio on the book jacket. I wouldn't want to be associated with this mess either.

Yes, you will be propelled through plot twists almost every chapter. But you don't really care, because you don't really care about the poorly drawn characters. Every one of the players is either lacklustre or repulsive. In fact, you almost wish the leading lady will die a horrible death early in the book - if you read the first few chapters, you will agree with me, but why suffer at all? The syrupy love interest doesn't help at all - in fact, it adds to your desire to see the guy or gal depart the scene so you don't have to read another sappy love line in this book. Nuff said. One star for the plot twists, but that's it. (Also, you can't give less with this ratings system.)

With weak characterizations, unfathomable motivations, disjointed story line and less than believable plot....this story is about as gut wrenching and dramatic as waiting for your lawn to grow, but in the end, much less fullfilling.

It's been said that the relationship between the Duke and Duchess of Windsor was the "Romance of the Century," and that their love was "deep and true." If their romance was based on the prattle in their letters, then it was definitely sophomoric and banal. These letters read like two teenagers speaking baby-talk to each other. I realize that these people were insipid and shallow, but it puts their relationship in a whole other light. Stupid and self-serving as well.