As a 1L at NYU, I've been using this book as a general reference while learning about the firms through other channels as well. Some entries seemed a little gossipy, leading me to wonder if the editors were tending to include predominantly the most inflammatory or "juicy" quotes. As a basic reference it was very useful, especially when I was first starting to research firms, but I wouldn't rely on it too heavily.

Packed with insider accounts from the lawyers themselves. Can it get any better than that?

I thought that 750 pages were going to be too many. I was wrong. There is plenty of statistics, charts, and details that make every part of this book really very useful!!!

If your idea of love is limited to visions of puppies and balloons, The Thing About Love Is... probably not for you. In Polyphony Press' first effort, the heavy topic of love is tackled in gritty, gutsy pieces that cut to core of this complex emotion. Sometimes it's bliss, sometimes it's bizarre, and quite often it hurts, but regardless of its form, love is always intriguing. This anthology is in keeping with that notion. With a variety of styles and voices, the works featured here are unanimous in their ability to draw the reader in and keep him hooked. It is truly a great read that may challenge one's personal definition of love. Call it an enjoyable experiment in mind expansion!

It's difficult to find an anthology that has as much stopping power as this one. Reading it, I was impressed not only by the diversity of the authorial voices, but also by their veracity. Each story, poem and play seems to have come straight from the gut. What's more, the contributing writers help to remove our blinders; particularly when it comes to matters of the heart. Love, they argue, is nothing less than a battlefield on which each of us daily chances victory or defeat.Those seeking to enter the contest fully armed would do well to buy this book.

Anthologies are not my usual choice of reading material, but as this was recommended to me, I decided to give it a try. I was pleasantly surprised. While I could not relate to some of the pieces here, I enjoyed the underlying topic immensely. The poetry, drama, and short stories were a good blend. The Thing About Love Is... an enjoyable and fast read, but has a peculiar lingering effect that required that I return to it for further exploration. It's a perfect book to read from the relative comfort and safety of your best chair, where you know that you can dip into the joy and angst of love and for once, walk away unscathed.

In this curious autobiiography, Anthony Trollope sketches in the outlines of his life. He relates the misery of his childhood, the heroism of his mother, the tragedy and ultimate failure of his father. If not banal, at least typical material for an autobiography, and makes for good reading. The second two-thirds of the book summarizes his writings, and relate his ideas on everything from literary criticism to suggestions for young writers. Perhaps most interesting are his assessments of his own work, praising or condemning them with little emotion. Of course there is the famous analysis of his working methods, where he counts words and disciplines himself to an astonishingly regular routine of writing. He produced 47 novels, edited and wrote for magazines, all the while working full time for the post office. One distressing feature of this work is the almost complete lack of intormation about his wife and family....It is clear that he lived with and loved his fictional characters more than his corporeal family. Also, the grammar and punctuation are often awkward but this is still a highly readable and fascinating book.

If one has read a number of Trollope's novels, one would expect that Trollope would have written precisely this sort of autobiography. In fact, it is almost impossible to imagine it having taken any other form.

Trollope writes not so much of his life (though he does touch upon the major events), as of his occupation. Although employed most of his adult life by the postal service, Trollope decided to engage in a second and parallel career as a writer. He is forthright about his motives: the satisfaction of writing, but also fame, financial reward, and social standing. Looking back on his career, Trollope is proud of a job well done. The oddity is that he seems quite as happy telling us about how much he sold each work for, and the financial dealings with his publishers, as he does about his books and characters. In fact, near the end of the book he gives a complete list of his novels and how much he managed to sell each one for (with very few exceptions, he preferred to sell the rights to a novel, rather than getting a percentage of sales). What emerges is a portrait of the novelist not as an artist so much as a dedicated, disciplined craftsman. He explicitly denigrates the value of genius and creativity in a novelist in favor of hard work and keeping to a schedule of writing.

The early sections of the book dealing with his childhood are fascinating. By all measures, Trollope had a bad childhood. His discussions of his father are full of pathos and sadness. What is especially shocking is the lack of credit he gives to his mother, who, in early middle age, realizing that her husband was a perpetual financial failure, decided to salvage the family's fortunes by becoming a novelist. He notes that while nursing several children dying from consumption, she wrote a huge succession of books, enabling the family to live a greatly improved mode of existence. Her achievement must strike an outside observer as an incredibly heroic undertaking. Trollope seems scarcely impressed.

Some of the more interesting parts of the book are his evaluation of the work of many of his contemporaries. History has not agreed completely with all of his assessments. For instance, he rates Thackery as the greatest novelist of his generation, and HENRY ESMOND as the greatest novel in the language. HENRY ESMOND is still somewhat read, but it hardly receives the kind of regard that Trollope heaped on it, and it is certainly not as highly regarded as VANITY FAIR. Trollope's remarks on George Eliot are, however, far closer to general opinion. His remarks concerning Dickens, are, however, bizarre. It is obvious that Trollope really dislikes him, even while grudgingly offering some compliments. Quite perceptively, Trollope remarks that Dickens's famous characters are not lifelike or human (anticipating E. M. Forster's assessment that Dickens's characters are "flat" rather than "round" like those of Tolstoy or Austen) and that Dickens's famous pathos is artificial and inhuman (anticipating Oscar Wilde's wonderful witticism that "It would take a man with a heart of stone to cry at the death of Little Nell"). Even the most avid fan of Dickens would admit that his characters, while enormously vivid and well drawn, are nonetheless a bit cartoonish, and that much of the pathos is a tad over the top. But Trollope goes on to attack Dickens's prose: "Of Dickens's style it is impossible to speak in praise. It is jerky, ungrammatical, and created by himself in defiance of rules . . . . To readers who have taught themselves to regard language, it must therefore be unpleasant." If one had not read Dickens, after reading Trollope on Dickens, one would wonder why anyone bothered to read him at all. One wonders if some of Trollope's problems with Dickens was professional jealousy. For whatever reason, he clearly believes that Dickens receives far more than his due.

Favorite moment: Trollope recounts being in a club working on the novel that turned into THE LAST CHRONICLE OF BARSET, when he overheard two clergymen discussing his novels, unaware that he was sitting near them. One of them complained of the continual reappearance of several characters in the Barsetshire series, in particular Mrs. Proudie. Trollope then introduces himself, apologizes for the reappearing Mrs. Proudie, and promises, "I will go home and kill her before the week is over." Which, he says, he proceeded to do.

you should consider reading this too! Trollope writes candidly about his education (and about being a poor, mostly overlooked student), his lack of professional ambition (and how he finally got around to witing his first novel),and the ups and downs of his literary career (and his early rejections). He does all of this in the same conversational tone employed in his novels, making this autobiography feel more like a chat with an older, experienced friend than a learned, classic autobiography

Anyone interested in learning string theory could perhaps start with the current formulation involving D-branes and M theories. This is certainly possible and will lead one to the frontiers of research. However, it would not perhaps give one an appreciation of string theory that would be obtained by persuing a study that explains how it arose in the study of the strong interaction . This book, written by three giants in string theory, will give the reader such a study, and was the first book to appear on the subject. The book is a monograph, and not a textbook, since no exercises appear, but it could still serve as a reference and "required reading" for courses in string theory.

The learning of string theory can be a formidable undertaking for those who lack the mathematical background. Indeed, a proper understanding of string theory, not just a forma one, will require a solid understanding of algebraic and differential geometry, algebraic topology, and complex manifolds. There are many books on these subjects, but I do not know of one what will give the student of string theory an in-depth understanding of the relevant mathematics. These two volumes include two rather lengthy chapters on mathematics, one on differential geometry and the other on algebraic geometry. The mastery of these two chapter will give readers a formal understanding of the mathematics, and will allow them to perform calculations in string theory efficiently, but do not give the insight needed for extending its frontiers. There have been a few books published on string theory since these two volumes appeared, but they too fail in this regard (and some even admit to doing so). To gain the necessary insight into the mathematics will entail a very time-consuming search of the early literature and many face-to-face conversations with mathematicians. The "oral tradition" in mathematics is real and one must embed onself in it if a real, in-depth understanding of mathematics is sought.

The physics of string theory though is brought out with incredible skill by the authors, and the historical motivation given in the introduction is the finest in the literature. Now legendary, the origin of string theories in the dual models of the strong interaction is discussed in detail. The Veneziano model, as discussed in this part, has recently become important in purely mathematical contexts, as has most every other construction in string theory. The mathematical results that have arisen from string theory involves some of the most fascinating constructions in all of mathematics, and mathematicians interested in these will themselves be interested in perusing these volumes, but will of course find the approach mathematically non-rigorous.

Some of the other discussions that stand out in the book include: 1. The global aspects of the string world sheet and the origin of the moduli space, along with its connection to Teichmuller space. 2. The world-sheet supersymmetry and the origin of the integers 10 and 26 as being a critical dimension. In this discussion, the authors give valuable insight on a number of matters, one in particular being why the introduction of an anticommuting field mapping bosons to bosons and fermions to fermions does not violate the spin-statistics theorem. 3. The light-cone gauge quantization for superstrings. The authors show that the manifestly covariant formalism is equivalent to the light-cone formalism and is ghost-free in dimension 10. The light-cone gauge is used to quantize a covariant world-sheet action with space-time supersymmetry, with this being Lorentz invariant in dimension 10. This allows, as the authors explain in lucid detail, the unification of bosonic and fermionic strings in a single Fock space. 4. Current algebra on the string world sheet and its origin in the need for distributing charge throughout the string, rather than just at the ends. The origin of heterotic string theory is explained in this context.

Why I still recommend this book rather than Polchinski's book is because this book presents more motivation and physics of string theory. In the 90s, there was string duality revolution, a side-effect of which is that string theorists neglect experiments.

While the subject of string theory has undergone considerable and radical change since publication of this text and since Polchinski's recent texts takes some of the steam out of this title, overall it remains a relevant part of the literature for a number of reasons. First, vol I clearly serves a vital role as a secondary source to both of Polchinski's text and vice versa: Polchinski's vol's I&II update Green / Schwarz / Witten's (GSW) vol I. Whereas Polichinski's vol I focuses exclusively on the bosonic strings GSW vol I includes both supersymmetric & bosonic string theory. A reader can then go along way on joining vol I of Polchinski and vol I of GSW.

But probably the greatest reason to purchase this title is the insight into string theory that is offered by these particular authors --- individuals who have each served as principle architects of string theory since its inception and through its many revolutions.

In general, the prose is congenial as is the level of sophistication in physical and mathematical argument. The mathematical apparatus of string theory can become very heavy very quickly and these authors orient the reader in that difficult terrain in a truly adroit fashion.

It's hard to tell from the title, but this is neither a conspiracy book nor (entirely) a whitewash of Adm. Kimmel but a fairly good overview. The book covers the comprehensive blind spots, especially those in Washington, that lead to the surprise at Pearl Harbor. Gannon writes entertainingly and covers detail well. However I think his (deserved) admiration for Kimmel leads him to soft-pedal the parts of the evidence that suggest his culpability. The admiral deserves, although not the whole blame for being unprepared, a sizeable amount of it. Gordon Prange's relatively hard to find "Pearl Harbor: the Verdict of History" covers much the same ground as Gannon but does not hesitate to point out Kimmel's and Short's mistakes alongside everyone else's. And Prange (himself a WWII vet) knew and liked Kimmel personally. I don't regret buying Gannon's book but I would hate to use it for my sole resource on the subject.

It's hard to decide which is more disturbing: the oversights, omissions, and bad decisions that led to America's unpreparedness in the face of Japan's devastating attack on Pearl Harbor ... or the desperation, speed, and skill with which senior military and political officials unjustly made Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General Walter Short the scapegoats for what happened.

Both elements are exposed to view in Michael Gannon's excellent book -- a fine addition to the Pearl Harbor bookshelf.

Gannon does a very good job sorting out who was in possession of what intelligence information in the weeks and days leading up to the attack. The 'betrayal' -- one of them, anyway -- was that, for a variety of reasons, much of that information never ended up in the hands of the on-scene commanders, who needed it most.

As Gannon summarizes, 'An Army Chief of Staff orders that no operational intelligence drawn from Magic be sent to his menaced commander in Hawaii, then later states that he was unaware that enemy intelligence was denied him ... An Army intelligence chief, representing the service specifically charged with defending the fleet at Pearl, punts on the grounds that fleet ships, after all, belong to the Navy ... A Navy war plans chief states that any transmission of operational intelligence of this kind should have been sent out by ONI [office of naval intelligence], something he himself never permitted to happen ... A director of naval intelligence discerns in bomb plot messages no more than Japanese curiosity and "nicety" of detail about the time required for ships to sortie from harbor ... and a CNO [chief of naval operations], as uninformed at the time on this espionage as was the Army Chief of Staff, states four years later that ONI should have sent the information to Kimmel -- in direct violation of restraints that his own OpNav office had placed on ONI ... Surely, if ever there was a "fog of pre-war," it hung over Washington in the fall of '41' (p. 195, ellipses in original).

(Gannon firmly rejects the 'Roosevelt knew' hypothesis. He also treats Stinnett's 'Day of Deceit' to only a paragraph or so of scathing analysis, noting in italics, 'It is important to recognize that no naval operational message text in JN-25B [code] was read by the United States prior to 7 December' [p. 206].)

But the intelligence failure was only part, albeit the largest part, of the 'betrayal.' Early in the book, Gannon lists a damning catalog of the ways higher-ups in D.C rejected Kimmel and Short's pleas for men and materiel. More patrol planes? Denied. More AA guns? Denied. Money for more airstrips, so planes could be dispersed more widely? Sorry. Not in the budget. More radar installations? Maybe in the future. More trained gunners and patrol pilots? Sorry. We need them elsewhere. And on, and on, and on. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, don't give us the tools and we can't do the job.

And yet, Kimmel and Short were scapegoated precisely for their alleged 'failure' to do the job. In the end, Gannon explicitly declines to draw conclusions, leaving that, on his last page of text, to the reader. It may not be too much of a reach, though, to suggest that Gannon seems to agree with Admiral Raymond Spruance, whom Gannon quotes at the start of his final chapter: 'I have always felt that Kimmel and Short were held responsible for Pearl Harbor in order that the American people might have no reason to lose confidence in their Government in Washington. This was probably justifiable under the circumstance at the time, but it does not justify forever damning these two fine officers' (p. 261).

Personally, I think losing confidence in the 'Government in Washington' is precisely the conclusion that *should* be drawn from Gannon's analysis, 'circumstance at the time' be damned. As an illustration of bureaucracy's ability to shift blame away from itself and sweep unpleasant facts under the rug, the story of Pearl Harbor is unsurpassed. And Gannon is an excellent and insightful storyteller. I recommend this book to any student of Pearl Harbor.

December 7, 1941-Who was to blame? This book attempts to answer this burning question and does a pretty good job. There are several different points that the author makes in this book, but his main thesis is that Admiral Kimmel, Commander-in Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, was denied valuable information which, in his mind, could have prevented or in the least alerted the U.S. forces to the impending Japanese attack. The author brings up several points to prove his case. For instance, Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner, chief of the war plans division, believed that Kimmel had in his possession a "Purple" machine, which could decipher the Japanese diplomatic code, and that Kimmel was reading all of the information that Washington was receiving. This was not true. The Purple machine that was supposed to go to Pearl Harbor was instead sent to the British. Admiral Stark and General Marshall are also singled out by the author. No "clear" war warning message was sent to Kimmel by Washington, and on the Day of the attack, Marshall was out horseback riding and did not arrive in his office until approximately an hour before the attack began. A warning was sent when he arrived, but it was delayed by atmospheric problems and could only be transmitted as a telegram. Kimmel received this message about an hour after the attack began. In retrospect, Washington must shoulder some of the blame for failing to keep its Hawaiian commanders informed, but Kimmel and his subordinates must share some of the blame as well. For example, the author tells of the story of the Japanese submarine that was spotted and sunk off the harbor entrance. Why was there no alert after this sinking? Also, two army privates spotted the Japanese attack planes on radar while they were still over 100 miles from Pearl Harbor. Still, no alert was issued. This book also has excellent excerpts from the Congressional Hearings held in 1945-46. Overall, I think this book is a excellent, although short, examination of Kimmel and Washington.

I love Rilke, and I bought this expecting something similar to his "Letters to a young poet." However, this book seems less personal- it contains much more of Rilke's reflections on Italian art, in Florence, and on the art of the people around him in Germany. It is perhaps more engaging to someone who knows a great deal about the art he is discussing! There are still wonderful, wonderful Rilke moments, but this may not be the best book for non-artists or for people discovering Rilke for the first time.

I'm just starting to explore Rilke...this book is wonderful for understanding where he is coming from in his poetry. In this blend of poetry, prose, journal-like entries and musings on nature, Rilke takes you on a journey into his own internal world of solitude. I force myself to read slowly and drink it in...it is worth it! I highly recommend this book.

This extrordinary book covers the most impacting fragrances on both the public and the industry. From conception to development to launches, it gives a thorough history of these wonderscents.Each chapter is a spesific scent, covering the designer, the fragrance creators, the bottle development and all the dirty little secrets of how they got to the top. The book thoroughly covers 45 perfumes (I think he missed a few) including greats like Chanel #5, Shalimar,Anais Anais and Angel. Mr. Edwards also gives a composition rundown, But this is a little confusing if you are not familliar with his Fragrance Manual. Required reading for any fragrance nut.

At first glance, Perfume Legends is a beautifully illustrated coffee table book packed with fascinating stories about the creation and evolution of some of the greatest fragrances of the century. Dig deeper and you discover it's a valuable reference tool for anybody involved in the fashion or beauty business. Perfume is an art form, it captures the spirit of the times, and it's an eye-opening exercise to trace the evolution of fragrance through the history of the 20th century. It's also intriguing to read about the scientific breakthroughs that gave rise to new perfume notes, which greatly expanded the perfumers' repertoire. Michael Edwards obviously knows his subject intimately and he manages to share his knowledge in a readable way. He has clearly spent years researching the true stories behind the myths. The clever combination of scholarship, anecdote and brilliant pictorial material (some of it never published before) makes this book a must for anyone interested in the subject. Even people who just love fragrance will get a lot out of Perfume Legends. It's the only truly comprehensive reference on the subject of French female fragrance classics that I've been able to find. I heartily recommend it. It is ironic that Michael Edwards, who lives in Australia, was born in Africa and educated in England, seems to have beaten the French at their own game. They must be furious.

Michael Golay is a master story-teller. Thus he instantly enthralls his audience by inter-weaving the lives of one of America's greatest heroes: Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, and an American traitor: Edward Porter Alexander, into one, seamless story. Golay takes dry, dead history and makes it live, so that the seemingly formidable task of reading 345 pages passes quickly and enjoyably.

This is a great book to read if you are looking for a little fun, or if you wish to share information with a friend or family member unfamiliar with the details of America's 19th century, intramural tragedy.

However, a double biography is an artificial construct, at best. Golay's choice to tie together the lives of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and Edward Porter Alexander emphasizes just how artificial that structure can be.

Chamberlain was a genuine American hero: a civilian academic, past the age when he would have been expected to serve, he rushed to his country's defense at the beginning of the Civil War. Serving brilliantly, at great personal cost, Chamberlain is creditted by many with turning the Battle of Gettysburg, contributing significantly during the Battle of Five Forks, and beginning the process of national healing with his chivalrous gesture at the Surrender Triangle of Appomattox Court House.

Alexander, on the other hand, was a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, and a regular Army officer. Like all regular Army officers, he had sworn "to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." In order to participate in the insurrection, he violated his sacred oath: he lied. The nation expected better of the man, and should have had its expectations fulfilled.

In an age when values are, again, viewed as important, we must clearly state that, ultimately, despite the shared battles, hardships, and adventures, the lives of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and Edward Porter Alexander were not parallel. Chamberlain's life is to be emulated, and Alexander's rejected.

This book works. It is simply flawed by its structure.

Golay writes a very good book on both Alexander and Chamberlain. There are better books on each man though. Klein's book on Alexander comes to mind as does Wallace's book on Chamberlain or Trulock's book on Chamberlain. I think though the previous reviewer is too quick to judge Alexander. To understand Alexander better I highly reccomend his book "Fighting for the Confederacy" which gives his motives for fighting and his experiences in the Civil War. I think it is very easy to judge a 140 years after the fact. I personally think Alexander was a good and brave man. He fought for his home. Chamberlain and Alexander believed in different things let us respect them for that.

I had seen this book at the library, and being a fan of Dante's Inferno, I checked it out. I was a bit disconcerted when I realized not all the stories take place in or near Hell, as the title suggests. Most of them occur here on Earth, where the characters are in a metaphorical hell. Surprise! Only a handful of the stories are worthy of note, including Gene Wolfe's and James Longrove's. The stories take place either in Hell, Chicago, or London. I found this last fact sometimes discouraging--i.e., I ended up skimming the story.

I recommend you get this book from the library before you spend the cash at a store.

Can't put it down. The intro promises that all the stories will be related to Dante's Inferno theme of Hellish portals on Earth, but they aren't all on that theme (in fact, one is a remake of the Christmas Carol). Scary and thought-provoking none-the-less.

I can't agree with the other reviewer. I found many of these stories scary precisely *because* they were based in metaphorical hells - hells we might actually live in, rather than encounter after death. Also, many stories were set in hells that were not on Earth but were also far from the fire-and-brimstone stereotype. The story "Office Space" alone makes this book worth buying.

Much of the appeal of realism stems from a belief that it's more grounded in reality and pragmatism. In this way, it's often the bias of choice for academics simply because it makes one's ideas appear more legitimate. Here's a case in point: Carr spends nearly the entire book ripping apart utopianism and pluralism, as any "good realist" would be apt to do, only to reach the last chapter where he declares liberalism is the only hope for mankind. So it's clear that he wasn't really a true Realist, but used it for improving his career prospects. It obviously worked, because The Twenty Years' Crisis is considered a classic work in realism. Nonetheless, Carr comes up with some great insights. He correctly predicts the rise of nonstate actors. Though he is wrong in thinking colonization would continue for the long haul in its current form, yet he predicts the move away from expansionism in favor of interchangeable puppet governments and international subversion. Carr has great advice when he says war will continue until nations begin sacrificing for one another, something that U.S. actions in Latin America and the United Fruit Company fiasco chose to disregard. My favorite point is when he says absolute peace is only possible when there is a larger, common threat that subunits can mobilize against. Earth cannot unite against the impending threat from the Planet Mars, for instance. Well, maybe there are no Martians, but perhaps there's someone else out there...

When we talk about realism, we often think about Kissinger or Morgenthau, both of which are awfully boring when one really tries to keep focused on their work.

But E.H. Carr preceded both these fine gentlemen, and Carr is at his finest here displaying a sarcastic wit and overall nasty tone in ripping apart the overly idealistic liberal position adopted by Wilson, Kellogg or Briand, who really thought that world peace could be had through ineffectual action via international organizations and lots of talking between nations.

Carr, in true realist guise (pre-Morgenthau, at least), doesn't elaborate on any principles that could be used to form a coherent theory. But the strengths of this book are in helping those who don't fully appreciate why WW2 came about understand the failure of liberalism, and in entertaining those of us in IR who are bored with the standard IR readings. This book is hilarious, and is certainly worth reading. Just don't expect it to be terribly profound.

I had to read this book for an International Relations class and it was excellant. I found myself deeply engrossed in Carr's depiction of the twenty years between 1919 and 1939

What is really amazing is the fact that he wrote it before World War II and yet he predicted what would happen so well. I would recomend this book to everyone.