If one is looking for an in-depth study of "The Battle of Fort William Henry" with a multitude of footnotes and page upon page of sources and bibliography, this in not your book. However, if one is looking for an enjoyable, easy to read, accurate account of the battle, then this is the book.
The author begins the book with a short history of the French and English struggle for control of the North American continent which in the end leads to "The French and Indian War". Then he jumps right in with information and details of times and people and politics leading to the battle of Fort William Henry. If one recalls, this is the battle made famous in "The Last of the Mohicans" by James Fenimore Cooper (which makes one wonder: "Why would anyone use their middle name if it were 'Fenimore?'; but I digress). The author leads us through the battle and the slaughter of innocents by the French Indians thereafter.
The author uses several excerpts from diaries, letters and journals written by those involved in the battle. The title of the book, "Relief is Greatly Wanted," is a quote from one of these letter (from the commander of Fort William Henry, Monro, to Webb, who didn't bother to send help; letter is dated August 8, 1757). It is always interesting to read first-hand information such as this. The book also has a chapter on Robert Rogers and his Rangers. Also, the author gives the reader a short history of the military careers of many of the major characters and what they did after the battle. There are also 37 illustrations, maps and pictures.
As I am not an expert on the Battle of Fort Henry, I can't really say this is the best book on the battle, but I can say that the author writes in a manner that never bores the reader the way many history books do with their dry listings of dates and events. As I stated before, this is an enjoyable book to read. Unlike some history-type books I have read, this author appears to stick to the facts and not add any "extras" that may or may not be true just to make the book more lively. This book is written well enough that that isn't necessary.
In the book's "Postscript," the author writes, "Although I have drawn a few conclusions in writing, I have tried to present a battle as it was seen through the eyes of the people who were there. I'm sure that other individuals may see it in a different light." This is refreshing in a day when most writers seem to think they are right and everyone else is wrong. This writer actually admits that maybe he is wrong on a few things. And since I am a "wise guy," I'll point out an error: The author says Daniel Boone was a militiaman in Braddock's campaign. He wasn't; he was a wagon driver. Yes a trivial detail indeed, and it doesn't even concern the Battle of Fort William Henry; but, like I said, I'm a wise guy.
Also, not only am I a wise guy, I am a cheap kind of person, so I think the book costs too much. Not because of the writing itself, but because I think a paperback book shouldn't cost 20 dollars.
In the end, however, this is a good book. It is generally written well, provides a lot of information without becoming tedious and is enjoyable to read. If one has read "The Last of the Mohicans" and would like to know more about this period of time and the events in that book, then this would be a good book to read.

The Unvanquished is an excellent book, which depicts life in the South during and after the Civil War. The title means "the undefeated or the unconquered," and Faulkner expounds on this topic. One by one, the characters are defeated by either disillusionment, selfishness, or vainity ,and only one character withstands the terrible effects of the war: Bayard. Faulker does a remarkable job depicting the emotions of Southerners during this time and uses great imagery.

William Wormsley is my Anthropology instructor at drexel university. Since taking the course, it allows a much greater understanding of the book, not only subject related, but as in insight to the writer and the points he was trying to stress. His writing tends towards pretentious i guess, in the way that he seems he is attempting to actually write literature, and some of his metaphors and analogies were just ridiculous. But its a good book, offering valuable insight into an indigineous people of New Guinea that is easily relatable. a definite recommendation to anyone interested in the field of anthropology.

The New Cambridge edition provides an extensive introduction passage with the history and background of the play, as well as lengthy footnotes and annotations to the text, which makes the play difficult to read. And if you're not familiar with British history, you'll find yourself constantly flipping back to the introduction, trying to find out exactly what's going on, or who is on what side.

The book also provides plenty of illustrations pertaining to the actual dating of Edward III, footnotes and academic guidance, and a small textual analysis. The 'academic guidance' claims to be nonobtrusive, but as you read the actual play you find countless annotations and notes that may take up half the page. Nonobtrusive, you say? The illustrations are interesting, and the stage history can be intriguing. But, as mentionned before, the names are barely recognizable. You honestly don't know what they're talking about.

Shakespeare's tragedies and comedies are mostly good reading. Some histories like Richard III and Henry V as well as Henry IIX can prove interesting, too. And they're much easier to comprehend once they've been made into movies. But if you're not into Elizabethian English -- or simply can't understand it -- it's best that you leave Edward III for another time if you really want to read it, or learn the language. And while you're at it, refresh your knowledge of English history. It's that confusing.

As for whether Edward III really belongs to Shakespeare, the form is just about the same as the rest of the Bard's work. With some very rare exceptions the lines are in iambic pentameter. To the reader not very familiar with Shakespeare's works or English history, he would not be able to tell the difference between Edward III and any other history play.

I was surprised to find the history play tiresome, weary and bland, which led me to wonder whether the great Shakespeare really wrote something this dull. But one can't expect all of history to be interesting. Many writers chose historic subjects partly because they want to record history, not necessarily for entertaining purposes.

Even then, to read one of the six doubtful plays of Shakespeare could prove interesting. If you do decide to order it over the Internet -- as it is not available in Thailand -- and sit down and read it, make sure you know your English history and Elizabethian English. It'll be a tough and challenging ride. This work was edited and published with the more intellectual in mind.

You know you're in trouble when the introduction has footnotes. The time period is the beginning of the Hundred Years War (actually 116 Years). The introduction gives you maps of Crecy and Poitiers (major battle sites) but that is silly because the book will pound you with Shakespeare's historical inaccuracies and compare them to the real record: Edward III's founding of the Order of the Garter to His Bloody Rape of Countess Salisbury (glossed over by the Bard). You don't need a family tree of British Royalty either--just remember the order of the history plays: Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV (1), Henry IV (2), and Henry V.

Edward III resembles Henry V--probably because for 116 years they've been fighting the same war against France: Edward III (Sluys, Crecy, Poitiers) Henry V (Agincourt). Henry V is far superior to Edward III.

The footnotes in the text have references to other Shakespeare plays--so read this one last--; the Oxford English Dictionary; and notes on the Sources, Froissart and Holinshed, which are written in Middle English; Running Commentary on Shakespeare vs. The Historical Record.

The Appendix has a scene by scene account of the sources.

This is a scholarly work--as an English Grad I say Bravissimo, Giorgio! However, for the general reader I recommend the Riverside Shakespeare (Complete Works). Yes, it's bulky but accessible to everyone. The Cambridge Edition is portable but its arcane language is accessible mainly to specialists in the field. I can understand the difficulty the reader from Bangkok, Thailand had in reading this edition: She's right on target.

This may be considered a classic of the fur trade era, but I would not waste my time on this book! It is a verbose and overblown "fictitious" theatrical novel which is difficult to follow and comprehend. Although based upon true events during the fur trade era, the author is much too glamorous and gaudy in his writing style.

PLESE send boock to address:iran - tehran - tehranpars - hakimiih - st.bahar-st.behesht-alloy behesht 2 - 2449

The Origin of Finger-Printing Bound With Classification and Uses of Finger Prints by William J., Sir Herschel, Edward R. Henry.

The Souls of Black Folk is an American classic. Written before he turned 30, Dubois deals deftly with the central issues of not only the beginning of the twentieth century (black leadership, the color line, southern politics, reconstruction, the talented tenth, etc.) but the end as well. When I heard that Benjamin and Crouch were going to put something together in honor of it I awaited my copy with anticipation.

After having read it, at least I can say the cover is really nice.

This book was not a chore to read...the way Benjamin skewers a number of "public intellectuals" is funny at times. And though I seldom agree with Crouch on anything, I find that he has serious skills as a wordsmith. But the central problem is that the work is poorly edited (particularly Benjamin's contribution), and there is no way that this does the original justice. It's better than THE FUTURE OF THE RACE (a similar attempt by Gates and West), but that's not really saying much. Skip it and reread the original.

the book is nice include more practicle examples in the book that will really make it much more better and usefull