I first learned OE from Bright's over 20 yrs ago now.

Compared to the texts I used for learned classical languages, it definately left something to be desired in its method of grammar presentation. He should have spelled out the paradigms more explicitly than using a tilde so much, and combining Nom/Acc cases all the time. I learned Latin/Greek/Hebrew by rote memorization as most Classicists do. Give me the full chart so I can see/say the inflections !

I highly recommend instead Mitchell and Robinson "A Guide to Old English". This is the book I recently relearned OE from after all of these years. Finally, I have an execellent understanding of Old English that I never had using Bright's.

To Old English scholars, Bright's 'Old English Grammar and Reader' is the one. Other, more up-to-date Old English grammars glut the market. Most of them are very adequate and very dull. Bright reminds us of the 'happy days', when 'our false love was true'. In short, it recapitulates the complicated excitement of our first learning of Anglo-Saxon and coming to love that incredible island-world before the ruthless William set about robbing us of more than half of our native vocabulary and giving us in its place a plethora of euphamisms and plug-ins to a more complicated culture than the French. douglas mitchell

Bright's is a very good book for an amateur or more experienced linguist wishing to learn Old English. It begins with explanations of the basic component parts of language such as phonetics, which are not often taught as a part of other (particularly modern) language curricula. These rudiments, however, are none too basic, and each page is chock-full of information. The grammar section lasts perhaps 110 pages; then a well-annotated reader follows. Bright's is a useful and readable grammar book but somewhat heavy and I would recommend it only to language enthusiasts -- but after all, who else would want to study Old English?

The appeal in this Julie Andrews biography is the amount and quality of the pictures it includes. The book covers her childhood and then divides her career into Broadway, Movie and Television sections. The text is somewhat basic; informative but not very in-depth. Robert Windler's book is much more informative as to Julie's career and an older book that only goes through 'The Sound of Music' concentrates much more on her childhood and Broadway career. The Arnzt/Wilson book is a good overview of her life and career and the pictures are truly superb!

If my house was on fire, this is the one book I would grab. The pictures are outstanding, the book features much information about her early career and lots of memorabilia from her childhood years. These are not the overused pics of Julie that we all see over and over again. Not sure why Julie had it pulled from the shelves, but I would certainly describe this book as a love story to Julie from Arntz and Wilson. This book just warms my heart.

Julie Andrews. The world's most beloved singer and actress. The darling of entertainment closest to our hearts. But, there is just one problem. When the world thinks of Julie, they immediatly think of Mary Poppins (for which she won an Oscar) or Maria von Trapp. Nothing annoys me more than that. People can't seem to undertsnad that hse is NOTHING like Mary Poppins! The only thing I think they may have in common in they are both good with children.
I encourage all of you out there to read a Julie biography book! Heck, maybe I'll write one! But do yourselves a favor and get this book! Learning about the fascinating life of Julz Andrews will be something that will both surprise and capture you- you will NOT regret it!

I have read that Wilkie Collins had this to say about writing: "Make them laugh, make them cry, make them wait."
The Dark Clue:
a) is utterly devoid of humor (you won't laugh)
b) builds no sympathy in the reader (you won't cry)
c) at 390 pages (in my copy), it certainly makes you wait, but there is a total absence is suspense (your waiting will be tedious).
James Wilson has written a very accomplished novel, in that it recreates Victorian speech and settings quite proficiently. It obviously took him years of research and writing time. But where are the rounded, memorable characters, like Laura Fairlie's peevish uncle with his delicate "nerves" (from The Woman in White) or the terrifying Count Fosco with his white mice, or even the faithful house-steward Gabriel Betteredge (from Collins' The Moonstone) who consults his copy of Robinson Crusoe at every important turn in his life? Lastly and most importantly, what Wilson does with the brave, noble characters of Marian Halcombe and Walter Hartright is not only UNTRUE to their characters, but despicable. For a terrific Victorian novel, stick to Wilkie himself.

I don't like gimmicks in general and I find them a bit of a fraud when used to mislead a potential reader about a book. Wilkie Collins is generally considered the inventor of the mystery novel and whether you agree with that or not, he was one of the exceptional writers of Victorian England. "The Moonstone", and, "The Woman In White", are just two examples of his work that remain in print in the 21st century. Author James Wilson borrows 2 characters from one of Mr. Collins's novels, and, by insinuation at the very least suggests there is more than that of Mr. Collins to be expected. Borrowing these characters was meaningless to the telling of this story, a bit of vacuous name dropping is all that it amounts to.

The tale is the writing of a biography, a book within a book. The subject is the 19th century painter J.M.W. Turner, and the author has used all 7 major biographies of the man to write his novel. I have read none of them, but I cannot imagine any of them being less enjoyable than this book, and I bet they even have pictures! My complaints in general are that the book is too long, the story presumes the reader to be obtuse, the ending is completely unsatisfying, and this book must be amongst the entries for the most obsessive use of commas. The first two sentences have 4 commas, 2 hyphens, and a parenthetical. The cadence of this book is an uncertain staccato.

I have read Mr. Wilson's other book which was non-fiction and extremely well written. I don't know if he has the ability to eventually write a great or even a good novel, but he will never get there by trying to imitate the work of another. He makes his attempt exponentially more difficult by trying to mimic the writing of an author who has endured for centuries, and he even borrows a character from the man he seeks to emulate.

As the main character in this book sinks in to depravity, the story becomes confused, unsure of what it wants to be, and who is in charge. Many authors say they create their characters and then let them lead. Allowing them to lead, and allowing them to run amok are very different.

When I purchased The Dark Clue I had no idea that I had picked up a book that would entertain, intrigue, and educate me. Through letters and diary entries I was taken back to Victorian England and introduced to Walter Hartwright and Marian Halcombe, a brother and sister-in-law team searching for the "real" story of the renowned, reclusive landscape artist J.M.W. Turner. Through their research in writing Turner's biography I met wonderful characters that took me punting on the Thames, hiding around the corners in the backstreets of London's slums, and visiting the finest homes of the elite all the while feeling that the "truth" of Turner's life was just at hand. As the character's obsessions grew to find the truth, so did mine with an ending so surprising but so fitting of the bizzare life of Turner.
I say this is the best reading we can hope for... fiction combined with real historical characters and education combined with great entertainment.