A must-see cover design by Terence Kelleher. This one feature sets the book in a whole world of its own. I challenge anyone to read the contents, and not cry, and not consider their outlook changed.

With a thought-provoking and attractive cover painting by Terence Kelleher, this book is the latest addition to a growing literature on the lives of the 2000 or so men and women awaiting execution in the United States. Composed almost entirely of accounts written by the men themselves, this makes a harrowing but life-affirming (ironically) read. It may well change the way you think.

This book is very helpful to those clinician's who want to evaluate and fabricate foot orthotics in the office. Easy to read and follow. The author must be very good.

This book is an invaluable tool for the student or
doctor studying the foot and ankle. By far, one
of the most thorough out there. Do not hesitate
because of price... well worth it.

If you only buy one book on the history of SOE in france then this should be the one. The job was to set Europe ablaze in the words of Churchill and they were a thorn in Germany's side. The operations and agents who carried them out are described in great detail including the nightmare of capture by the Gestapo and death in the camps or by firing squad. I have had a copy for years and value it greatly.

I have read this book several times, and have given to every important person in my life. If you want to know the landscape of western South Dakota in all its sundry emotions, walk across it. If you don't have the time for that, read this book. It doesn't get any more intimate than this.

One gets the impression, as one reads the brilliant character sketches Russell draws of the scholars and lords and ladies who made up his circle of aquaintances, that the English upper class was mostly mad, scoundrels, or geniuses, with a fair amount of overlap. (The author as an outstanding case in point.) The keenness of Russell's insight into character, vivid descriptions, and eye for the absurd, make many passages of this book a delight. "My advice to anyone who wishes to write is to know the very best literature by heart, and ignore the rest as completely as possible." "The past is an aweful God, though he gives life almost the whole of its haunting beauty." "(Plato's) austerity in matters of art pleases me, for it does not seem to be the easy condemnation that comes from the Phillistine." Reading Why I am Not a Christian ..., I got the impression that he had a gloomy outlook on life. But here, I often found great joy in poetry, nature, and the wonder of life. "I had never, till that moment, heard of Blake, and the poem affected me so much that I became dizzy and had to lean against the wall." Tempered, however, by morbid thoughts, and fear of insanity.

One of the odder aspects of the book to me was Russell's "idealism." On one page, he speaks of a mystical experience in which gave him a universal compassion for all mankind: on the very next page, he relates how he "fell out of love" with his wife, and then, how he ditched her. Passing from the same Bodhissattva-like musings elsewhere, he relates, on the next page or so, how he tried to strangle a friend in a rage. He can be sympathetic and even kind, but for a would-be Boddhisattva and fighter for the rights of women, he seems to have hurt a lot of ladies, in particular, rather badly. Yet his friendships in general, with both sexes, seem warm and affectionate.

I docked the book a star because the version I bought (Bantom) seemed dishonest in its packaging. The front and back covers show an old man, though this version only covers the period to 1914. On the back cover, it promises "more exciting episodes than most novels, details more intimate than most exposes, and more intensity of emotion than most fiction writers would dare ascribe to a single hero." Largely hype. This is not Dumas, or Augustine. It's a different kind of story.

Someone else on the back cover calls Russell "a Genius-Saint." Genius, maybe, but the second accolade implies very low standards for sainthood. The book did make me think Russell a more balanced figure than I thought. But part of that balance appears to have been something like madness, and something like cruelty. Intellectually, Russell was a brilliant man. Emotionally, he often strikes me as a lonely and bewildered child, angry at being abandoned, not sure where to look for love, and not sure how to give it.

author, Jesus and the Religions of Man

One may hypothesize that all works of philosophy are in essence works of self-reflection. From blatant examples such as Augustine's "Confessions" to more subtle parts of Descartes' "Meditations," philosophers have often used their own experiences to help us understand the world we live in. In this sense, we can contrast to the former works the works of philosophers such as Aristotle or Heidegger who shy away from using the first person and deal with subject matters not only strictly of interest to the writer, but which seek to gain popular understanding. Bertrand Russell is a curious mixture of the two approaches. His committment to objectivity and to rigorous thought that is arguably impossible without a certain degree of "common ground" frequently seems to overshadow his own subjectivist foundations in which he approaches the questions of philosophy. In what is perhaps the most powerful two pages of the book, at the introduction, Russell outlines three primary principles that have motivitated him to do what he did in life. In a sense, then, the autobiography provides the reader with comforting answers as to why anybody would wish to live such an amazing life. In this sense, it is perhaps Russell's most self-reflective work of philosophy. The book is entertaining, the stories enjoyable, and the message deeply profound: how Russell came to appreciate the fields that he was interested in, and how he found the principles that guided his life. He had also been kind enough, in the edition I read, to include copies of letters of correspondence and pages from his diary as a youth. While this may have been motivated by a less-than-humble desire to provide future scholars with primary source material to study himself, they are themselves works of philosophy, and many of the doubts about life Russell struggled with as a youth strike a chord in all of us. Indeed, Russell's Autobiography is an entertaining and personally illuminating approach to one of the most fundamental philosophical questions of how one's life is to be lead.

Not only was Bertrand Russell a gentleman, he was a peer. In some cases this can be seen as stepping out of the frying pan into the fire. In Lord Russell's case, it just may have helped.

Apart from stating the obvious, that Bertrand Russell needs or should need little introduction, it is as well to say that his long life was spent, as far as it was public, in defending or promoting causes. Having gone to prison at a young age because he could not stomach the Kaiser's war (at least not quietly), he later returned, if only briefly, way off in the 1960s, defending the cause of CND in Trafalgar Square. That's quite a bit of history to cover, all from the same angle. It seems he never regretted the stand he took, nor altered his views substantially over the decades. He either had to condemn war openly and publicly, or condemn man privately, which meant taking his own life, something he says he thought about very seriously and decided against. For all his faults, whatever they were, it's quite hard to fault him!

The autobiography allows us to accompany him through the bulk of the twentieth century and see the development of various movements worldwide, in which he was always involved, at least at the level of the heart, but often actively. He uses letters a good deal in this text, and these throw light on that outer world which was so often pulling in an almost opposite direction. Yet he had his friends and in the bad years when he was a political outcast, a pariah of sorts in his own college (Trinity College, Cambridge) there were always those who could see his point of view and respect it. He was a stubborn man and his stubbornness allowed him to hang on for much longer than most people would have bothered. In fact, it seems that he remained true to himself right to the end, and in the end, that is what gave him life. An interesting book about a lively intelligence, sometimes brilliantly displayed.

I enjoyed reading Michael LeFan's book. It provides great insights on patience. I had the privilege of meeting Michael to interview him for the Coral Ridge Hour (the host is Dr. D. James Kennedy). He is truly one of those who have been given a LEMON by life, but he is choosing, by God's grace, to make GALLONS OF LEMONADE. His book is an outgrowth of his incredible, physical handicap. He tapped out the words, keystroke by keystroke, by using the eraser end of a pencil with his LEFT FOOT, since his bout with polio has robbed him of the use of his hands. The book is well-written and very inspirational. I recommend it! -Jerry Newcombe, producer/author

When you know the story of Mike LeFan, you have a greater appreciation for this and all literary pieces he has accomplished. Faced with polio since he was nine years old, Mike has accepted the challenges set before him and used it to the glory of God! Using his left foot,(Patience, My Foot!!)Mike has penned many motivational articles and three books. His easy reading writing style makes his book a great reference for all of us! I'm pleased to have known this inspiration and one of my greatest heros for many years and look forward to his next literary endeavor.

Let us, for a moment, forget the historical and literary importance of Right of Man and Common Sense. What if this book had just been published today? Would it still be worth reading? The answer is an unequival yes.

Althought many parts of this deal with specific issues of Paine's time (especially Rights of Man), even after two centuries, the writings of Thomas Paine are able to stoke the fires of liberty in the soul of the reader with their passion, their fierce logic and their unexpected humor.

Rights of Man comprises two long volumes written by Paine in response to English criticism of the French revolution. Although much that he says is ironic in light of events that occured after he penned these volumes, you can see the hope that the Revolution produced. He breaks government down to basic principles, pointing out the needs that government fulfills and the method by which they should be constructed. It is thought-provoking, even in the modern day and will make you look on politics of our own time with a new light. Rights of Man does drag a bit when Paine begins repeating himself, but it remains interesting and though-provoking.

But Common Sense is the real treat. The pamplet that set a continent on fire is -- this was a surprise -- a thrill to read. I found myself actually laughing at Paine's sarcasm and satire -- his way of taking monarchy and absolutism and exposing them for the ridiculuous constructions that they are.

Any student of history should read these volumes for their portrayal of late 18th century geopolitics. But you will find them to be unexpectedly entertaining.

Anyone who wishes to understand American History, namely the Revolution, needs to read this book. These essays were crutial in the development of the revolutionary movement in America. Thomas Paine is a keynote figure in this time period and helped the American cause.

I have trouble reading classic literature. I am an avid reader and I want to enjoy the classics, but just find it difficult to understand the meaning in some of the writing.

This, however, was a pleasant surprise. Although written in the early 1700s, the story itself was fairly easy to follow. Even towards the end, I began to see the underlying theme of the satire that Swift has been praised for in this work.

Being someone who reads primarily science fiction and fantasy novels, I thought this might be an opportunity to culture myself while also enjoying a good story. I was correct in my thinking. Even if you can't pick up on the satire, there is still a good classic fantasy story.

Essentially, the book details the travels of Lemuel Gulliver, who by several misfortunes, visits remote and unheard of lands. In each, Gulliver spends enough time to understand the language and culture of each of these land's inhabitants. He also details the difference in culture of his native England to the highest rulers of the visted nations. In his writing of these differences, he is able to show his dislike with the system of government of England. He does this by simply stating how things are in England and then uses the reaction of the strangers as outsiders looking in, showing their lack of respect for what Gulliver describes.

I found it very interesting to see that even as early as the 1700s there was a general dislike of government as well as lawyers.

I would recommend this book to anyone who reads the fantasy genre. Obviously, it's not an epic saga like so many most fantasy readers enjoy, but it's a nice break. I would also recommend this to high school students who are asked to pick a classic piece for a book report. It reads relatively quick and isn't as difficult to read as some of the others that I've tried to read.

It's amazing how our perspective changes as we age. What we thought was important as children may now seem completely insignificant, replaced by entirely new priorities, priorities children wouldn't even understand. At the same time, things we used to take for granted, like having dinner on the table, being taken care of when we're ill, or getting toys fixed when they are broken, have become items on adult worry lists.

Your perspective on literature can change, too. Reading a story for a second time can give you a completely different view of it. "Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain, which I enjoyed as a sort of an adventure story when I was a kid, now reads as a harsh criticism of society in general and the institution of slavery in particular.

The same thing is true of "Gulliver's Travels" by Jonathan Swift. The first thing I realized upon opening the cover of this book as a college student was that I probably had never really read it before.

I knew the basic plot of Lemuel Gulliver's first two voyages to Lilliput and Brobdingnag, home of the tiny and giant people, respectively, but he had two other voyages of which I was not even aware: to a land of philosophers who are so lost in thought they can't see the simplest practical details, Laputa, and to a land ruled by wise and gentle horses or Houyhnhnms and peopled by wild, beastly human-like creatures called Yahoos.

While this book has become famous and even beloved by children, Jonathan Swift was certainly not trying to write a children's book.

Swift was well known for his sharp, biting wit, and his bitter criticism of 18th century England and all her ills. This is the man who, to point out how ridiculous English prejudices had become, wrote "A Modest Proposal" which suggested that the Irish raise their children as cattle, to be eaten as meat, and thereby solve the problems of poverty and starvation faced in that country. As horrible as that proposal is, it was only an extension of the kinds of solutions being proposed at the time.

So, although "Gulliver's Travels" is entertaining, entertainment was not Swift's primary purpose. Swift used this tale of a guillable traveler exploring strange lands to point out some of the inane and ridiculous elements of his own society.

For example, in describing the government of Lilliput, Swift explains that officials are selected based on how well they can play two games, Rope-Dancing and Leaping and Creeping. These two games required great skill in balance, entertained the watching public, and placed the politicians in rather ridiculous positions, perhaps not so differently from elections of leaders in the 18th century and even in modern times.

Give this book a look again, or for the first time. Even in cases in which the exact object of Swift's satire has been forgotten, his sweeping social commentary still rings true. Sometimes it really does seem that we are all a bunch of Yahoos.

Swift's classic satire of English and European governments, societies, and cultures should be required reading of every college student. (Except for those who appear to be in law school as is the earlier reviewer who referred to Swift as being an "18th century Unabomber." Swift may have been conservative in his beliefs and not cared much for individuals such as Robert Boyle, who is satirized in the book, but he was not violent. Perhaps our "law student/reviewer" is offended by Swift's biting satire of lawyers and politicians in part four.) The version I read was an annotated edition by Isaac Asimov and contained many passages that had been deleted by previous publishers. Asimov's comments enable the reader to more fully appreciate Swift's satire. In part one of the novel, a ship's surgeon, Lemuel Gulliver, is shipwreaked and finds himself on the island of Lilliput, the inhabitants all being only six inches high. This section is great satire of English politics and wars. Royal ponp, feuds amongst the populace, and wars are made to look rediculous. In the second part, Gulliver finds himself in Brobdingnag in which he is only six "inches" tall (relatively speaking). This part forms another satire of European governments. In part three, Gulliver visits the flying island of Laputa where shades of ancient scholars can be called up. This section is a satire on philosophers and scientists. Scientists are portrayed as men so wrapped up intheir speculations as to be totally useless in practical affairs. Absurd experiments are described (for example, extracting sunlight from cucumbers (but, extracting energy from cucumbers and other plants is no longer so absurd Jonathan)). Also described in this third part are the Struldbergs, men and women who are immortal but who turn out to be miserable and pitiable. In part four, Gulliver travels to the Land of the Houyhnhnms, horses with intelligence but who have no passion or emotion. The word "Yahoo" originates in this part. READ IT!

Disliking an Oxford Press book makes me feel like a heretic. The majority of their Companion books are superb, remarkably concise yet thorough works of scholarship. The English Companion is an unfortunate and surprising exception.

The entry for 'New Criticism' is an efficient example of the book's shortcomings. For one thing, there's a laundry list of authors, dates, and books but very little is said of the IDEAS that characterize New Criticism. The entries are generally hamstringed by a focus on the sociopolitical and historical aspects of writers and works. The effort is laudable but inappropriate and uneconomical for a reference work. In its most extreme form, the historical emphasis goes into bizarre detail about an author's upbringing -- is it really necessary that we know where an author went to grade school and when? Entries love to entertain tales of writers' deaths and and of their insignificant travellings. I often felt as though I were reading minibiographies.

One will also notice, in the case of 'New Criticism', the absence of any mention of the 'organic'. This is ridiculous and indicative of the book's lack of attention to concepts as such. There is a non-cross-referenced mention of 'organic' under Coleridge, yet even there it is only mentioned as one of his ideas, not in terms of what the theory tried to say. I would compare it to someone's asking, 'What does X mean?' This book's reply: 'X was one of so-and-so's ideas'. Too often, the response ends there. Literary theory entries are usually on the thin side, though the deconstruction essay is solid. However, even in the longest lit theory essays there is more of an emphasis on people and movements -- far less on ideas.

Along with the lack of depth (or conceptual emphasis), there's little sense of the overall significance of ideas, works or characters (ironic given the attempts at a social-historical approach): Caliban is mentioned in the Tempest entry, and even gets his own paragraph elsewhere, but there's nothing about his character as it's been re-elaborated and re-invented by a long tradition of English writers (Auden, Browning, Joyce, and Wilde for starters). There's nothing about Caliban's portrayal in that tradition, nor mention of Caliban's mirror, etc. Under 'hubris' (which is found, in turn, under a terse account of 'the Poetics'), there's nothing about Icarus, nor is there anything about hubris as a specific theme in so many works.

Speaking of hubris, it's baffling to me that Drabble's entry is longer than either Hill's or Heaney's. The general editor would have been better off focusing more of her energy on other writers: that expansive babbling space could have been put to stronger use had a more thorough background been given on either of those poets, among others.

Readers seeking to understand why an author alludes in his work to a character or poet will be little helped by nebulous terms like 'icily poised' or 'sensuously textured', which are more suggestive of gastronomic, rather than literary, criticism. To my mind a reference's primary function should be to offer a quick source of the 'essentials' of a book or of a writer's ideas, an understanding of which would illuminate one's reading of the alluding work. While I appreciate that entries shy away from 'this or that' critiques or strict (canonical) interpretations, giving lists of facts does an injustice to the works themselves and to the way these works have been interpreted by others. (Believe it or not, people CAN come to their own conclusions even after being introduced to an opinion.)

The book's scope is appropriate to literature, as literature tends to allude to so many disparate disciplines. But if one were truly trying to give an encyclopedic account of literature, the book would have to be much bigger. In this case, specialization suffers. I would have preferred a much more focused account of 'literature' as such; I'd then supplement this with other references focused, for example, on English history. One gets the sense that too many entries end up attenuated in this book.

On the positive side the plot summaries are strong and more nuanced, though many entries are badly written (full of odd, obscuring, convoluted syntax). Again, good editorship would have recognized this.

The book primarily succeeds as an enervated survey. Nevertheless, readers will occasionally happen upon some interesting, well-summarized topics.

I'm going to check out the Cambridgean counterpart to the Oxford Companion, and I'm hoping it will give a more in-depth account of ideas and themes. The other Oxford Companions are, however, truly amazing works and deserve a close look.

An excellent resource of information about English works of art

This is one of the most practical reference books in my home library. I turn to it again and again for plot summaries and information about authors. I also find it useful for pre- (and post-) theater reading. And of course it's a real boon for solving the Sunday Times crossword puzzle.

A must-have for anyone who considers themself a reader.