What a difference a month makes. Just a few weeks ago I pronounced Seastar Books' new edition of "The Wind in the Willows" the best gift edition of the 1908 children's classic since illustrator Ernest Shephard's classic version, due to the glorious acrylic and watercolor paintings by Mary Jane Begin ("The Porcupine Mouse," "A Mouse Told His Mother"). Yet surprisingly, it has already been surpassed, so I must pass the trophy to Harcourt's new unabridged edition. It's beautifully presented in a wide, landscape format with a satin ribbon bookmark to keep your place when the stories dutifully fulfill their destiny as bedtime reading. The notable source of the book's special appeal, of course, is the charming new artwork by extraordinary English watercolorist Michael Foreman. The pages are filled with gently expressive mixed-media paintings, from the end-papers map of Wildwood and its surroundings, to a rollicking train ride, and the wild rumpus at Toad Hall. And the illustrations are generously plentiful: nearly every two-page spread contains at least one color sketch. The sheer number of illustrations tremendously enriches the story, and the Foreman's light-handed technique, previously apparent in "Michael Foreman's Mother Goose," "Joan of Arc" and "Arthur, High King of Britain" -- is a lovely tribute to the similar style of Shephard himself. Well done.

This book deals with incest between Arthur and his sister Margawse which produces Mordred. I do not concider this subject appropriate for children! I am disappointed because if the sexual content had been left out of this book it would have be an excellent book. I am glad I took the time to read before I gave it to my son to read!

This book is the best I'll probably ever read.I think the illustrations are excellent, and it's made an old story come to life. My favourite thing about the story is how it keep's popping up with new ideas, and how it goes in and out of him telling the story and the boy actually being there in the cave. My favourite character is Bercelet,I like the idea of him being Merlin's eyes and ears. I think it's a shame about Lancelot and King Arthur fighting and that Lancelot took Arthur's wife.It's brilliant! I look forward to reading more books by Michael Morpurgo.

i loved this book to the point i could not put it down

This book is 100 years old, but as Angela Lansbury (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, MURDER SHE WROTE, BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS, THE WIZARD OF OZ: 50 YEARS OF MAGIC, etc) once said "you can hear the story and a million times isn't enough." This timeless tale is one you will enjoy indefinatly! This one has NEW illustrations which are not as good as John R. Neil's or Charles Santore's but are better than most. I recommend this book and I think you will enjoy it immensely!

An attempt to cash in on the Simpson trial, this book is an embarrassment for all concerned. Just how bad it is cannot be conveyed in a mere 1000 words, so you'll simply have to read it yourself -- but maybe that's too high a price to pay. Read the summary provided by Dove Publishing. It's as though they are trying to expose the jurors as the cerebral cripples they are. Couldn't they find one coherent line in what must have been hours of mind-numbing recordings with the "authors"? While reading the book, keep in mind that this is _their_ side of the story; it is told in a manner most sympathetic to the jurors. Still, they come off as spit-drooling morons. The mind reels at the thought of someone hostile to Cooley, Bess, and Jackson having written this. As for Tom Byrnes (he garners "as told to" credit for this mess) and editor Mike Walker, don't hate them... pity them. Then again, perhaps Byrne and Walker have intended this as an indictment of our judicial system, where the search for impartial jurors has evolved into a quest for those who never read newspapers, news magazines, or even watch television more challenging than "Jackass." If this is the case, their success is complete beyond any possible expectations they might have had.

Upon first hearing the not-guilty verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial, I was sure it was because at least some of the Simpson jurors had some self-serving, self-righteous agenda. However, after reading this pathetic, to the point of being comical attempt, to justify their verdict, I have changed my mind... Not only was their so-called "analysis" of the evidence completely devoid of any truly intelligent thought, it contained leaps of logic so vast, Evil Knevil would have been too scared to jump it. For example, one juror said she had doubts O.J. did it because only a "little" blood from the victims was found in Simpsons bronco.If he was truly innocent, then why is ANY of the victims blood in his car! Throughout the trial Johnny Cochran continuously lied or distorted the truth. During the defence for instance, in an attempt to show police "contaminating" the crime scene, Cochran shows a still picture of a policeman "carelessly" walking through a bloody path. Contamination,right? Well, no. Upon simple cross-examination, we find out that only AFTER the crime scene had been processed and all blood evidence been collected did this officer then walk through this bloody path. Was there any mention of this in this book? Of course not. When Cochran tried to show an attempt by police to "plant" evidence, he showed a videotape of Simpsons bedroom depicting the ABSENCE of bloody socks that the police claimed were there. Planting of evidence you say? Again, upon cross-examination the person who shot the videotape testifies that he was there to videotape the premises for insurance purposes only. And that he was told by police NOT to go into the bedroom until AFTER they collected whatever was in there, including,of course, those bloody socks! Did any of these hapless jurors make note of this?...In fact, rare is it, that you will find consecutive coherent sentences, such is the collective wisdom shown here. So, the question is, would I recommend this book to others? To that question, my answer is surprisingly, a resounding YES!...Because while on one hand, this book was so tedious to read,what with its complete utter lack of knowledge and insight of the subject matter, I still found it facinating to delve into the minds of people who have such little powers of deduction...

This is a pathetic and weak attempt written by the OJ Simpson jurors to excuse the outrageous and incorrect verdict that they arrived at after only three hours of deliberation. It demonstrates the unfortunate fact that even the jurors, who were supposed to be impartial, were clearly biased against the prosecution from day one of the trial, and their IQ's match an anorexic's dress size! Discounting all the other evidence, the DNA alone should have convicted SImpson, since it doesn't inject fraudulent issues into a trial, isn't overwhelmed by its own celebrity, and has no ulterior motives or hidden agenda, yet it was damningly and inexplicably ignored. And I was amazed to read the statement of one of the jurors in a post trial interview that the DNA evidence carried no weight with her! The DNA evidence was as irrefutably tied to the Simpson case as Santa Claus is to Christmas. I wonder how these jurors can live with themselves, knowing that Simpson is a murderer, and deciding that these murders should go unpunished. How could they attend a post trial victory party, hosted by that slime Johnnie Cochran, knowing that because of Simpson, Ron and Nicole are forever lost to their families? Do they ever think of Ron and Nicole at all? Do they think about their last moments alive? I do. Does the particularly gruesome crime scene picture of Nicole, lying folded in the foetal position, her head haloed by a large pool of blood, which looks like blotches of red paint splashed randomly onto an artist's canvas, haunt them at all?