The best available guide to egyptian calligraphy available. Fischer knows his stuff and again the Metropolitan Museum of Art have published a great book. This book is good reference work for both the hardened academic and the dabbling dilletente

Books on Egyptology come and go out of print but a select few manage, for good reason, to stay in print. Henry Fischer's "Ancient Egyptian Calligraphy" has always been in print and for good reason. There are scores of books that tell you how to translate and read Egyptian hieroglyphs but very few offer a practical guide as to how to actually write the symbols. Fischer offers a very practical and easy to follow guide that is so simple that it is genius. A slender volume but a truly invaluable one for anyone who is interested in this area of Egyptology.

Once again Dr. H.G. Fischer has produced an outstanding title and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, must be congratulated for issuing it as a wonderful book. If you are beginning your own practice of hieroglyphic writing, this is the best (and the only) guide to obtain a nice and elegant hand-writing. TopTen Title.

Cleaves' book is an excellent read for the person who wishes to learn more about one of the best (North or South) and overlooked generals of the Civil War. While many books focus on Lee, Jackson, Grant, and Sherman, Cleaves succeeds in bringing to light the very important accomplishments by General Thomas.

Included in the book are Thomas' many military victories: the complete defeat of a Confederate army at the battles of Mill Springs and Nashville, repulse of Hood's attacks at Atlanta, and of course, perhaps his most stunning achievement - holding the Confederate Army at bay on Snodgrass Hill while the rest of the Union Army retreated from Chickamauga.

Throughout the book Cleaves describes Thomas as a man who willingly subordinated his desires for the best of the nation, something lacking in most "leaders" today. Several times Cleaves describes Thomas as a calm, confident, and not easily shaken man in whom soldiers took great comfort in knowing he was in charge.

I only wish there would have been more maps used when describing the many battles Thomas participated in. Doing so would have made it easier for me to follow the troop movements, whether in an individual battle or a campaign.

All in all, an excellent read of an excellent general and gentleman. Thomas was a refreshing change from the self-promoting methods other "leaders" in the 1860's practiced - he would still be a rare gem if he were alive in today's world!!!

Written over 52 years ago, this book is a ground breaking contribution to the Civil War's saga. It really is a must read for understanding the intricacies of the Union high command.

Union loyalists of Southern birth like Thomas, Buford, etc. were just as alone and alienated in their army as Southern loyalists of Northern birth like Pemberton. They suffered an ostracism, a fundamental distrust that really reached its peak in this country when we sent thousands and thousands of Japanese Americans to concentration camps in California in World War II while concurrently having their sons fight and die in Europe. Thomas' story is really no different and every bit as unfair.

This type of unfortunate, 'protective tuck' is a natural reaction during a national emergency. Fortunately, leading edge historians like Freeman Cleaves have left us a record of one man's sacrifice for the country of his birth.

George Thomas was not treated properly by anyone, North or South. Lincoln treats him as a political liability and pawn, Stanton fundamentally distrusts everyone of Southern heritage, and the Union troika of Grant, Sherman and Sheridan have much to be ashamed of: Grant for his smallness, Sheridan for the desertion of someone who must have been his mentor and Sherman for betraying a long standing friendship. The South simply refused to acknowledge his existence. When Thomas was down, everyone kicked. Being Southern born, he was an easy competitive target for both sides both during and after the war. He simply had no mentor anywhere.

Yet this courageous fighter survives much political intrigue to not only save a complete Union army from annihilation, an army by the way that he did not personally command but could have, but also completely destroys the South's Army of Tennessee and possibly, just possibly pulls Sherman and Grant's chestnuts out of the fire. Playing a key and fundamentally pivotal role in Grant and Shaman's grand strategy, after his success he is simply thrown aside like an old shoe and not just forgotten but treated miserably, like his very existence and success was an embarrassment to the victors.

Read this book! It is about an American patriot who sacrifices everything, his reputation, home, family and pre and post war friendships for the ability of the United States to develop into the world example it is today. It is the kind of story all Americans appreciate: doing the right thing while succeeding against all odds, foreign and domestic.

When I first started studying the civil war nearly 30 years ago, one of my first thoughts was: "Why haven't I heard of George Thomas?'' There are those who argue, including Cleaves in several sections, that he was the most important Union general _ one list, in fact, makes him one of the five men (and the only military figure) most important in the North's victory. In the prewar Army, he served with Lee, another Virginian who wavered, and was close to being considered Lee's equal.

The reasons for Thomas' relative obscurity have been well stated in other reviews _ his southern heritage; his self-effacing disposition except (as Cleaves points out) when he felt he had been done an injustice. It didn't help that Sherman, one of his sponsors and Grant, his classmate at West Point, shut him out of the post-war glory and that he died in 1870, too early to establish a reputation.

Is the subtitle ("The Man who Save the Union?'') justified? Look at it this way: There's no question that Thomas' stand at Chickamauga made Sherman's campaign through Georgia possible. And if that hadn't happened, Lincoln might not have been re-elected in 1864, perhaps leading to a truce that would have left the nation split. That in itself is reason enough to celebrate Thomas.

But as Cleaves emphasizes, Thomas was more than that. Military historieans consider him one of the best defensive generals ever, a man who would have stood out in any war. And unlike many of our heroes, he was a decent man.

We could use more like him.

This 55-year-old book could use more readers.

This is an excellent book, little-known, which should have a resurgence now that a nonfiction treatment of the same events, Heart of the Sea, is a bestseller. Told as a reminiscence from the point of view of Captain Pollard, The Jonah Man is primarily a character study, but doesn't lack for gripping action. The slightly distanced tone doesn't describe the horrors of months in an open boat graphically, but the mood comes across effectively nonetheless. After surviving shipwreck and near starvation, Pollard's real ordeal comes when he must face his fellow Nantucketers. Though I was a little confused as to the exact nature of the epiphany he experiences in the end, I found the book to be an interesting study of individualism, guilt and redemption. Here and there character dialogue and thoughts seemed a little too psychoanalytic to be period, but it was a minor flaw.

The Jonah Man is up there in my top 5 books read over the last decade. On the surface it's a great story line that keeps you turning the pages; but it also is a brilliant study on guilt and the toll guilt can take on a life. I highly recommend it!

I thoroughly enjoyed Borrow and look forward to meeting this character in heaven, where I believe he and Tolkien are having a great time talking philology. This is one of those books that, when you are done reading, you feel that you have made a friend and you miss him now that it's over. I am eager to read his other writings.

This book (including Romany Rye, the sequel) is not an example of high-minded literature, but rather the account of Borrow's early life, and the beginning of his adventures. All escapades take place in the United Kingdom, of which he is admirably patriotic. As a character, he is actually somewhat quiet; but the situations and especially people he meets are both tangibly real (to a degree that I find unusual in a work of that time) and outlandish by any standards, Victorian (?) England's or ours. Above all the stories were fascinating, and are stamped permanently in my memory.

While one needs a taste for the "philological" to enjoy and understand these adventures, they are still only marvelous anecdotes, including brilliant character portraits and memorable descriptions.

One small quality that I appreciated, particularly since he writes so much of his experiences with Gypsies, is that Borrow is probably less rascist than many of his contemporaries seem to b! e.

By the way: while The Bible in Spain has the same qualities as Lavengro and Romany Rye, it is not nearly as well written; he indulges his taste for dry ramblings much more, and the interesting stories seem almost arbitrary in when he tells them and when he ends them; were he still alive, there would be much that I'd like him to elaborate on.

If anyone can tell me about his other writings (I have the impression that the quality can vary) I'd really appreciate some advice through email.

It's like a painting of an era of truthful experience of life and friendship, between Norman Malcolm, the author and Ludwig Wittgenstein, the philosopher, where honest intellect fulfilled the most part of it. Being a respectful philosopher, a deadly serious lecturer, mostly, an intellect vigorously searching for truth and nothing else, Ludwig Wittgenstein is certainly living vividly through out this memoire.

Malcolm's memoir, written as a straightforward account of his relationship with Wittgenstein over a number of years, vividly brings to life the odd charisma of the philosopher. It is easy to see, just from Malcolm's account, how Wittgenstein's personality influenced or overwhelmed people around him. Malcolm himself seems to have avoided a full dose of the spell, and simply accepted Wittgenstein as he was, which makes him a superior memoirist. (Furthermore, Malcolm was scrupulious enough that, upon reading his memior, I guessed from it that Wittgenstein was gay, long before I read any of the more heavy-handed books that claim new revelations about the philosopher. It was all already there for them to see, if they would just look at it.) Malcolm's accounts of conversations with Wittgenstein, and even more so the selection of letters included at the end of the volume, amply display the philosopher's character, as well as revealing his rather dry and odd wit and ability to produce aphoristic phrases of great, and sometimes comic, insight. I would strongly recommend giving it to a student who has taken a semester or two of philosophy; even though it won't tell him much about the content of Wittgenstein's actual philosophy, it does provide a serious, and fascinating, example of a way to approach philosophy, and makes the subject seem like it can be an exciting and live quest.

I picked this book up in a hostel while travelling through europe, at first by the cover I thought it would be silly, but after reading the cover and looking at the first couple pages I still thought so. I read it anyways and I loved it. Its the true story of a former confederate soldier, who knew many famous people and fought with and against them all, including crazy horse, sitting bull, buffalo bill cody and custer. I would recommend this book to anyone who doesn't know anything about the battle of little big horn or someone wanting to know more about the ogala indians. The battle with/against custer is a important part of the book but not what the book is all about. Its mainly about a soldier who becomes a member of the ogala tribe and all the things that happen along the way. read it!

This book was written over a half-century ago in 1950, yet the author holds the attention of current readers easily - something not easily done in today's hectic world.

A Well written document. One keeps reading the book and going back to historical accounts to see if John Clayton ever existed because the story is so convincing and so 'possible'.

I am an amateur historian and this sent be back to the documentation of the period (1860-1878) to see what I could find... I'm still searching the records.

Very good book - I recommend it highly.

Pentland communicates in complicated jargon that only Gurdjieffians understand. Thus, only Gurdjieffians will have any use at all for this book.

this is a very good book worth exploring. an earlier review gave this book two stars and made reference to this material having lost its freshness. not true. the ideas are the same and still allow the reader to think more carefully about life.

it is alway easy to find excuses not to read...don't ignore the truth.

Lord Pentland directed the Gurdjieff Work in the US for a great many years until his death. This book offers some of his insights collected at group meetings, where he was responding orally to queries from people of varying levels of understanding. His responses are NOT "formative ramblings", as one reviewer of limited understanding suggests, but flow directly from Lord Pentland's presence in the moment of response. This is a wonderful book, particularly for those involved in the Gurdjieff Foundation who are familiar with the formof a group meeting. Those who are not may be put off by the format, unless they take the trouble to establish a contemplative state in preparation.

I found this book most enjoyable, personal, real-life, and a picture of soldiering not often portrayed. It's warm and humorous style carries the reader along the trails of his life with charm and flow, keeping one always engaged in the adventure of his career, and building admiration all the way through, from the spunky farm kid who was not put off by any adversity, but who made the most of all situations.

I think the U.S. Army owes George Waple a vote of thanks.

Mr. Waple is a terrific story teller.

The value of the book is in providing an authentic account of one man's life that is important and interesting. It's the story of real life by a very real person. It spans growing up in Virginia, early Army life and tours in Europe in WWII and in Korea. He has some very interesting experiences and touches many people, some famous, like General Omar Bradley, Marilyn Monroe and Joe Dimaggio. A well written book and a great read.

"A Great Read" - Pat Buchanan, MSNBC and former Presidential Candidate

"I hasten to advise that we found your story not interesting, but fascinating, not moving, but inspiring - both candid and reflective." - Zane E. Finkelstein, Army War College Foundation Press

This review was recommended for Army Magazine: "This is a book about high profile soldiering written by a soldier. As a senior enlisted soldier, George Waple held important positions within the leadership of the US Army following World War II. He offers insights into the lives of the giants that lead the Army at mid-century. Later commissioned by General Bradley, he went on to hold important positions to cap off a successful 24-year career. More importantly, this book is an example of the kind of communications we should encourage among our soldiers. It is a good read of a personal story. Obviously, the Army made him proud and in turn he made the army proud. The autobiography of a proud and happy soldier cannot help but encourage future soldiers to join the Army. All of us soldiers can find parts of George's story that we can identify with - from combat ceremonies to retirement. I would like to see a hundred more personal stories like this on soldiering written by soldiers." - Neal Cosby, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandris, VA.

"What a magnificent package! You do indeed have a rich and fascinating tale to tell-What a career-What a life...I assure you, all items will be in our museum...the book too. We won't forget you service old comrade..." - Colonel Gardiner, Commander, 3rd Infantry, Fort Meyer, VA

"I have just read the book, "Country Boy Gone Soldiering." I found it most enjoyable, personal, real-life, and a picture of soldiering, not often portrayed and I think the US Army owes you a vote of thanks." - General Gordon R. Sullivan, (Retired)

"I finished your book on a lovely day in Cambria, CA, this past weekend. I laughed and cried along with you. The soldier crawling in front of you (who got the bullet in his forehead) could have been my own son. Thank you for sharing your book with me, I loved it! " - Marjorie Whitney, Santa Barbara, CA

Halberstam, as ever, writes so well...I am jealous. However, I couldn't help but be a little disappointed in this book. While it serves as a good overview of Clinton's foreign policy, it skimps on the first Bush Administration

First, the Persian Gulf War barely gets 20 pages, and it is almost all seen through the lens of the Air Force Colonel (John Warden) who planned the innovative air campaign. This is not really new or scandalous - Gordon and Traynor covered this in "The General's War" and you can find it in other sources. The only other mention you get is how tired Bush was from the Gulf War, and how it prevented him from tackling the Bosnia problem. Overall, Considering the subtitle is "Bush, Clinton and the Generals" Bush gets shorted.

Second, while the portraits of the personalities are vivid, there just isn't anything really new or insightful here. Indeed, there were many vignettes where I felt like I had read this somewhere before. Bob Woodward's "The Commanders" is still the definitive Gulf War decision-making work, Elizabeth Drew's "On the Edge" covers Clinton's decision making shortcomings, Ivo Daalder's "Getting to Dayton" covers Bosnia u1p to 1995; Daalder and O'Hanlon's "Winning Ugly" has everything about Kosovo.

As a student of international relations, my standards are a little higher. This book is useful to the extent it consolidates a lot of existing work, but it falls just a little short of being really deep or groundbreaking. Not even close to "Best and the Brightest."

I had a professor who defined journalism as "history written in a hurry." In his sequel to The Best And The Brightest author David Halberstam uses the journalist's tools - personal interviews and background research - to explore how the shadow of Vietnam and the Cold War shaped the United States' foreign policy during the 1990s.

What emerges, is a thoughtful, portrait of the United States from the perspective of its foreign policy decisions. It is a book written for thoughtful citizens; a book that, clearly, was not written in a hurry; a book that unearths the struggles, egos and the political maneuvering among the key figures in The White House, the State Department and the military. Halberstam shows how the decisions of Vietnam War Veterans, like Colin Powell and Anthony Lake, and those who were not, like President William Clinton, influenced American politics and policy.

Lesser-known players who contributed to the picture were not overlooked. Halberstam notes that the irony of the Gulf War was the wrong branch of the service and the wrong military leaders were celebrated at its conclusion. Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell received ovations for their humiliation of an allegedly mighty, but now bedraggled Iraqi Army.

If one man was responsible, he notes, it was an innovative air force strategist, Colonel John Warden. At the time of the Gulf War, Warden was the head of a top-secret air force group working within The Pentagon and represented a group of younger military officers who were eager to adapt military thinking and planning to the uses of the new technological advanced weaponry.

The major opposition to his thinking came not from the army or even civilians, but rather senior officers in his service branch, especially three and four star generals attached to the Tactical Air Command. They believed the airpower was there to support the army on the ground. They despised Warden and his ideas. As luck would have it, when General Schwarzkopf requested an air plan for Desert Storm, Warden's senior officer was on leave and the request found its way to his desk.

Roy Gutman, an American reporter who happened to be in Yugoslavia in 1991 and was starting to write what would be a series of prophetic dispatches for Newsday, the Long Island, New York daily, is another unknown player. Stationed in Belgrade from 1973 to 1975 as a Reuter's correspondent, he had embraced what he termed as "the golden age of Tito", a Serbo-centrism that tempered the vision of many western diplomats and journalists.

On his return in 1991 he saw signs that Yugoslavia was becoming a different country. An interview with Vojislav Seselj, an ultra nationalist Serb who had once been jailed by Tito for his ethnic views and was known for his personal cruelty, convinced the journalist that something sinister was about to happen with its likely epicenter as Banja Luka, a city in Northern Bosnia, which time which prove to be the home of the Serbian campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Halberstam's search for the real story behind the headlines gives the reader clear insights into why events in the Balkans, Haiti and Somalia reflect American foreign policy and politics. He discusses the wariness of the U. S. military to ever be caught again in a ground war lacing clear objectives, the frustrations of political leaders who never served in the military and their effects on American commanders in Kosovo.

On the last page of the book, the author allows himself a glimpse into our future, which in light of the events of September 11, 2001 proves tragically prescient. Writing in May, 2001, Halberstam, allows himself to speculate about the need for a missile shield, what he terms "a high-tech Maginot Line, the wrong idea at the wrong time." He notes that intelligence analysts believe "the threat to an open society like America c[o]mes from terrorists, rather than the military power of rogue states" which themselves present an exceptional target.

The author has carved a unique niche for himself. His books are the product of four to five years of research, a luxury few, if any other journalists are indulged. The emerging portrait of the United States is vivid and full of human detail.

The first (and I bet the most comprehensive) account of what really happened in the Balkans, Somalia and Haiti during the latter part of the Bush (the first) administration, the transitional period and on into the Clinton period. Halberstam continues to show that his strength is in National Security and Foriegn Policy writing and he doesn't disappoint in this book. We get to understand clearly what the issues were with regard to the U.S. policy in Europe at the end of the Bush term and how that administration stumbled in recognizing the impact that the escalating domestic violence in the Balkans would have. All the Bush State and NSC officials who dictated and administered foreign policy are described in hard-line, but fair terms (i.e. Halberstam doesn't hesitate to "blame" Larry Eagleburger for not recognizing the potential impact and pushing the Bush administration to take action before too late.) The Clinton transition and their staunch stand on domestic policy and how that hurt them is clear and concise and shows how that administration was doomed (from a Foreign Policy perspective) from the start. Weaknesses at State (W. Christopher), Defense (the incredibly weak Les Aspin term) and the NSC (the embattled Tony Lake) come to the forefront as the administration staggered out of the gate. Even the realization after the Bosnian episode that Milosovic would not stop his ethnic cleansing rampage isn't clearly evident to this besieged government...it took continued massacre in Kosovo to finally turn the tide. Halberstam is on top of all this and his weaving of the political issues at home with the continued stumbling in Europe (and Somalia and Haiti) is truly fascinating to read. Once the NATO air campaign started, it was intrieging to read who supported the policy and who didn't (i.e. Bill Cohen as Secretary of Defense always struck me as having hard-line, "hawkish" Republican tendancies, not the "dove-like" qualities that Halberstam describes him as having) and what political fallout could come from it. These inside revelations really sold this story to me, as these policies are still fresh on everyone's mind. The only critique I would mention (and it's very minor) is that the continued Iraq/ Middle East policies are barely mentioned (maybe Halberstam can use these to write a part two)and these should have definetly been considered when critiqing the administration's actions during this time. Overall, this is as clear and comprehensive a report on the Clinton Foreign Policy team that you'll find and I would recommend it highly.

the story of Hamlet was a very good play, from what Iexperienced I would like to experience some of the other versions ofhamlet and also some of the other shakespeare plays performed. I especially liked how the story began with the ghost of the king, the only part that I dont like is the end, where everyone is killed except for fortinbras, during the play when they performed the play within a play about the death of the king, it was really exciting to find out that claudius was the one that put the hebina in the prior kings ear to kill him so that he could take over the thrown.

At first I couldn't understand the story line at all, so coincodently I didn't like it. Once I watched the movie and started to put together the parts that I couldn't understand, I really enjoyed it. It was tragic because of King Hamlet's murder by his own brother, and of Ophelia's going "mad" and then her death. I liked not really knowing for sure how she died, but I predict that it was a suicide. Hamlet's idea of the Mouse Trap was very clevor. The idea was very intelligent, and one of the only ways to find the absolute truth; Claudius showed with no questions, his guilt. I enjoyed this play and it's story line, but I would also like to view other preformances of Hamlet by different directors to show all of the different ways it could have been interpretated.

Hamlet was a very good play it kept you interested by throwing a twist in the play at every corner. You never knew what to expect. Cladius was very hard to figure out while you were reading the play and it wasnt till the "Mouse Trap" that he showed his true colors. I never knew what to expect in one scene Ophelia was perfectly normal and in the next she was crazy. The one thing that I however disliked was the ending when everybody died, except Horatio and Fortinbras came to take over the government. I think that Horatio should have tried to defend Elsnore. Overall it was a great play which kept you interested throughout and I would enjoy reading more of Shakesphere's plays after reading Hamlet.