Strongly recommend another book over this one, even though it is a little harder to find: Mountain Bike Madness in Central Pennsylvania: An Atlas of Central Pennsylvania's Greatest Mountain Bike Rides. Partland is a disappointment.

The authors really do not know much about mountain biking. I was excited about the idea of the book, but sorely disappointed by it.

Mountain Biking is my newest obsession-- The book is great-- It got me pumped and now I feel like I know something about it-- Mount Tam here I come!!

Some modern Scottish thriller writers are contrasted (not always favourably) with two perceived greats of Scottish fiction - Robert Louis Stevenson and John Bucahn. I love Stevenson, the fast pace of his stories, and his characterisation. This was the first Buchan I read. While it will not be the last I felt a little disappointed.

The Thirty Nine steps is said to be one of the most important novels in the thriller genre. Featuring Richard Hannay a former South African miner, who is caught in a spy story, the effects of which may lead to war in western Europe.

The story is fast moving. Hannay is placed in predicament after predicament (like the Perils of Pauline) following the discovery of a body in his London flat. He escapes to Galloway, then Dumfriesshire (rural south west Scotland). Pursued by both police and foreign agents Hannay's life is at risk - and we witness his use of a number of disguises, and his experience as a mining engineer, in escaping each predicament.

At times the novel feels like a loosely related series of escapades, but the final chapters (as in Childers' The riddle of the sands) pull the disparate strands together satisfyingly. Fast paced with an appealing central character, the novel is recommended as a quick and easy entertainment. However, there are some flaws readers ought to be aware of.

In the Scottish sections of the novel Buchan writes the dialogue of the locals in dialect, contrasting this with the the "received pronunication" of the other characters. As a technique it appears to belittle the validity of the dialect spoken, and appears to patronise the locals. Although, Buchan's sleight here is countered by his portrayal of the locals. They share a certain cunning and deviousness. Additionally, the use of dialect (and a particular type of lowland Scots dialect) renders parts of the text difficult to follow.

Most concerning about the book is the inherent anti-semitism. Analgoies and metaphors rely on negative imagery of jews; and one of the characters (scudder) is overtly anti-semitic in his comments. While this was a prevalent attitude in a certain strata of British writing pre- World War Two, it jars today - and rendered parts of the novel, for this reader, offensive.

Buchan is certainly readable, but his work has dated. His influence is apparent in the work of Greene, and inherent in his work are the influences of American thriller writers of the early twentieth century, and Conan Doyle's Holmes, Challenger, and Brigadier Gerard stories.

If you enjoyed this novel you might want to try Graham Greene's Gun for sale; The Confidential Agent; Stamboul Train; and The Ministry of fear.

This 1915 espionage thriller will delight fans of Conon Doyle with a chain of "adventures" involving a chase, disguises, roll playing, an impossible escape, secret code, warplans, sudden promotion to the inner circle of Britain's defense establishment, mistaken identity, a trap, and clues galore. The vignettes are connected one to the next by miraculous coincidences, as in a dream, but the style is charming enough and the story short enough that you're willing to suspend disbelief long enough to see the end.

The main appeal is a Wordsworthian ramble through a rural scene populated by deep and knowing pastoral types, such as the roadman and the fly fisherman, though no Lucy, nor any available women at all to signify the potential future of a British race. All the characters are either aristocrats or peasants, befitting the narrator's acknowledged anti-middle class sentiments. Curiously, the hero himself is middle class, a mining engineer, though retired at 37 years old, idle but restless, and by nature the best picture of an English sport. He is Sherlock enhanced with amazing physical prowess.

Readers will notice disrespect towards police. Our hero throws a good punch right in a cop's face, and police are everywhere ineffectual. In today's prosecutorial climate, our hero would be in for a 10-year felony.

Anti-semitism: It's there, it reflects the times, of course. However, I must say it's far worse than charmless. It's insistent, each time sudden, and gratuitous, violent, and associated with images of extermination. Towards the end of the book, our hero expresses mild condescension towards anti-semitism, not a satisfactory rebuke.

This book offers a minimum of political background to WWI. Don't pick it up for a slice of life. It' for people who just can't get enough of Sherlock.

A great espionage thriller, involving danger, murder, and the future of England, set just before World War I. The pace is fast, and it makes for a quick but enthralling read. It was the basis for the very popular film by Alfred Hitchcock, made in 1935, starring Robert Donat.

It had too many pictures if you want information this book is not for you all it is is pictures. I did not like it at all.

This book literally has a picture on every page! It is also a good biography of his life as well as a film chronicle. If you want to follow up on his past and present works; this is the book for you!

This book was terrible, ther was no exitement or nothin'.

I may be "too old" for this book, but I thought it was great!! Sure, there wasn't much in the way of a story line, but the pop-up pictures were awsome!! Go buy it!!

yeterli düzeyde bilgi birikimine sahip olmayýp , konular üstün körü iþlenmiþ. Konular gereksiz detaylarla boðulmuþ gerekli detaylar göz ardý edilmiþtir. Adamlar üþenmemiþ 630 sayfa yazmýþ ama boþ ben netekim daha iyisini yazarým kanatindeyim.

This is a difficult review to write because of the wide range of emotion I experienced while reading John Gibson's commentary on "Job." It was like reading a book that was actually Dr. Jeckyl AND Mr. Hyde, switching between a feeling of great admiration for the author and becoming violently angry at him.

I'll begin with the good: Putting the conversations of Job and his three friends (who try to comfort him and do a terrible job) into perspective. I've read the Bible's "Job" a number of times and the poetry-style narration made my eyes glaze over as I read. I understood the meaning of the sentences, but didn't understand the raw emotions being displayed. Gibson points out that very emotion! He points out when Job is dancing on the brink of blasphomy--he yells at God asking, "so what if I've sinned against you? How does that harm you?" He taunts God and accuses Him of acting like a bully towards Job. But Job isn't the only person in this book that made me shake my head in disbelief. Job's three "friends" repeatedly try to convince a violently sick man on his deathbead (Job himself) that God's letting him have this horrible disease because Job is a rotten, no-good, dirty sinner. With friends like them, who needs enemies? Gibson does a fantastic job of pointing these exchanges out, giving me new respect for the Book of Job.

Now, to where I get angry with Gibson. Our differences are theological, the worst kind of difference. First, we disagree concerning when the story of Job actually took place. I say somewhere between the times of Noah and Jacob; Gibson says after the Israelites left Egypt. No big deal there. Where we seem to have our big differences is our trust in the Holy Scripture as God's infallable word. Gibson insults the beginning chapters of the book by calling the story of Job's downfall a "folk tale," implying that it was a silly, happy prologue to the meat of the story: the debates. He has a habit of pointing out the author's "mistakes" (the author is the Holy Spirit. He don't make mistakes) and even goes so far as to REMOVE chapters of the book (because they don't really belong in the Bible) and make them an appendix! The Holy Spirit doesn't need an editor!

I believe that the Holy Bible (the entire thing) is the inspired word of God; that the dot over every "i" and the cross of every "T" is supposed to be there. God would not let his message to us be corrupted, either by the addition of verses that "aren't supposed to be there" or by the removal of stuff that God wants us to read. God is more powerful than us. He'll keep out the stuff that's not supposed to be there and doesn't need Dr. Gibson to help him out. Furthermore, Dr. Gibson sets a serious precedent for theologians: when mere, sinful people start trying to decide on their own what parts of the Bible are Holy and what parts are not Holy, it reduces the Good Book to yet another "what's right for me isn't necesarilly right for you" idea. As for me, I'll let God decide and just view the entire book as Holy as it is--even the parts I don't like.

In sum, the parts that Dr. Gibson has respect for and treats seriously are excellent and emotion enducing. It's just too bad such a gifted commentator doesn't have respect for the entire book of Job.

This is helpful and informative, but is not a scholarly work. there are other more scholarly books available. i recommend this for bible study students, but not for theology students. more indepth books are available.

This very short book aims to explain Gibson's ideas about risk and return in investing. Essentially he suggests that investors can afford to put more money into equities if their "time horizon" is a long one.

He has extracted a number of the earlier chapters from his longer work " Asset Allocation". These chapters focus on the time horizon argument.There is no new material in the book.

The book is a good one for the novice investor, worried about the short term volatility of the market. It would be an ideal book for financial advisers to give to intelligent clients nervous about the market.