The Rose and the Ring is a great classic. This edition, however, is an outright fraud. The original has rhyming couplets across the page tops, this edition omits them. The original has illustrations by Thackeray, who originally intended to pursue a career as an illustrator, but this edition omits them. It's like printing an Alice in Wonderland without the Tenniel drawings and with none of the songs. This edition is a waste of paper. Shame on Amazon for selling it! Now I have to return to the search for a real printing...

This is a very funny and clever book that deals with the appeal and danger of beauty. It is a great book for all ages with some very well done illustrations through out the book. The bottom review is from the back of my copy of the book.

A magic rose and ring which make those in the possession of them attractive, togather with a mischiviouse fairy who adds, "a little misfurtone" to the lives of a prince and a princess, creat hilariouse complications on a unusual fairy story.

This is a classic funny story that has stayed in my mind for 30 years. I first read it as a kid less than 10 and it was as wonderful and meaningful then as it is now.

The story of Giglio, Rosalba, Angelica and Bulbo casts a magic spell. Then of course there's Countess Gruffanuff.....

Classic's are classics with good reason.

Unfortunately, This book is not your well known X-Files Guide book that we've all grown to Love. If you love Art, and meaning Freaky Art, then this is your book to own. But on a lighter note there are Scully, and Mulder pics. for your enjoyment. Fortunately for myself, I Love unique art, and X-Files is definitely covered under that category. I found it interesting to go into the minds of these very talented artists; to immerse myself into their subconsciously Talented works; In a way looking through their eyes at how they view The X-Files ((who knows, maybe even their own lives)). There are notes for each picture, and descriptions of what inspired the artist to Paint, draw, snap pollaroids or mold out of clay their creation. So if you're into Very Unique, yet captivating Art, then this is a Keeper. "Hope Ya Likes!"

This book, so to call it, was very interesting. It showed creativity, and a darker side of the x-files as represented by the viewer. If you like art, this is a must buy, if not, I wouldn't recomend it.

This is an awesome book for real X-Files fans because it shows a little of the truth behind the show. What I mean is, while there's some aspects of horror to it and a lot of surreal stuff, it also pokes fun at itself and the stars in a genuine way that makes you feel like the people behind the scenes are willing to let you explore things from their perspective a little. The pictures are thought-provoking each in their own way and you can pick up on things you didn't see before each time you go through them. It's a very nice book and would make a nice gift for any fan.

... the rest was fairly disappointing and not well written.

Ellen Datlow, long-time fiction editor of Omni, had quite a brainstorm when she edited this book full of alien sex stories in 1990. While 9 stories are reprinted, 10 are new to this book. All are worth reading, and a few fall into the good to very good range. None are classics, though, if the word even applies to material published since 1960. Of the reprints, the best material is Connie Willis's "All My Darling Daughters" (1985), which was too dangerous (in the Ellisonian sense) to appear in the genre magazines before being published in her first story collection, Firewatch. In it women discover that their boyfriends are keeping marsupial-like animals because the animal's reaction to sex is much like that of a woman being raped. It's a disturbing, effective story. Of the new material, I liked Richard Christian Matheson's "Arousal" a lot. It's a very brief tale of a woman who makes the mistake of wanting constant sexual arousal and gets it. A short tour de force. The remaining material, while interesting at times, does not quite come off (pun intended). Datlow's notion of horror veers towards the creepily disgusting, which doesn't bother me but doesn't appeal that much to me either. You might like that style better, and if so you should immediately turn to K. W. Jeter's "The First Time," with enough bloody disgustingness for several stories--a record of sorts, I suppose. I am not disrecommending the book, though. It's worth reading and having. Note: another writer with an alien take on sex is Lucy Taylor, whose book Unnatural Acts & Other Stories is more consistent than this one overall.

As advertised, 19 tales on the theme of sex involving humans and aliens.

Sex is an important part of our lives. It is not so far fetched to believe that the same might be the case for at least some alien species. But, this area is not one that has featured widely in SF writings. Around half of the stories here are published for the first time in this collection.

This is not a collection of erotic writing, indeed it is more disturbing and sometimes funny than arousing.

Horror fiction has a much stronger tradition of covering sexual matters and some of the stories here wander along the boundary of the two genres. Particularly "The First Time" by K.W.Jeter. This gruesome story is not an easy read but it is also one of the strongest in the collection.

"All My Darling Daughters" by Connie Willis and Leigh Kennedy's "Her Furry Face" also dwell on aspects of the human condition that you wouldn't want to discuss with your mother. Nonetheless, they are good stories that use the "alien" setting to good effect.

The collection is not confined to such serious, or even disturbing material. There are some genuinely funny stories here too. Especially the classic "How's the Nightlife on Cissalda" by Harlan Ellison and "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" by Larry Niven.

Many of the stories deal with the theme of aliens as a sexual threat to humans. From lighthearted stories such as Pat Cadigan's "Roadside Rescue" to the macabre "Dancing Chickens" by Edward Bryant.

I'd rate about three quarters of the stories in here as being above agerage or better. A couple were rather weak and the book would have been better had they been left out but, overall, this is a good collection.

As the elite of contemporary typograhpy will tell you, Art Director David Carsons was neither type designer nor graphic designer, but instead adept collector of typefaces and free favors from young talent. This book is an attempt, on the eve of the sellout of the Ray Gun Empire, to solidify the merit of a magazine built on 2 things: hype, and the desire of the design community and its afficionados to find a voice for the explosion of creativity ignited by the early macintosh design pioneers and their disciple, Ed Fella,while, initially at least, disregarding the need for relevant indie music reporting. Don't buy it.

This book is for the Raygun collectors who admires clever typographic layout. A collector's item.

this book is a collection of spreads from the early years of raygun and other magazines whose art direction was lead by david carson. there is a lot of controversy surrounding carson's work, and carson as a graphic designer. i find the work visually stimulating and closer to art than most design i've encountered. i personally admire the intuitive beauty of this book and have spent countless hours looking at it. while i do not recomend carson's other books i do recomend this one.

Many people would like to say that Shakespeare did not write this play. But this is hardly fair. Even with the world's finest writers such as Marlowe and Dickens, not every single thing they write can be a masterpiece. But what makes "The Two Gentleman of Verona" worth reading? Well, Shakespeare presents us with a valid theme. (Conflicts often exist between romance and friendship.) There is also beautiful language. Launce and his dog offer some interesting comedy as well as a beautiful and memorable passage in 2.3. The scene where Valentine is accepted amonst the outlaws is memorable. This is Shakespeare's first play where a woman (Julia) disuises herself as man to do some investigating. It is also easy to see that several elements of this play were used in "Romeo and Juliet." To be sure, this is not a masterpiece like "The Comedy of Errors," "Richard III," or "King Lear." But it is still an good study that is worth some interest.

Although few would claim that Two Gentlemen of Verona is one of Shakespeare's greatest plays, it is well worth reading in order to serve as a reference for the best of his romantic comedies. In essence, Two Gentlemen of Verona gives you a measuring stick to see the brilliance in the best works.

The play has the first of Shakespeare's many brave, resourceful and cross-dressing heroines, Julia.

Shakespeare always used his fools and clowns well to make serious statements about life and love, and to expose the folly of the nobles. Two Gentlemen of Verona has two very fine comic scenes featuring Launce. In one, he lists the qualities of a milk maid he has fallen in love with and helps us to see that love is blind and relative. In another, he describes the difficulties he has delivering a pet dog to Silvia on his master, Proteus', behalf in a way that will keep you merry on many a cold winter's evening.

The story also has one of the fastest plot resolutions you will ever find in a play. Blink, and the play is over. This nifty sleight of hand is Shakespeare's way of showing that when you get noble emotions and character flowing together, things go smoothly and naturally.

The overall theme of the play develops around the relative conflicts that lust, love, friendship, and forgiveness can create and overcome. Proteus is a man who seems literally crazed by his attraction to Silvia so that he loses all of his finer qualities. Yet even he can be redeemed, after almost doing a most foul act. The play is very optimistic in that way.

I particularly enjoy the plot device of having Proteus and Julia (pretending to be a page) playing in the roles of false suitors for others to serve their own interests. Fans of Othello will enjoy these foreshadowings of Iago.

The words themselves can be a bit bare at times, requiring good direction and acting to bring out the full conflict and story. For that reason, I strongly urge you to see the play performed first. If that is not possible, do listen to an audio recording as you read along. That will help round out the full atmosphere that Shakespeare was developing here.

After you finish Two Gentlemen of Verona, think about where you would honor friendship above love, where equal to love, and where below love. Is friendship less important than love? Or is friendship merely less intense? Can you experience both with the same person?

Enjoy close ties of mutual commitment . . . with all those you feel close to!

"The Two Gentlemen of Verona" is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. Maybe that's because it's one of the only one's I understand. My youth Theatre did a wonderful production of this play. I was not in it, but I saw it twice. It was set in the 60's, peasant-shirted and bell-bottomed. I think it's a wonderful story, although a bit unrealistic because of all the forgiveness that happens at the end of the play. But I think that it's a play everyone should read. This edition of the play is, I think, a very good one. If you are planning to buy a copy of "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," I would advise you to buy the most current edidtion printed by the Folger Shakespeare Library. They have lots of information in the book, and many definitions of the more difficult Elizabethian words.

J.W. Gibson's book has a misleading title; I sought it as a source of the technical aspects of the war in Vietnam, and instead found a polemic. His adulation for Ho Chi Minh and even faint praise for Joseph Stalin give away his bias--the book is clearly an anti-capitalist diatribe, although I certainly recognize the validity of some of his criticism. Having been an Army officer in the conflict (199th Infantry Brigade) I experienced first-hand the problems with morale and a frustrating conflict in which we consistently ceded the offensive to the enemy. But I must take exception to his perpetuation of the myth that we used our soldiers as "bait". He and Stanley Karnow, neither of whom fought in the war, agree that the typical American tactic was to blunder through the jungle until we found the enemy the hard way--by being ambushed. The fact is, rougly 90% of all ambushes (the most common type of combat in an unconventional war) in Vietnam were initiated by American or allied forces.

The concept of limited war is one that the author never seems to grasp. He even manages to write an entire book on it without mentioning George F. Kennan, the architect of this war-without-victory concept. The publishing date of 1986 is telling, as the author's pronouncement that the U.S. military has not learned from its past mistakes in Vietnam would shortly be proved wrong in Kuwait. In his subsequent update, he cites Saddam Hussein's continued tyranny after 1991 as proof of failure, as though this was a military blunder rather than a political decision.

Gibson's obvious affection for "wars of national liberation" carry over to his conclusion in which he seems to employ a fairness doctrine to war. If the other side is not our technological equal, we should not use our superiority to reduce our casualties and shorten the conflict. War is always a catalyst for invention and innovation, and the side that does a better job typically prevails. This did not happen in Vietnam because our electorate grew disillusioned after 14 years of war, and because we have elections every two years that resulted in a government that eventually cut the funding--and it is not possible to wage war without money. The other side did not have elections, but they did have tyrants in charge who were quite willing to expend ten or twenty of their young men for every American KIA. In the end, the war of containment became a war of attrition. This is another concept that seems not to have occurred to Mr. Gibson.

It requires little imagination to describe U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War as both misguided and mismanaged. As the politicians who got America bogged down in someone else's civil war have much to answer for, so too do those senior military officers who ran the war; the scorched-earth, search-and-destroy strategy that MACV opted for was not only wrongheaded, unworkable, and doomed to fail, it was also immoral.All this James Gibson tells us in THE PERFECT WAR. The problem is that he adds more heat than light to the discussion so overt are his biases against the U.S. military and in favor of the National Liberation Front. The same ground is covered much more intelligently in Neil Sheehan's A BRIGHT SHINING LIE. Gibson takes the officer corps to task for the poor quality of leadership displayed during the war by the many field-grade and general officers who "led" their units from a helicopter seat and who displayed more concern over their efficiency reports than their troops. Fair enough. It is true that there was not an overabundance of heroic leadership at the battalion, brigade, and division level in Vietnam. It is also true, as Gibson argues, that the war produced a lot of senior officers who should be embarrassed to wear the Silver Stars and Distinguished Flying Crosses they were awarded.Still, for all the helicopter-seat heroes in the war, there were still plenty of field-grade officers who led on the ground, with their troops, in the style of the battalion and regimental commanders of WWII. Gibson should have given these men their due. He does not. A much more incisive, well-rounded discussion of the quality of combat leadership in Vietnam is to be found in ABOUT FACE by David Hackworth.Gibson's sources are a major problem. He does not appear to have done a lot of original research, but rather quotes from previously-published books and magazine articles. Worse, he relies heavily on three books (NAM by Mark Baker, CONVERSATIONS WITH AMERICANS by Mark Lane, and SPOILS OF WAR by Charles Levy) which, once published, were thoroughly discredited by journalists, historians, and veterans who pointed out the fabrications, distortions, and exaggerated accounts contained in them. It is distressing to see the bogus accounts from these three books repeatedly popping up in THE PERFECT WAR. Gibson seemed prepared to believe the worst about everyone who served in Vietnam, from private to general. The US Army, as described in THE PERFECT WAR, seemed to do nothing but smoke dope, kill civilians, frag its officers, and lose battles.The communists, on the other hand, are idealized in THE PERFECT WAR for their patriotism, determination, and bravery. The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army had an abundance of all three virtures. It was, in fact, their patriotism, determination, and bravery which won the war, not (as the right-wing in this country would have it) the machinations of a treasonous press, a cowardly congress, and anti-war protesters. For all that, though, the communists were capable of great cruelty in fighting their war, from the murder of government officials and their families, the massacre in Hue (which Gibson downplays), to the systematic abuse and torture of American POWs in places like the Hanoi Hilton. Gibson seems unable to come to terms with the dark side of the communist war effort.

This book looks at the Vietnam War in a perspective that can be deeply appreciated by someone who had a four year involvement in it. I couldn't put the book down. Having spent two tours
in-country, being non-military, but supporting the US Army, in both combat and non-combat situations, this book cleared up a lot of "why in the world is this or that happening"? Also, there were several situations that Gibson mentioned that I was a participant in and his writing gives me the notion that he does have some idea of what he speaks.

I do not believe he was leaning to the communist efforts, this writing was about our side. I also know that everyone there was not a dope smoking idiot, but the way MANAGEMENT handled most situations, made a sane person wonder what in the heck were THEY thinking and whos side were THEY on? I have never seen such waste of assets and personnel!

I believe everyone who was there would have a better understanding of all of the goofyness that went on, and there was plenty of it, if they would read this book.

This book is wildly overpriced for the quantity and quality of information it has. In fact, the book offers little that you can't get from much cheaper sources. I suggest "Winning Your Personal Injury Claim" or even "How to Start and Build a Law Practice." Questions: tkbaird@prontomail.com.

Lawyers Weekly USA says "For any lawyer looking to succeed in the competitive world of personal injury, it's an invaluable resource..." "This is a primer that will give you an excellent foundation for success." (March 23, 1998)

This was interesting, although I really rather liked the anthology "burning chrome" better (includes the short story.) I thought the screenplay was interesting because I really enjoyed the short story, and was curious to see how such a good short story became such a wretched movie. One item of note was the "rant" of "spider" (henry rollins) that seemed to have been lifted from dennis leary.

The short story Johnny Mnemonic is one of my favorite short stories, and I was very excited when I heard they were making a movie of it. This was before I knew that good stories don't necessarily turn into good movies. The movie has several problems, including a screen-play that has a few too many genre cliches. Hard-core fans of William Gibson may have enjoyed spotting elements from his previous work, and in my opinion it is these hard-core fans who will enjoy this film the most. This book here has the short story (good) and the screen-play (interesting for Gibson fans and people who enjoyed the film).

I didn't actually read this book. I checked it out, though, and apparently it's about some coastal town in the 1830's, it has nothing to do with sci-fi and it's written by a _late_ professor William Gibson, so if you're looking for a sci-fi novel by the author of Neuromancer, this is definitely not it.

Stirs the heart. A great book.

An enviable array of critical raves lines the first few pages of The Difference Engine, including this one from director Ridley Scott: "A visionary steam-powered heavy metal fantasy! Gibson and Sterling create a high Victorian virtual reality of extraordinary richness and detail."

In this novel Gibson teams up with Bruce Sterling, a brilliant sci-fi writer himself, to provide an amazing picture of Victorian England. Both writers are notable for their attention to detail, and their combined effort teems with thousands of minutiae from the period, not to mention large themes based on the Victorian preoccupation with such things as science, technology, exploration, and steam.

The novel belongs to a particular genre of science fiction called alternate history, where the writer answers the question, if such-and-such had happened (or never happened), what would the world be like now? The Difference Engine tries to imagine what the world would be like if the computer had been invented 100 years earlier. It is set in England in 1855. Sci-fi pundits have dubbed the novel "steampunk" because those who control the steam-driven computers control society.

The structure of the novel falls into three discreet, self-contained units all concerned with a case full of rare and valuable computer cards. In the first part, Sybil Gerard, a fallen woman, inherits the cards from her boyfriend, who was murdered for them. In the long middle section Edward "Leviathan" Mallory, a scientist famous for his discovery of the Brontosaurus, takes charge of them next. And in the conclusion Lawrence Oliphant, a gentleman detective with advanced syphillis, finally solves the mystery of their whereabouts.

Alternate history writers love to recast famous figures in altered roles. The writers have done just that with, for example, three of England's greatest romantic poets. Lord Byron has become prime minister, and Disraeli (the prime minister of the history books) a hack writer. Shelly is some sort of anarchist rebel and Keats has become a kinotropist, a specialist in a sort of gas-illuminated light show of computer designed images. Keats, also, seems to be the only one who knows what the cards signify.

Just to show how far the villains will go to get the computer cards and the power the cards represent, they devise a way to break down all of London's eco system as the city grinds to a halt and falls prey to looters, many of whom join the villains' rebellion: "The gloom of the day was truly extraordinary. It was scarcely noon, but the dome of St. Paul's was shrouded in filthy mist. Great rolling wads of oily fog hid the spires and the giant bannered adverts of Ludgate Hill. Fleet Street was a high-piled clattering chaos, all whip-cracking, steam-snorting, shouting. The women on the pavements crouched under soot-stained parasols and walked half-bent, and men and women alike clutched kerchiefs to their eyes and noses. Men and boys lugged family carpetbags and rubber-handled traveling-cases, their cheery straw boaters already speckled with detritus. A crowded excursion train chugged past on the spidery elevated track of the London, Chatham & Dover, its cloud of cindered exhaust hanging in the sullen air like a banner of filth."

Despite the raves from critics and all the wonderful detail, the novel sometimes dragged for me. As a lover of Victorian England (my graduate specialization), I perhaps should have liked it more, but I found the villain and some of the main characters, including Mallory, uninteresting. I wasn't convinced that things were much different in Gibson's and Sterlings's reality even with the addition of the computer, a noisy, mechanical, affair. The characters might as well have been fighting over an Egyptian mummy for all the difference the computer made. And the long center section with the inevitable Gibson pitched battle (I'm betting my money that Gibson wrote the middle part and Sterling wrote the bookends) didn't thrill me.

Lawrence Oliphant's genteel manners and shrewd detective work make him a fascinating character. The novel might have been more satisfying if he'd been the hero all the way through instead of just the last 100 pages. The experimental conclusion with various bits and pieces from personal journals, letters, advertisements, recordings, and popular songs attempts to tie everything up. But one never has the sense that the cards nor the computers were as important as the writers want us to believe. Did the cards really contain just a mathematical gambling system, as everyone seemed to think, or were they something more ominous and earthshaking? Keats comments that they were far more important than anyone would ever know but doesn't say why. They simply are never satisfactorily explained.

As several previous reviewers have commented extensively on the plot(or lack thereof), I will not go into detail on that. As a serious fan of both Gibson and to a lesser extent Stirling, when I heard about the colloboration on this novel I had very high hopes. Initially I was very dissappointed, the novel really seemed to drag, and the plot seemed to disappear in overwhelming detail, then I reached the far too brief section ending the first iteration and was just blown away by the sudden feeling that all of this actually had meaning. The less narrative sections at the ends of each iteration gave me enough encouragement to finish the novel, particularly the rather enjoyable one at the end after the nominal storyline is concluded. After I finished it I found myself suffieciently fascinated by the world and to a lesser extent the characters that I immediately reread the book and came away feeling satisfied that it had been worth the effort.

This is not a masterpiece when viewed purely as a novel but its real value lies in an exceptionally precise and detailed evocation of a Victorian Era that could have been, and the subtle parallels to our own situation. In the effects of the computer revolution on the Victorian Era we see reflections in a dark mirror of the effects on our own era, specific applicability is not certain but I liked the way that the perspectives from later times scattered throughout the book, particularly in the final section give hints of ways that our own society might go.

In a final note some of the historical variations, Keats as a Hacker, Byron as the Prime Minister and others too numerous to mention are quite entertaining and sometimes enlightening, I particularly liked the way that it is strongly suggested that ones career is more a matter of chance than commonly thought.

If you are willing to spend the time this novel is well worth reading, but be warned that it is often slow moving. It is emphatically not a page burner and is best appreciated with time to ponder its subtleties.

Indeed, this is the first of an unfortunately limited genre. Gibson and Sterling do a very entertaining and informative job of showing us the Victorian era's industrial mastery. The story, unfortunately, comes unraveled a bit. Nonetheless, the prose is engaging and the story premise quite brilliant. It focuses on the question of "what would have happened if computation had been successfully realized in a mechanical medium first?" This is an excellent premise for philosophical and historical speculation. It forces us to focus on the prejudices we tend to uphold regarding electronic computation. Those prejudices are nicely bent by this book. Moreover, it serves as a nice little history lesson about the true origins of computers and the very first programming language, which just happens to have actually been partially developed by Lady Ada Byron, Lord Byron's (the poet) wife and mathematical prodigy in her own right.

I would love to read more works in this genre. Recently, there has been a renewal of interest surrounding the accomplishments of the Victorian era, and we should all keep in mind the spirit of possibility emodied by the Victorians. This is a good book to read in conjunction with Neal Stephenson's _The Diamond Age_, which I will also review.