Mark Twain's satiric fantasy "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" sets up the premise of a 19th Century American being transported (via the application of a crowbar to his skull) to the legendary Camelot, where he initially suffers culture shock in the extreme. The novel's immediately obvious flaw (and I assume Mark Twain was aware of it but simply ignored it) is the 19th Century hero's ability to communicate with Britons of the 6th Century. They, of course, would have been speaking an English similar to that in "Beowulf"; the book has them talking like characters in "Hamlet". The opening chapters are comic in mood, complete with limp jokes. (When one character introduces himself as a page, the Yankee replies: "Go 'long, you ain't more than a paragraph." Oh, Lord.) However, the story quickly becomes dark and then increasingly darker. The degraded condition of the masses (which the modern hero compares to 18th Century France) culminates in a tour (with King Arthur disguised as a peasant) of a oountryside corrupted by monarchy and the Church, both of which were loathed by Mark Twain. Feminists should be warned that the author's misogyny is given free rein here: all the ladies of the court are thoughtless twits, and Morgan Le Fay is a shrew who habitually and casually kills her servants. The heroine Alisande (who, of course, becomes Sandy) is a tiresome chatterbox, whom the hero abruptly marries as a sort of social condescension. But his attitude towards women is merely a part of his general misanthropy, leading him to write at one point: "Well, there are times when one would like to hang the whole human race and finish the farce." Once the protagonist has established himself as Arthur's right-hand man (he's called "The Boss"), he exercises his Yankee ingenuity to industrialize the realm. With the genius of Gutenberg, Morse and Bell at his disposal, he sets up a newspaper and introduces the telegraph and the telephone to the Middle Ages. (Just how he devises the technology to accomplish this is not made too clear.) At any rate, The Boss is considered a great wizard, and Merlin (or Brer Merlin, as the Yankee calls him) is treated like a fraudulent fool. Motivating all this is a somewhat smug sense of 19th Century superiority. Actually, the Yankee goes beyond his own century and into the 1900's. When Guenever's treason causes the civil war which divides Britain, The Boss drills a group of cadets (his West Pointers, he calls them) that he leads off to battle against the anti-Arthurian knighthood. The result is a blood bath presciently and repulsively similar to the trench warfare of 1914-1918. (The novel was published in 1889.) If this is meant to be an indication of future efficiency, it's an extremely pessimistic vision. But then, the whole story is Mark Twain's gloomy statement on Mankind's uneasy place in a dysfunctional world, be it the Dark Ages or the somber present.

When Hank Morgan, the head superintendent of the great arms factory, receives a smack on the head given by a friend nicknamed Hercules, he wakes up under an oak tree. A young man tells Morgan is he is in Camelot in the year 528. Not believing the boy, Morgan insists it is the year 1879 in Hartford, Connecticut. Morgan's adventures are written in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, by Mark Twain. Sir Kay throws Morgan in prison after he finds the Yankee and scares him up a tree. Sentenced to death the next day, Morgan performs a "miracle" before he is hung and King Arthur, believing him to be a wizard, set him free. Slowly, Morgan works his way up to "The Boss" of King Arthur's court and brings all of his 19th century knowledge to the people of Camelot, such as the telephone and electric lights.
Although I would recommend this book to advanced readers, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is over 400 pages and it was difficult for me to get into the story at first. Also, the language was hard to understand. For example, "Fair sir, will ye just?" and "Prithee do not let me." Despite the length and the language, I enjoyed the way Twain used characters and stories from the Arthur legends and formed them into the plot. The book made me think, what would the world be like if some one actually did go back in time?

'Connecticut Yankee' is an excellent political satire still relevant to today's world. Everyone's heard of it, and it's been spoofed many times in film. However, few people have read it and they're missing a treat. Mark Twain is one author whose works consistently remain applicable to modern society. 'Yankee' is funny, interesting and highly worth your time.

This book seems to make fun of the Marquis de Sade more than anything else. I justify that statement by referring the reviewer to the puerile drawings and statements that are found throughout this book. To focus on de Sade's pornography is to misunderstand what it is all about. However, this book does give a brief insight into the heart of de Sade's work. Yet for the little it offers, it distracts too much by the author and illustrator trying to be witty, which they completely fail to do (which is a trend with this whole series of books). If you want an insight into de Sade's work or a retracing of the events in his life, pick up a more academic book like a thoroughly researched biography, which exists. The only reason I bought this book is for posterities sake because you cannot find it in a bookstore. Read de Sade's actual stories first, then get an intelligent, "grown-up" version of literary criticism. Do not rely on this book to give you anything other than a headache from its cheap porn-based drawings.

I read this book in preparation for directing a stage production of "Quills", a play based on the Marquis de Sade. Overall, It was worth the money. I had to go a lot further with my studies, but this book was a good primer, because it condensed his life into a quick read. If you just want an opening impression of the man and the myth, I would recommend this book. If you want a more critical analysis of his work you will need to look elsewhere.

I've just completed this book. I do feel it was extremely helpful in providing me with an overall introduction to Sade, and also in helping me to determine whether or not I wish to pursue the man and his writings.

While I consider myself an eclectic freethinker, I don't go in for something "just because" it may be vastly unusual or "off the wall." In short, Sade's sexuality isn't my cup of tea. He seems to presume that his sexuality was easily anyone's cup of tea, given that the characters portrayed in his novels seem to either instantly like to be humiliated and subjected to pain, or that they don't mind one way or the other (yeah, right). Stuart Hood, the author of this book, points out that Sade's descriptions of sexual encounters are "cold and mechanical." Sexuality for many people may be simple fulfillment of lust (nothing wrong with that, btw), but for many others as well there must be a component of affection, tenderness, and warmth (I'm in the latter category). The most peculiar aspect of Sade's sexual attitudes are the seeming misanthropy of it all; it's as if his characters are absolutely hateful and cold schemers, who set about projecting their self-loathing onto others. How would these stories have been viewed if it were animals subjected to these sorts of situations instead of young human females and males?

Most disturbing to me is Sade's justification of murder. If done in a SELF-DEFENSIVE situation, murder can be justified. But Sade seems to have thought that "just plain" murder was okay, as it serves as part of Nature's destructive aspect. While I acknowledge destruction as being part and parcel of the way in which the universe operates (it is the necessary opposite complement of creation), I think Sade confuses Natural Selection with Artificial Selection. In other words, if a lightning bolt strikes a person and kills him, that's Natural Selection. But the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks and murders on the WTC and Pentagon were Artificial Selection -- premeditated murder by humans who made the plan to do it. There is a difference here.

On the other hand, Sade was said to have been horrified by the massacres of the early 1790s, relative to the French political upset at the time. He seemed to decry the senseless butchery, and even assisted in sparing his hated in-laws from the guillotine. If he believed any sort of murder whatsoever was simply part of Nature, one has to wonder why he was disturbed by all the killing around him.

Sade did, at one point, make a stand for female sexual freedom via one of his male novel characters. He asserted a woman's body is hers to enjoy as she likes, and that she needn't be a "slave to her family." On the other hand, most of the victims portrayed in his novels were helpless females. Go figure. I think his early abandonment by his mother was a major element at play in this man's psyche.

This is an interesting book, and I do recommend it. Sade is the most strangely complex person I've ever read about. I hope this review has been helpful for you.

Fight Censorship!

This book left a mixed impression. Yes, the meteorological content might be up to date. Sometimes the content is very short, sometimes the style is very boring and old-fashioned. No, this book is not well illustrated. Most of the graphics look awful. Handmade illustrations are not longer good enough for a specialist publication in the 3rd millenium. I had better save my money.

The best book on the subject without a mathematical presentation!Despite the lack of formulae, this volume is really exhaustive. The theory is thoroughly presented.In fact diagrams,graphs and maps are simply abundant along the text,supplying a lively image of the physical processes.Many photographic plates are provided with detailed comments as well.Overall, a splendid and vast array of pictures that gives an engrossing description of scientific concepts. This book is a superb reference for professionals and laymen alike.

What is it about the Book of Enoch that generates such appeal? Presumably the same myth and magic elements that gave it such a following among 2nd temple Judaism. Enoch originated about 300BC, and the oldest copies, dating back to about 150BC are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran.

The best modern translations are to be found in the G. Vermes or Martinez editions of the Scrolls, or in the J. Charlesworth OT Pseudepigrapha set from Doubleday. A facsimile edition of R.H. Charles' 1912 translation is also worth obtaining for the copious notes. This translation by Laurence is not in the same category.

Despite all the enthusiasm that surrounds this book it is worth remembering that it has always been contested. Trypho the Jew, the Talmud, Pseudo-Philo, all the Rabbis prior to the 8th Century, St. Augustine, St. Jerome were only a few to contest the midrash interpretation of "Sons of God" of Gen6:2 as angels. The book was rejected from the Jewish canon, the Septuagint and Vulgate, and consequently the Apocrypha. After 400AD it was preserved only in minority Ethiopian and Slavonic traditions.

It is often noted that Jude quotes from this book, which is true - although with obvious sarcasm as the context shows; Jude's epithet "the seventh from Adam" is taken from Enoch60:8 not Genesis. Tertullian did quote from it and consider it as scripture, along with various other pseudepigraphical and apocryphal literature. It is also true that Peter gets his details regarding the "angels that sinned" being cast into Tartarus from Enoch. As also is indicated by the mentions of "myths" and "cunningly devised fables" with which Peter precedes it. "Abraham's bosom" in Luke 16, however is not drawn from Enoch but from the beliefs of the Pharisees recorded in Jewish burial papyri and various pre-Rabbinical myths. Given that the central figure in Luke16:19-30 is none other than Caiaphas (who else do we know of in AD30 Jerusalem who had 5 brothers?) it is obvious that there is heavy irony in this reference.

Although it is occasionally claimed that there is nothing in Enoch that contradicts the Bible, 2Peter2 states quite clearly that "angels do not accuse such beings" - a blunt contradiction of 1Enoch10 where Michael Gabriel Uriel and Raphael do exactly that, accusing the mythical rebel angels. This is confirmed by Jude who even names Michael in his parallel rebuttal of 1Enoch. Further Christ states that Angels do not marry. Given that the only reference in the entire body of early Jewish literature to Angels marrying is the Enoch myth, this can only be a contradiction of 1Enoch.

In other words the writers of the New Testament knew about this book and rejected it. It is still interesting however to see what Peter and Jude's opponents were teaching.