This collection offers the reader a very mixed bag. Pulling off an anthology like this is extremely difficult because the stories threaten to be repetitious, tedious, or both. Robert Price has only moderate success here.

The stories are remarkably varied; Price has taken a good cross-section of stories about the Necronomicon and has avoided the repetition problem for the most part. Despite this, some of the stories are quite predictable.

The strength of this collection indeed lies in its variety. When was the last time you read a Mythos story by John Brunner? His story is one of the best of the book. For that matter, Silverberg and Pohl are not well known for Mythos contributions, but they make contributions to this volume.

The real tedium in the collection comes in the versions of the Necronomicon. There's only so much archaically-written gobbledygook a reader can stand. After a page of it, the rest looks like more of the same. Thus, "The Sussex Manuscript" and Lin Carter's contribution are of little interest to the reader. Carter's repeats the same themes again and again, showing some creativity but soon losing the reader's interest.

The value of this collection, then, is limited. Some of Price's other collections present a much more interesting read. This book is one for the dedicated Cthulhu Mythos fan.

If you're a die-hard fan of H.P. Lovecraft's work, and the Cthulhu Mythos that grew from it , then you MUST add this book to your collection!

The book is composed of essentially two sections. The first is a collection of stories, by various authors, concerning the Necronomicon, that blasphemous occult tome invented by HPL. The second part of the book has several versions of sections of the Necronomicon, and commentaries about the tome. Even if you do not find the stories of interest, this book is well worth having for the latter material alone! Most notably included are Fred L. Pelton's "The Sussex Manuscript," Lin Carter's "The Necronomicon: The Dee Translation," Robert M. Price's "A Critical Commentary Upon The Necronomicon," and H.P. Lovecraft's "History of The Necronomicon."

Fear not the Great Old Ones and Outer Gods! Get this book!

For those of us who came early into our addiction to H. P. Lovecraft, the Necronomicon assumes a singular place as the most famous book never written. Lovecraft's non-existent volume, a treatise on magic that unlocks the dimensional barriers that seperate us from Earth's powerful and horrific former rulers, has assumed a life all its own.
The Necronomicon: Selected Stories and Essays Concerning the Blasphemous Tome of the Mad Arab is a wonderful compendium of lore and imagination compiled by editor Robert M. Price. The various stories, prefaced by an informative and insightful introduction by Price,
are all excellent in their own way, but rather uneven in tone. From genuinely creepy tales like "Settler's Wall" and "The Howler In the Dark" to more tongue-in-cheek offerings like Robert Silverberg's " Demons of Cthulhu," The Necronomicon offers a little bit of everything for the hardcore Lovecraft junkie.
For me, the book's real spine lies in the pseudo-scholarly articles that deal with the Necronomicon and its author, the "Mad" arab Abdul Alhazrad, as if they genuinely existed. Included here are such choice items as a biography of Alhazred, a history of the Necronomicon as written by Lovecraft himself, the John Dee Translation of the Necronomicon (an over-the-top parody so hilarious it reads like Shakespeare on acid), and a refreshingly serious , A Critical Commentary on the Necronomicon written by Robert M. Price.
If the idea of ancient tomes of forbidden magic, exotic lands, distant times and unutterably terrifying monsters appeals to you, then this book is a welcome addition to the growing body of Lovecraft studies.

For those interested in Griffin's experiment which became the book, BLACK LIKE ME, Bonazzi's book is an insightful resource. He gives additional sources and background material that describe the influences and personal inner journey that lead him to the BLACK LIKE ME experience and beyond. If you stick with the book to the end you will receive a glimpse into the deeply spiritual orientation which motivated Griffin's life work. This book is an important contribution to the understanding of BLACK LIKE ME, which in itself is significant enough to need re-reading for the 21st century.

Not since the phlegm-horking "Afrikaaner for beginners" audio book have I been so impressed by an author's knowledge of a subject.

The only caveat is that it is not nearly as visual as you may want if you are a fetishist, hence the 4/5 score. Otherwise, spellbinding!

This book, by the editors of the Washington Post, does a good job of describing the events which led to the deadlocked 2000 Presidential election. In addition to detailing the paths which led to the deadlock, the book discusses all the post-election issues in a very readable format. Surprisingly, the books editors seem only slightly tilted towards Gore (especially considering it is the Washington Post, which is noted for its liberal bias), so no matter who you voted for, there is much to be found here for anyone with an interest in contemporary politics.

Deadlock: The Inside Story of America's Closest Election is a workmanlike and emotionless recollection of the events surrounding the most controversial election of the past 100 years. It is a well organized, easy to follow and not visibly biased view of the relevant events leading up to and following the November 7 Presidential election. Seemingly accurate and double checked to a fault, reading this book left me with the impression that I had just read an excellent 275 page newspaper article and not much more. With almost no humor, lacking any sidebar comments, it is a book Joe Friday would be proud to call his own. While I am a Texan and Bush supporter, I much preferred Jake Tapper's Down & Dirty: The Plot to Steal the Presidency. I guess this means that like most people, when push comes to shove, I'd rather be entertained than informed. I do regret this intellectual weakness and like some of the votes in Florida I may change. But probably not in the next 36 days.

Two things struck me while reading this book, the first is that I doubt there is a book out there that is truly balanced and not somewhat biased. The second thing was that Gore really got the shaft, not so much by the recount wars, but by the election official that came up with the Butterfly Ballot. In the history of the USA this decision ranks up there with new Coke and the XFL, what a mistake. As far as the reporting in the book it was not bad for a review of all the articles they had in the paper, but it did not really dig into the particular issues very deeply. I wanted more detail and behind the scenes with both the candidates. I also wanted more details on the court cases; I felt like the sky-high overview of the issues of the cases did not do such an important issue justice.

In reading the book I think a little bit of a democratic bias comes out, just a little, but enough to notice. I also thought it interesting that they had far more details of the Gore group then the Bush camp, it follows the perception that the Post is somewhat liberal in its views. The book is an overview that came out almost 10 minutes after Gore hung up the phone on the second concession call so there are a few more details out now that they did not get in the book. Overall it is a good effort and a readable book, but not the end all be all on the subject.

I bought this book expecting a real debate between the three views mentioned, namely, Young Earth Creation, Old Earth Creation, and Theistic Evolution. The reason I found it disappointing is for two main reasons. None of the contributors really talk about the evidences for their position, but instead ramble on about their philosophy of science. Van Till spends most of his time trying to convince people to call his perspective the "fully-gifted creation perspective" instead of theistic evolution. To me, it really was just playing with words in order to avoid the negative Christian response to evolution. Does Van Till believe in Darwinian evolution or not? He says he does, so why not Theistic evolution? His view, as he expresses it, is really Deism, although he protests that it isn't. Read what he says and decide for yourself. My other major complaint with the book was that instead of the proponent of each view responding to the other two views, the responses were made by a third party "panel". I found this to be extremely unsatisfying.
The book wasn't totally without merit, and all three perspectives had some good things to say - but it got lost in a lot of wordiness about "words" which really took away from the book as a whole.

This book consists of essays by proponents of each of the three views (Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, and Theistic Evolution) and commentaries by practitioners of four disciplines: Biblical studies, theology, philosophy, and science. The entire discussion is concluded by summaries by Philip Johnson, an advocate of intelligent design, and Richard Bube, an advocate of theistic evolution.

The result is only partially successful. I am particularly impressed with the essays by Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds (Young Earth Creationism) and Howard J. Van Till (Theistic Evolution). Both give lucid and reasoned presentations of their views. I was pleasantly surprised to see Nelson and Reynolds, neither of whom I have read before, forego some of the more common but already discredited scientific arguments for a young Earth. Van Till presents a well thought-out and challenging integration of science and theology.

I am very disappointed by the commentaries, however. My first complaint is that the commentators sometimes seem unwilling to critique the essays primarily within their own expertises. For instance, John Jefferson Davis spends much of his space discussing the fossil record. On the one hand, none of the other commentators talk about this important piece of evidence. On the other hand, I wish the editors could have found someone other than a theologian to do this.

My second, more serious complaint is that each of the four commentators speaks entirely from an Old Earth Creationist perspective. In fact, Walter Bradley (who is supposed to provide criticism from a scientific perspective) uses the space allotted for commentary on the Old Earth Creationist perspective to attack the positions later presented in the Theistic Evolution essay. The reader is deprived of any scientific critique of the Old Earth Creationist view and instead finds a philosophical objection to a view not even presented yet. I find that entirely inappropriate.

As a brief introduction to the thinking in the three perspectives on creation and evolution, the primary essays in this book are very good. They each present some of the strengths and weaknesses of their own positions. These are not explored fully, but each essay is well referenced for further reading. The commentaries could have benefited by a better selection of commentators, however.

i've read in the field of creation-evolution for nearly 30 years now, from the _genesis flood_ to _darwin's dangerous idea_. that certainly doesn't make me an expert, only a concerned layman. this book is addressed by christian's to christian's, not that anyone outside of that community won't get a great deal out of the discussion only that the emotional desire/impetus to seek answers pushes christian's with a high view of scripture to try to reconcile the two biggies in their lives: science looking at general revelation and theology looking at scriptures. if you're not part of this community it is much easier just to ask "so what?" and not to understand why this is such a personal topic.

this is a first book, that is suitable for educated people to delve into a topic where many of the other books in this field/topic presume a background in either science or theology, or where the books are so stridently biased as to be "preaching to the choir" and put off 'newbies' with their presentation.

the issues are presented well enough that i think if someone finishes the book they will have a reasonable idea of what the problems are and where the different parts are most concerned in the discussion. it is not a scientific or theologically based book but rather philosophic. it presents concerns from each viewpoint, thus showing relative priorities in what each person discusses first and critisies as lacking emphasis in the other viewpoints. this is one value in a debate type of format, it can leave you with a prioritized idea of what people find important in the issues.

one problem however with this debate framework is that each person reading the book who already have committments to issues or positions tend to cheer for their side and boo down the opposing sides. this is evident from the reviews posted here, the young earth creation team is not the big names in the field, so it looks like in suffers from lack of heroes. nay, the two philosophers defend the position well given the page constraints they faced.

there is one issue running through the book i wished everyone had addressed in a more explicit matter, that is the difference in accepting the functional materialism of science versus the uncritical acceptance of a materialist world and life view of scientism. there is much confusion between the two, you can see it in much YEC criticism, in this book as well, of both progressive creationism and theistic evolution. naturalism is the idea that what we see is what we get, no god's behind the curtain, no skyhooks to come down and rescue us. there must be a distinction between how science uses this idea as a working hypothesis, as a functional means to an end, versus how a philosophy uses it as an axiom. of the 3 viewpoints, only vantil talks to the separation of the two. the YEC's fault the other two positions as if they accepted the materialism/naturalism as a deep committment in their systems. which as christian's is simply unacceptable from the beginning.

i liked the book. i think if you need a place to start it supplies one. however if you are already committed to a position you would be better off served by jumping straight to one of the major works in each viewpoint. and interact with that author without the polemics that form the debate structure of the book.