When I read "a son of the circus" the first time I HATED it vehemently! "Damn it, I want more Owen Meany!" I thought to myself. I was incredibly disappointed by this book.

Then, about a year later I was desperate for something to read so I picked it up and read it again and I ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT!!! This is now my favorite of John Irving's novels. And during the second (and third, etc.) rereadings, I found myself rolling with loud laughter and delighted by Irving's vivid, colorful descriptions of India and Indian life.

If you read this book expecting a continuation of Owen Meany, forget it. But if you want to read an excellent novel that is nothing like anything else Irving has written, pick this up with an open mind and prepare to be delighted!!!

Although some may not appreciate John Irving's leap across time zones and continents, I have to say that this was better than "Owen Meany," "The Hotel New Hampshire," and "Garp." It was more bizarre, filled with a more colorful cast of characters, written with amazing descriptive grace and style and evocative of a time and place which is just as foreign to you or I as it is to the main character, Dr. Daruwalla. Although Irving stipulates that he has never lived in India, his imagery makes readers feel as though they do. The themes are many, varied and complex, but perhaps the most important one is the lack of identity that Dr. Daruwalla feels. This is so prevalent in today's constantly shrinking world that Irving really hits home with those of us who feel like we don't really "belong" anywhere. In addition to all of these great literary achievements, "A Son of the Circus" is a rollicking good story, a page-turner and sure to bring you both laughter and tears. As crazy as Irving gets, however, he always maintains his brillant sense of humanity. This book has inspired me to study people, ethnicity, migration and statelessness. I'm not kidding

Bordering on sensory overload, John Irving enthralls readers with this excellent story of an orthopedic surgeon who is neither at home in his birthtown of Bombay, India nor his adopted residence of Toronto, Canada. Set amidst the backdrop of colorful India with its circuses, prostitutes, dwarfs, transvestites and cinema, the story is a hybrid of murder mystery, relational drama and satire.

Irving makes excellent use of flashbacks, weaving the plots and subplots with the mastery of an expert author. Despite the many characters with diverse backgrounds, one theme remains at the heart of the story: The ongoing search for identity and the importance of self-acceptance.

Fans of Irving may be tempted to compare this book to his previous works, but this book is truly in a class by itself. Readers looking for another "Garp" will be disappointed, but those simply looking for an excellent story will find "A Son of the Circus" a sheer delight.

...is not, we would all agree, an advisable way to address a British High Court Justice! Certainly not when careers are at stake and professional reputations are in fact the very substance of the specific case. This comment made by historian David Irving is one of the more bizarre facts that emerges in LYING ABOUT HITLER. A book about the rather strange libel suit brought by Mr Irving against Deborah Lipstadt. In her book DENYING THE HOLOCAUST, Ms Lipstadt said Irving was "one of the more dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial [who] misstate, misquote, falsify statistics and falsely attribute conclusions to reliable sources" She also said that "on some level, Irving seems to conceive of himself as carrying on Hitler's legacy."

LYING ABOUT HITLER is the extended account of the deposition given by the author, Richard J Evans at the trial. Mr Evans a specialist in modern German history, was called as an expert witness by the defense. It has been generally argued by the press, court observers, and other authors of books on this trial that Mr Evans' testimomy was crucial to the outcome - the defense winning the case. There is much more here though than an account of a law suit. Three interrelated issues are explored:

(1) "What is historical objectivity? How do we know when a historian is telling the truth? Aren't all historians, in the end, only giving their own opinions about the past?" This is how Mr Evans begins his book, and the answers to these questions are central to explaining his role in the case. As the author of an earlier well respected analysis of the historical method titled IN DEFENSE OF HISTORY, his opinion was wanted on the following: objectivity and bias in historical writing, historical research, and how to obtain accurate knowledge of the past. The defense attorney said simply that these were "the central issues in the case that Irving was bringing against Lipstadt."

(2) Is Ms Lipstadt's statement that "Holocaust deniers pose a serious threat to historical knowledge and memory" an accurate claim? Are these people "connected with neo-fascist, far-right, and antisemitic political extremists" as Ms Lipstadt is quoted as saying? And what is the connection with David Irving? As this book shows, Mr Evans went back through almost all of Mr Irving's book's (over 30) and reviews of these books to convincingly argue to the Judge's satisfaction, that Mr Irving was guilty of misquotation, mistranslation, misrepresentation and gross distortion.

(3) The quirky nature of the libel laws in the UK have a role to play in the issue. The fact that Ms Lipstadt and Penguin books had to prove their innocence - the burden rests with the defense - makes the whole issue of libel and free speech a very contentious issue in the UK. Defendants only have one advantage; in the pretrail phase they can access the plaintiff's personal as well as professional documents. The defense was able to portray Mr Irving as having some rather strange sentiments. In keeping with his odd "mein Fuhrer" remark, Mr Irving had written a poem for his young daughter that read: "I am a Baby Aryan / Not Jewish or Sectarian / I have no plans to marry an / Ape or Rastafarian". It obviously didn't help his claim that he was not racist, neofascist, or a Holocaust denier.

In contrast to the US where he would have had a harder time making his case, or in Germany where denying the Holocaust is a crime, and he is in fact barred from entering the country, Mr Irving continues to take advantage of UK laws. This very book LYING ABOUT HITLER, has been withdrawn by it's UK publisher, under threat of a lawsuit by...you guessed it...David Irving!

After I started reading Richard J. Evans’ LYING ABOUT HITLER, I couldn’t put it down. This is a well-organized, thoroughly researched account, intellectually stimulating and yet entertaining. Based on his “expert report” as one of the expert witnesses for the defense in the Irving vs. Penguin Books/Lipstadt case, the Cambridge historian Prof. Evans meticulously shows how the British author David Irving has falsified, distorted, misinterpreted, and misrepresented historical evidence to fit it with his special agendas. Proved as a problematic “historian,” a racist, and a Holocaust denier in the British High Court, Irving lost the libel case in which HE had sued the American scholar Deborah Lipstadt (and her publisher), who had accused him of being an abuser of history and a “denier” in her 1993 book. LYING ABOUT HITLER not only explains how the author proved Irving’s intentional distortion of historical evidence, but also interweaves the reactions to the trial among the media and professional historians.[....]

This book includes seven chapters and detailed notes (good historians always use notes). Chapter 1 discusses the reputations of Irving’s works among professional historians and journalists, while explaining how Evans got involved in the case as an expert whose job was to prove Irving’s abuse of historical record. The chapter shows that although some historians have already pointed out the problems in Irving’s methodology, there are other scholars and journalists who have praised Irving’s works.

In Chapters 2, 3, and 5, Evans proves how Irving has deliberately falsified and distorted historical evidence. In order to support his favorite themes (e.g. Hitler tried to stop violence against the Jews), Irving intentionally manipulated primary sources. His methods include: claiming something that the source did not say; ignoring unfavorable parts within a document; using untrustworthy witnesses (e.g. Hitler’s sympathizers); doubting the authenticity of a document that did not support his thesis; and even using forged documentation. It was a challenging and painstaking job to examine Irving’s works (about 30 books) along with thousands of pages of documents and many other materials. Yet, Evans succeeded his task in court and in this book.

Chapter 4, “Irving and Holocaust Denial,” first defines what the Holocaust deniers (they call themselves “revisionists”) are trying to prove in order to minimize or smash the significance of the Holocaust. Then, mainly by examining Irving’s public speeches, Evans verifies Irving’s association with deniers, especially a group in California, the “revisionist” center of the US. Evans informs us that the group started with Holocaust-bashing agendas, backed by extreme right-wing figures and organizations, and has maintained itself so since.

Chapter 6, “In the Witness Box,” is quite entertaining. It includes how Evans presented his findings in court and how Irving responded in cross-examination (he represented himself). Irving’s harassing and insulting manners constantly irritated the defense witnesses and lawyers as well as the judge. As the proceeding went on, however, it became apparent that Irving was losing self-control and falling apart. On one occasion, Irving, in a slip of the tongue, addressed the judge as “Mein Fuhrer.” Everybody in court laughed. How embarrassing! That clearly showed what sort of audience Irving usually had.

Chapter 7, “Judgment Day,” includes the court decision, vindicating Lipstadt’s claim. It also shows how Irving attempted to disgrace the judgment via the media after the trial. There were some journalists who were skeptical about the trial, fearing that freedom of speech was in danger. Evans, however, points out that these journalists tended to forget who had brought the case in the first place. Irving was the one who tried to jeopardize freedom of speech by suppressing Lipstadt’s book. Evans also shows that those historians who still believed that Irving was legitimate missed the point.

What did the trial teach us? For historians, as Evans puts, “It vindicated our capacity to know what happened after the survivors are no longer around to tell the tale.” For the public, as a journalist remarked, the case “reminded people of what happened there, and educated those who did not know about it.”

Reading this book and examining the recent Holocaust “revisionism” arguments, I discovered that some issues (e.g. “Holocaust myth” and doubt of the existence of gas chambers) that a Japanese friend thought legitimate have been used as propaganda for extreme right-wing/neo-fascist/neo-Nazi/racist groups! How scary! Perhaps, people in Japan can be susceptible to the misleading arguments by the “revisionists” because: (1) NOT all the recent works on the Holocaust and its “revisionism” are available in Japanese; (2) Updates on the recent Holocaust “revisionism” disputes (e.g. the Irving trial) are NOT always known well in Japan. I hope books like LYING ABOUT HITLER will be translated into Japanese soon.

Overall, Richard J. Evans’ LYING ABOUT HITLER presents an informative source, successfully integrating today’s hot issues and historical arguments. I would also recommend this book for historical methodology courses at college.

This book is an outcome of the libel trial brought by David Irving against Penguin Books (in general) and Deborah Lipstadt (specifically). A historian and modern social commentator, Deborah Lipstadt had referred to Irving as a Holocaust denier (and a poor historian) three or four times in a nearly 600-page book. Irving took exception and sued her for libel. He waited to sue her in England where the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the Plaintiff. Evans was one of the many historians asked, by the defense, to prove that Lipstadt was not committing libel when she called Irving a Holocaust denier.

Evans has consequently built up a massive body of evidence to show that Irving continually, and with knowledge, suppressed historical facts and documents to support his position. Evans presents both the process of his investigation and the conclusions that he reached. Evans makes a formidable case. He points successfully to incident after incident where Irving knew that information was incorrect and still used it. Evans also points out that Irving's "mistakes" were all in one direction, not chaotic as one might expect from a researcher that didn't have enough time on his hands or was uncertain about his material.

Lying About Hitler clarifies a number of issues, the first being that Irving was not the defendant (I thought so when I first heard about the case). Irving was suing Lipstadt, not the other way around. It was Lipstadt's freedom of speech (and Penguin Books') that was under attack. If Irving had won, he and others like him would have been able to stop (or attempt to stop) anyone who called them liars or disagreed with their position.

Another issue Evans deals with is the "but history is so hard to interpret" argument. Evans points out, again and again, that this trial was not about the interpretation of historical facts but the misuse of historical documentation (either invented or avoided). Evans' chapter on Irving's research of the bombing of Dresden is fascinating in this regard.

This kind of book confirms the importance of historical research for its own sake. History is so easily (and so often) manipulated for political purposes (on both sides of the fence). It is so much more important to figure out what happened and why as objectively as possible than to "prove" political agendas.

Recommendation: Buy it in paperback or hardcover. If you don't have the cash, take it out of the library. It is definitely worth a read.

David Irving self styled historian and author of numerous books on Nazi Germany is best known for HITLER'S WAR which at the time it came out in 1977, was hailed as a great scholarly work by historians such as Hugh Trevor Roper and John Keegan. This and two earlier books: THE DESTRUCTION OF DRESDEN and THE DESTRUCTION OF CONVOY PQ17, best summarize Irving's career. Rich with source documents his work is invariably called "detailed"; it is also always controversial. Indeed Irving was sued because of his assertion in CONVOY PQ17 that there was cowardice on the part of a British officer. It is therefore ironic that this book by D.D. Guttenplan - THE HOLOCAUST ON TRIAL should be about a suit brought by Mr Irving against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin books for libelous remarks in Ms Lipstadt's book DENYING THE HOLOCAUST. As shown by Mr Guttenplan though, the greater irony is that as a result of the outcome of the trial - in favor of Lipstadt and Penguin - and with the Judges condemnatory words about Mr Irving, this book could justifiably have been titled 'The Destruction of David Irving'. For that is exactly, and deservedly, the impact the following words by Judge Charles Gray at last year April's ruling, will have on Mr Irving's career: "Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence [he is] an active Holocaust denier [who] associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."

THE HOLOCAUST ON TRIAL is about more than Mr Irving; the principal characters involved in the suit are profiled, especially Anthony Julius, lawyer for the defense and Richard J Evans, a historian and expert witness. Mr Guttenplan goes into the background of the libel law in Britain, which is fundamentally different to ours. The onus is on the defense. A consequence of this, only tangentially touched on here, is that other books on the same subject have been affected. John Lukac's book THE HITLER OF HISTORY, friends in the UK tell me, is only recently out and they understand that it is not as complete as my US edition.

Mr Guttenplan also mentions some of the reactions to the courts decision. John Keegan it seems is still a defender; he writes that Irving has "many of the qualities of the most creative historians. He is certainly never dull." Ms Lipstadt on the other hand is "as dull as only the self-righteously politically correct can be." True, perhaps, but she is not "an active Holocaust denier" and she at least has a history career to continue with.

D.D. Guttenplan's "The Holocaust On Trial" is an insightful and well-written account of the David Irving--Deborah Lipstadt libel case. The story of the trial would be reason enough to buy the book--this is one of the best descriptions of a real-life legal proceeding that I have ever read. Guttenplan has a good reporter's ability to bring the setting and personalities to life so that the inherent drama of the trial holds the reader's interest throughout.

But of course, this was no ordinary trial. Irving is the author of several books about World War II that some reputable historians have praised. He has long argued that while some "atrocities" were inflicted on Europe's Jews (as they were also visited upon Germans), Hitler did not order any genocide of Jews and Jews were not systematically gassed at Auschwitz. When American scholar Deboral Lipstadt called Irving "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial," Irving sued Lipstadt for libel in England, where libel plaintiffs enjoy many advantages. Lipstadt and her publisher were forced to spend millions of dollars in a high-risk effort to prove that Irving was a liar and not just a historian with controversial views.

It is here that "The Holocaust On Trial" becomes much more than another good book about an interesting lawsuit with intriguing characters. As Guttenplan explains so well, the trial raised profound questions about the meaning of history and the ways in which the Holocaust has been remembered and understood as well as the ways in which it has been misrepresented and exploited.

It is a remarkable accomplishment that Guttenplan has compelling and thoughtful insights into the Holocaust-- a subject that on the one the one hand is so enormous and profound as to defy representation, and on the other hand has been so written about, depicted and analyzed that one picks up another book wondering if anything new can be said.

"The Holocaust On Trial" meets that exacting test on many levels--as a chronicle of a compelling courtroom drama, but more importantly as a meditation on the enduring impact the Holocaust has had on our culture. I was particularly impressed by Guttenplan's sense of the humanity of the Jewish victims of the genocide and his ability to make the reader appreciate them as human beings rather than abstractions.

We honor the victims of the Holocaust above all by remembering what happened with unsparing honesty. "The Holocaust On Trial" eloquently demonstrates that this difficult goal is a moral imperative. It is a valuable contribution to the literature of the Holocaust and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in historical truth and the sacrifices that are sometimes required in the service of that truth.

'Lying About Hitler', by Professor Richard J. Evans was the first book I read regarding the trial of David Irving. Professor Evans was part of the defense team, and he prepared a sweeping indictment of David Irving and his writings that were an integral part of Irving losing the suit he had brought. Mr. D.D. Guttenplan author of, 'The Holocaust On Trial', describes himself as a reporter. This man was not only present at the trial, but on several occasions spoke with David Irving, and was allowed access to his files. The idea that a trial was needed to prove that the Holocaust did take place despite the writings of the rabid anti-Semite David Irving is almost beyond belief. I highly recommend both of these books, for while they cover the same event, the first is from a participant, while the second is from an observer.

Mr. Guttenplan does much more than report on this trial. He takes the reader through the difficulties of why proving history is so difficult. The idea of proving historical events, especially one as prominent as the Nazi Programs of WWII seems absurd. Absurdity is quickly dismissed when a judge is brought into a courtroom along with history, and the record of past events must meet legal thresholds. Again this would seem to be an astonishingly easy case to make; however the opposite is true.

Eyewitness survivors were never put on the stand, for a legitimate lapse in memory of whether a set of doors open inward or outward can mean the difference between documenting an accepted fact, and stating an error that is meaningless in the eyes of anyone except those that exploit these issues to place widely held, accurate beliefs into question. These are the deniers of history, the intentional revisionists like David Irving who either takes pieces of information and presents them in a distorted manner, or when there is nothing to distort, he and his like will fabricate whatever lies are necessary to falsify history in the hopes of sensationalizing their works of fiction and the sales thereof. The trial exposed David Irving for what he is, a self-promoting anti-Semite, who while having excellent secretarial skills and a man who has amassed prodigious records, is still, in the end nor more than a anti-Semite and a historical hack.

Mr. Guttenplan also raises and discusses other issues that are sure to be controversial with some people. He raises some consequences that occur when a group becomes defined by a single event, and when the same group selectively includes their group as victims while not mentioning the others that shared the same fate. History needs above all to be accurate, and the fact that the number of non-Jews killed in camps is measured in 7 figures is no less important a matter than the number of Jews who perished. That the intent to destroy the Jews as a people is historically accepted, was unique, and especially depraved. Some estimates state 20 million civilians died during the war, all must be remembered, and to do so in no way diminishes what was distinctly horrific about the specific plans for the Jewish People.

There is a quote that many will be familiar with that is from the German Pastor Martin Niemoller. His words were meant to document how The Third Reich of Hitler methodically came and took away groups as others did not help, as they were not a part of the group. The familiar lines end, 'Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me'. The pastor refers to 5 groups in a very specific order, why would anyone try to change the man's words? He spoke of horror without hierarchy, why would it be changed, and why would anyone believe a change would be beneficial? The list of publications that have routinely misquoted the Pastor's words will surprise any reader. The fact that the quote was manipulated and then enshrined in The United States Holocaust Museum, is not only troubling, it plays into the hands of those who seek any point to minimize history, to discredit those who manipulate it.

The order that the Pastor listed was as follows, 'first they came for the Communists', then the, 'Social Democrats', 'then came the trade unionists', 'and then the Jews', 'and then they came for me'. So why would a people who have suffered as the Jews had, hand to their opponents material to harm them with? Why were the first people mentioned, the Communists, eliminated from the version at The Holocaust Museum'? Why are the Jews routinely moved to the first that, 'they came for'? What difference does it make? It certainly does not change what happened, the violence, the crimes. Mr. Guttenplan offers the following explanation that is troubling, ' 'because arguments about the Holocaust have always been about politics as well as history'.

The truth honors all of those that were killed. I have yet to read any truth that would damage the memory of the victims.

There are those who would like to limit the written history of individuals like Hitler and Goebbels as a conclusory "EVIL," and try to suppress anything that would portray them in shades of grey, with good points and bad points, which of course all human beings have. This mindset, I believe, was what led to the well-known efforts to suppress publication of this book. It's too bad, because this is a work for which the author should receive acclaim, not slander. In the end, isn't is wiser to let all the information and opinions flow- or how are we to really understand what circumstances could lead the "next Hitler" or "next Nazi Germany" to arise?

David Irving's brilliant research and writing style put the reader into Goebbels' shoes and allows a real understanding (and not necessarily a sympathetic one)of what motivated this man and how he became what he did (My conclusion- cold, corrupt, narcissistic, hypocritical, and casually murderous). For those who are truly interested in preventing another human tragedy of the magnitude of what went on in the 1940's, I suggest that you open your minds and read this book. It is a classic and you won't regret it.

I found Irving's book to be well-informed and highly readable; criticisms of Mr. Irving's interest in Goebbels' private life fail to take into account the often crucial bearing Goebbels shortcomings and problems in his private life had on the decisions he made in his capacity of minister of the Third Reich, and are thus unfounded. Certainly anything which helps us to understand how a man can perpetrate such cruelty and suffering is welcome material. Also, Mr. Irving is criticsed for not adhering to the orthodox views passed down by historians on many crucial issues of Nazi history, but his conclusions are certainly supported by evidence (as his embarrasingly copious notation attests) and should be read widely and commented on, if only to refute with stronger evidence by other capable historians, not effectively barred from publication, as his book has been here in the U.S.A. After all, wasn't it helpful to have Daniel Goldhagen's book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners," published so that other learned men (e.g. N. Finklestein) could forcefully demonstrate the folly of Goldhagen's ridiculous thesis? For this reason alone, if not for many others, Irving's book deserves to be widely read.

This is fascinating treatise! It is the first book by David Irving I have read, but there will certainly be others. Although the dust jacket pays the obligatory homage to Goebbels' "evil genius" and the "holocaust," the book itself is a highly refreshing and readable account. Irving is the first to actually use Goebbels' personal diaries, and what emerges is a picture of a quite understandable, albeit rather sad individual. Of far more interest to me personally, is the study of others in the Third Reich such as Hitler, Strasser, Streicher, and others as seen THROUGH GOEBBELS' EYES! Irving is a true objective historian who writes a well-researched and documented book without feeling he must dish up the sort of pap usually provided by the dominant media to those interested in this period of history in Europe.

This book is about a man who runs away from his father because the father does nothing but yell at him. This book is one of my favorites, even though I gave it a four, because it had a lot of action and it made me want to keep reading. Although I still think that the orignal was one of the better ones that have been written.

The book "Rip Van Winkle" is about a guy named Rip and his father, Dame, who thinks that Rip can never do anything right. Dame is always yelling at Rip. Dame really got mad when Rip sold part of the family property, so he went away for awhile and met some strangers and started to drink quite a lot of beer. You have to read the book to find out what happens next.

Several of these other reviews are for a different version of this story. The one I am reviewing is an "All Aboard Reading" version. It is definitely written for beginning readers (1st-3rd grade)

This version is a good introduction to the classic Washington Irving story. I do not like the way Rip's wife yells at him to get to work or how Rip is only "maybe...a little" sad when we finds out that his wife has died after his long sleep. Neither Rip nor his wife were the most exemplary characters! :-)

Still, that is the way the story was written and can be a good launch into a talk about character.

This book should be titled "Food Photography and other Commercial Assignments" or "The Sixty-dollar Disappointment" or even, "How to make Money off of things I already got paid for." "Still-Life" is misleading as it indicates an artistic level this book does not attain to. If you're into Advertising photography, Penn is unique and often humorous but if you're looking for images to challenge you or reflect on, you will be disappointed, as was I. As for his personal work in this book, the question is, how many skulls and cigarettes do you want to look at? My personal opinion is, if you do something like that, do it, do it well, and move on. In short, most are sharp, well-lit, and well-printed but shallow, like most Advertising.

Irving Penn is a great photographer and these images are wonderful. If you own other Irving Penn books, you probably have seen most of these. There's nothing wrong with mining old images and putting them in a book, but this is getting a little crazy.
Great images but if you have his other books, save you're money. If you want, you can buy me presents if the stuff is burning a hole in your pocket.

Irving Penn has been making still life photographs for many decades, and this collection is a good representation of his work. Elegant black and white compositions of the 1940s, detailed groupings since the 1980s, and his in-your-face color that we see frequently in Vogue today, there is some of everything. My only complaint is this: I would like to see more of his ads for Clinique. Only two are reproduced here. There are hundreds more, and most are more interesting that the two selected for this book.

After reading the wonderfully Irving's imaginative, captivating and sometimes zany books, The World According to Garp, A prayer for Owen Meany, The Cider House Rules, Hotel New Hampshire and Widow for One Year, Setting Free the Bears was a let down. The characters were extremely annoying and hard to stomach. After reading about Siggy for 150 pages I was ready to put the book down. I don't know much about motorcycles, and dodn't care to learn. I'll admit, maybe Setting Free the Bears just wasn't a book for me. Whatever you do, don't let reading this bland novel turn you off to John Irving's other novels. Most of them are supurb.

While not the most important or most well written novel of all time, "Setting Free the Bears" is one heck of a wild ride.

I am blown away that this book is a "first novel." It is a clear sign of Irving's greatness as an author that he could write something this complex and entertaining his first time out. It seems that among those who have read at least two of Irving's novels, there is usually one that they pick and passionately cling to as their favorite. Most then judge the rest of Irving books as falling short of the glory of their favorite. How unfortunate.

"Setting Free the Bears," when taken by itself, is more than worth reading. However, far too many people seem predisposed to shoot it down without finishing reading it...usually because it's supposedly "not as good as" (insert favorite Irving novel here). People may well be extra harsh on "Setting Free the Bears" because Irving's style is not yet fully formed here (it is something along the lines of Irving plus Jack Kerouac with a dash of Tom Robbins thrown in to boot).

All this notwithstanding, I am glad to have read this book; to have encountered characters such as Siggy, Graff, Gallen and the rest of this unique cast. The literary device of splitting up the book with Siggy's notebook is pure genius.

One of the reasons I enjoy Irving so much is his great sense of humor. There is plenty of it here (though much of it is of a darker kind than later Irving). In particular, I laughed out loud upon reading the scene where Siggy gets his "shave".

All in all, I give "Setting Free the Bears" a most hearty recommendation. Though it is not perfect by any means (I only know of one such book), it has great moments of beauty and humor. Well worth reading.

I suppose that if you liked Robin Williams as Garp or laugh at Pepsi commercials, this book may not be for you. Hoever, if you liked the imaginitive "lunacy and sorrow" of Garp and Hotel New Hampshire, and/or the rich world of Owen Meany, you will probably like Setting Free the Bears. I agree with readers who feel the zoo part of the story is slim and not very compelling, however, I disagree with those who say this is too unpolished and immature. Instead, the highly recommended flashback sections I think foreshadow the essence of "Pension Grillparzer", and show that Irving does have in him enough talent and imagination to write a novel on the order of "Confederacy of Dunces". Unfortunately for my tastes, I think that his later books relect more reminiscing and moralizing, although I am hoping for more farce and less political correctness in his future books. Bottom line: you MUST read the flashback chapters, but skipping the main story is optional.

I think that this book is a good one. The words are grouped into sections based on situations in which you will use the words. It's very convenient, and the illustrations on each page are memorable.It also provides hints on grammar at the end of the book. The problem is that there are no spanish-english translations. I was recommended this book before a 7-week stay in Mexico, and I will admit that I was forced to buy a real dictionary (the Oxford Compact Dictionary) after a few weeks in order to complete most of my literature homework, because the words I needed simply weren't available, or were too hard to find in this book. I would recommend this for a newer student to Spanish, as its illustrations and groupings make it easy to remember simple, oft-used words. But for any type of trip, or if you are going to be translating anything, I would recommend going with a traditional dictionary.

High quality paper and colorful drawings distract from the fact that this overpriced book is little more than a list of a mere 2000 words and phrases. They're presented by subject matter but seldom in the context of a sentence. Perhaps more valuable than the "dictionary" itself are the grammar hints at the end of book. Catering to people whose favorite subject in school may not be (have been) grammar in any language, the author's explanations are simple and clear. She says, " . . . you need to learn a little about grammar, that is, how you put words together and make sentences." Anyone who is serious about learning Spanish would better spend their dollars on real books.

This book is great! The funny illustrations, basic grammar and pronunciation explanations and the word choices make it a fabulous learning tool for people of all ages! The French version of this book helped to instill in me a great interest in foreign languages, and I must say this version is no different! I am in Spanish classes in high school, and this book really helps me with my vocabulary and my understanding of the language. Foreign language can be fun with the Usborne Language Books! Adios, and enjoy it!

John Irving might be one of America's favorite writers thanks to books as "A Prayer for Owen Meany", "The world acording to Garp" and "The Cider house rules" but he is not Stephen King whose work is easily identified by almost all modern mortals; so when John Irving writes a memoir about his relationship with the movie bussines, the story of the book is only interesting to those who know Irving's work by heart. The first chapters are a kind of apology to why he choosed the pro-choice theme as the center of his novel The Cider House Rules. He evokes his paternal grandfather who was an obstetrician and a big influence in his pro-choice attitude and those first chapters could be easily read by anyone, but when he beggins to recall his different relationships with directors and movie people in the making into pictures of each of his books you have to be a real Irving expert to keep reading it, because he takes for granted that you know all his works and saw all the movies that were made based on them. I'm a big Irving fan so I had no problem reading it, but when my mother asked me if she would like it I didn't recomend it because she only has read "A widow for one year". The last part of the book, the filming of The Cider house is particullary interesting after almost 6 months since the movie was in the theaters, and won an Oscar for the screenplay of Irving, because he wrote that he will considered the movie a failure if in the poster didn't appear Dr. Larch but the two young lovers: the love story wasn't what this story was about. Well, this book isn't what John Irving is about.

...I find John Irving highly entertaining and readable and like I have said in numerous occasions in this Readers' Reviewer Forum, he is one of my favorite writers.

Here is his personal account of what it took to get the great novel "The Cider House Rules" to be made into a movie, and although I feel that the novel is 'way better than the movie, the movie is an adequate presentation of the novel--or in other words, I agree with Irving that there are so many pieces of poignancy in the novel that somehow could not be translated in movie terms.

Irving starts this memoir with personal history of his grandfather, Dr. Fritz Irving, who, in spite of his pioneering advances in obstetrics and teaching at Harvard, all his coworkers and students--present day doctors, retired practioners and such--recalls a ribald poem as his enduring contribution. Go figure. John Irving's father was influential in antisceptic technique. The use of rubbergloves in operations (Hence present day hospital activity) came from Dr. Colin Irving. So the upshot is that a combination of Colin and Fritz was John's inspiration, nay, model for Dr. Larch...but we find that propelling the memoir is John wishing not to disappoint mostly Fritz in this total creative effort to get Cider in novel and movie form.

So the story is told of how first he pared the novel down to screen play. The initial version would have been 9 hours long. And there's quite an entertianing section of how he and his first director/collaborator Phillip Borsos got about the business of trying to get the darker version of the film together, one in which Paul Newman was to play the infamous Dr. Larch.

Then, when Borsos died, and the search for another director was in play, Irving tells of his history of making his novels into films. He goes thru what did and did not work with the adaptations of "Setting Free Of The Bears", "The World According to Garp" and "The Hotel New Hampshire", the various directors and actors involved in each and why his novels overall are difficult to capture in a movie. What I liked about this section is that he gives an insight of how research for his writing works in his decription of his work of "A Son of the Circus"...sometimes, serendipity kicks in.

When finally we are taken to his work with director Lasse Hallestrom, we get many of the ins and outs of why certain scenes worked in the movie the way they did--the section on Fuzzy and the young actor who played him is sriking--we get to hear Irving's take on the Homer/Candy relationship, we get why Dickens passages in certain scenes in the novel were excised, Irving talks about actors Caine, Maguire, Theron, Lindo and Badu, and we see if Irving ever felt as if he was coming to some sort of blessing from Dr. Fritz.

I can't tell you whether he has that blessing or not, but what I can tell you is that for me, Irving's movie memoir is just as enjoyable as his novels....find this, read it and enjoy it.

Most readers are aware that John Irving ("A Widow For One Year," "A Son of the Circus") is a best-selling writer of novels. What they may not know is that Irving has been involved with the "movie business" since his first novel, "Setting Free the Bears," was published in 1968. "My Movie Business" details Irving's interactions with Hollywood since then, but focuses mainly on his thirteen year attempt to bring his screenplay of "The Cider House Rules" to the Silver Screen. The result is an insightful look into the difficulties an artist endures while reshaping one medium (the novel) to fit another (films). Because "The Cider House Rules" (screenplay and novel) relies on the subject of abortion as a central issue, Irving starts his memoir by telling us about his grandfather, Dr. Frederick C. Irving. Not only was Dr. Irving chief of staff at Boston Lying-In (one of the world's leading obstetrical hospitals in the early 1900's), he was a writer who cobbled up numerous limericks (many of which live on through medical students) and published three books. Irving's quotes from his grandfather's reveal a "Victorian prose" style that (along with the novels of Charles Dickens) belie an early influence. In writing about grandfather, Irving succinctly sums up his own creed as a novelist: "Grandfather was a man of extreme erudition and unaccountable, even inspired, bad taste; as such, he would have been a terrific novelist, for a good novel is at once sophisticated in its understanding of human behavior and utterly rebellious in its response to the conventions of good taste." Irving uses most of the first nine chapters to educate the reader on the history of abortions in America, detailing his grandfather's personal involvement as well. The author even goes so far as to take a stand on the Right-to-Life movement: "Let doctors practice medicine. Let religious zealots practice their religion, but let them keep their religion to themselves." From there, the author delves into the business of drafting screenplays for Hollywood. It is, Irving realizes, a business of compromise. During the course of developing the film and writing the screenplay, Irving works with no less than four directors (the last one, Lasse Halstrom, saw the film to completion). And in order to make more room for the relationship between Dr. Larch and Homer Wells, Irving has to excise at least one major character and lose all of Homer's history as an orphan. Forced to cut more portions of the film (to make it more stream-lined), he finds that all attempts at humor are lost. As Irving writes, "...these scenes were a comic interlude that would have...reminded my readers of the tone of my novels." In typical Irving fashion, there are digressions, albeit interesting ones. Such as the story about his relationship with Irving Kirshner, who was to direct "Setting Free the Bears"; or that Paul Newman was approached to play Dr. Larch, but was uncomfortable with scenes involving an incinerator; and Irving includes his feelings about the films of his novels "The World According to Garp" and "The Hotel New Hampshire." (The only noticeable exclusion is any mention of "Simon Birch," the Disney version of "A Prayer for Owen Meaney," from which Irving disassociated himself). Candid, humorous, insightful and informative, "My Movie Business" is a rare peek inside the creative mind of one of America's most inventive novelists - and Hollywood's newest screenwriter (Nov. 1999, Kansas City Star).

Long-time fans of John Irving have high expectations of the author. Unfortunately, many will be disappointed by The Fourth Hand. Despite a few moving passages, this book doesn't pack anything close to the punch of his better work.

At first I was intrigued by the quasi-omniscient narrative style of The Fourth Hand. It's light, easy, almost conversational---a departure from the style of his previous novels. The writing is crisp and assured. I wondered how the narrative style would lend itself to the telling of the story. Then, as the plot unfolded, I realized that Irving was treading on a lot of old territory: the male protagonist who bumbles through life (as a sexual magnet, of course), the loss of something dear, entangled relationships. While these plot devices can be made fresh by a compelling story, they come out feeling flat here. The characters are poorly developed and the plot twists are very predictable. It is difficult to care about the two characters in the love story, or even to understand their attraction to each other.

In all, a big disappointment, all the more so because we know Irving is capable of much better.

John Irving's "A Prayer for Owen Meany" is my favorite book. It was my introduction to the author who quickly established himself as my (and I'm sure many others) favorite writer. How disappointing it is to say his newest book is merely okay. It's the story of Patrick Wallingford, a hunky televison journalist who, while covering an assignment, has his hand bitten off by a lion. The world watches in horror, and it starts off a chain of events involving his surgeon, and a woman who wants her husband to donate his hand to the newscaster, even though the husband is nowhere near dying. Irving has been called a modern Dickens because of his wonderfully colorful and complex characters. They weren't here for me. I liked Patrick butI didn't really care about him, and his Doctor's story which was such a part of the first hundred or so pages, disappeared in the last half of the book.Ultimately it redeemed itself by the end, but I wasn't racing to get there either. At just over three hundred pages it's also one of the shortest book he's written since "Setting Free The Bears" and "The Water Method Man." If you're a fan, I'm sure you'll want to read it regardless, and considering the source, it's hardly a bad novel. However if you've never read Irving before, I'd suggest starting with either "The Cider House Rules", or "A Prayer For Owen Meany." There you can see his true genius as a writer.

Contrary to typical long-time Irving fan opinion, based on other reviews written here, I want to announce to everyone that I absolutely adored this one! I've always loved John Irving's books, and wondered why he didn't have mainstream appeal. I think this one could change all of that! This was a very funny, touching story about a frustrated second-rate TV journalist longing to do some "meaningful" reporting. Patrick Wallingford lost his left hand to a hungry lion while on assignment, beds down most every woman he meets and falls helplessly in love with the widow of the donor of his transplanted hand. Sounds like typical Irving material, however, it is written in a style and manner not-so-typical of his previous novels; specifically, this is light and airy, easy-to-read, which is a nice break from the norm and not what I have come to expect from John Irving. I found it to be refreshingly uncomplicated and such a clever, amusing story! I applaud Mr. Irving's courage to break away from custom, as he has here, offering readers this charming pleasure. Though some fans, as evidenced by previous reviewers, may disagree and be disappointed with him; this is surely one fan who realizes what tremendous talent Mr. Irving possesses and can fully appreciate it in various forms!!! This one I will recommend to all!