I'm using this book for my first college physics course. I find the text very dry and boring, and the problems at the end of each chapter are confusing and not well explained. For example, I'm doing my homework and one of the problems is "speculate on how gaseous diffusion works." Just that, does not explain what gaseous diffusion is. As with many of the problems in this book, the first thing that comes into my mind is "what the hell are you talking about??" Another question asks me to compare the length of something to "the diameter of a molecule." Huh? What molecule? Are all molecules the same diameter? And how the heck am I supposed to know what that diameter is? Gah. I do not recommend this book unless you like being confused.

Also, the discussion questions at the end of each chapter are very nice, but the answers are not provided anywhere. So how are you supposed to know if you answered them correctly? And another thing I really hate about this book, it will say "and why do you think this happens?" and then not tell you why. About 90% of the time my answer is "I have no clue why that happened." :/ This book makes me hate physics.

This book is very well organized. I especially appreciated the "problem-solving strategy" snippets, which were very helpful. All the diagrams are very clear. The problems are written well; i.e., the reader can understand what the problem is asking. Lastly, there is so much physics in this book! There is enough physics for two full years.

I've used both this book and Halliday's Extended 6th edition for my course on Physics. My conclusion, chapter after chapter, has been clear to me: this is the perfect book for a general course on Physics at university level. The language is simple to understand (Halliday too), the figures and tables are well done and useful (Halliday too), the content is thorough (Halliday: not so much !). Yes, this last is the striking thing: it's thorough and reaches a level of detail that is not a common feature for these kind of Physics books.
The problems set is well balanced both in content and number (an average of 85-90 for each chapter), and as usual odd-numbered problems' solutions are provided.
I've tried this book without anybody advising it to me, now I'm happy I've had it for the exam.

First things first, it is a very nice novel, but very hard to follow. Personally speaking, sometimes I couldn't get very exactly what Henry James was trying to say, but I could understand the situation as a whole and be able to move on.

As everybody knows, Hery James is not an easy writer. His appeal is very difficult and complex although it doesn't read very old-fashioned. The story is very interesting and timeless, because it deals with passion, money and betrayal. The books follows Kate Croy and her beloved Merton Densher when then both get involved - in different degrees and with different interests- with the beautiful rich and sick American heiress Milly Theale.

Most of the time, the book kept me wondering what would come next and its result and the grand finale. But, that doesn't mean I was fully understand its words. As I said, I was just feeling what was going on. As a result, i don't think I was able to get all the complexity of Henry James. Maybe, if I read this book again in the futures, it will be clearer.

There is a film version of this novel made in 1997, and starring Helena Bonham Carter, Allison Elliot and Linus Roach, directed by Iain Softley. Carter is amazing as always! Kate is a bit different from the book, she is not only a manipulative soul, but, actually, she is a woman trying to find happiness. One character says of Kate, "There's something going on behind those beautiful lashes", and that's true for most female leads created by James. Watching this movie helped me a lot, after finishing reading the novel.

Two responses to previous reviews: it was written one hundred years ago, so it would of course be somewhat dated. Second, you should perhaps READ THE ENTIRE BOOK before you attempt to review the text.

The text follows the fascinating development of a manipulation: Milly Theale, an American woman, enters the London scene, endowed with prodigious wealth, youth, and beauty, and several characters vie for her affection. It's a standard James plot in that way. Much like Portrait of a Lady, the wealthy American is exploited by her European acquaintances. Kate Croy convinces her lover Merton Densher to take advantage of Milly's interest in him, and to go so far as to attempt to marry the young American for her money. She is, after all, fatally and tragically ill. James brilliantly depicts the struggle between Densher, Kate Croy, her powerful Aunt Maud, the piquant Susan Shepherd, Sir Luke, and Lord Mark, and his characteristically enigmatic ending does not disappoint. James manages to breathe life into these odd characters in a way that so few writers can: his genius is for complex character, and this book embodies that genius at its height.

The trouble with the book, however, is that it does not qualify as a "light read." The pace is incredibly slow - deliberately slow, of course. It is a novel about decisions, and the development of those decisions constitutes the bulk of the novel. James's prose does lack the terseness of a Hemingway, but the latter writer often fails to capture the nuances that James so elaborately evokes in his careful prose.

James, like Faulkner, is not for the faint of heart. Some of his work is more accessible; readers in search of a more palatable James should look to Washington Square, What Maisie Knew, or his popular masterpiece, The Turn of the Screw. This novel does not fit easily into a category, and its principal interest is that very quality of inscrutability. It's not really a "British" or an "American" novel but contains elements of both. It's not "Modern" or "Victorian" but both. Originally published in 1902, it's also not easy to include him in either the 19th or the 20th century. He appears to be writing in both.

In short, then, it's not a light-hearted novel and the prose can be challenging at times. But I believe that the effort of reading this book is well rewarded.

I've carried on a love-hate affair with The Wings of the Dove for more than 20 years. In that period of time, I started the novel (the same beautiful little Signet paperback edition) at LEAST 15 times and could never get past page 30 or so. But it kept nagging at me to read it. Last summer, I plowed through its dense prose thicket, and I felt as though I were peering through a glass darkly. Several times I felt like tossing it aside. I've studied Enlish and literature all my life and yet I had one heckuva time with those daunting banks of prose. But I'm glad I read it. It's masterful. Worth all the effort. Those scintillating scenes in Venice. Nothing like them! I just read The Golden Bowl, another difficult but rewarding book. There are astonishing scenes in it, like when the husband of the busy-body watches her in a pensive mood as if she were in the middle of a lake, coming closer. It's just an extraordinary scene! I love early James too, like that perfect jewel of a book, Washington Square. Sometimes, great as the late books are, I really do think they lose something of the wonderful clarity James achieved earlier. There are still a few scenes in Wings and Bowl, for instance, in which I have NO IDEA what James was trying to express. Talk about super subtle! But do make the effort, folks, they're incredible books.

These last words of Burroughs will have great poignancy for his fans, but might not be all that meaningful to the casual reader. He writes about mundane everyday occurrences, memories of his eventful life, makes extensive literary references and provides loving descriptions of his cats. For me, the Burroughs magic is here in abundance and this book helps to complete the big picture of his life and work. It's not all smooth sailing, though, as his repetitive railings against the "war on drugs" can become a bit tedious. Obscure references are explained in the explanatory Notes: I was interested to see he was a member of IOT (International Order of Thanateros - see the books Liber Kaos and Liber Null & Psychonaut by Peter Carroll) and friends with V. Vale (See Re/Search Publications like Industrial Culture Handbook and Incredibly Strange Music). Some sections are funny, some are sad (especially where he writes about Joan Vollmer and his family) and some very interesting from a literary perspective. There are powerful passages of great beauty that stick in the mind. His love for his cats and for other animals like lemurs is very moving and shows that he may have been larger than life, but in the end he was very human. So, to wrap it up: Last Words is essential reading for the Burroughs enthusiast and the Burroughs scholar, to finally understand the man and his writing. Phew ... I am relieved, to know how much he loved some people and his pets, in the end.

It will be good in the future to see the orginal notes--one really wonders what has been edited out to protect the image. Any journal is a problem to read--but when the editing is done by those with the most to protect (family, lovers, etc), historians must be really concerned. Probably not worth buying new, but it will be out in paper soon. Get the cheap copy.

Touching, amusing entries in the life of an intellectual pioneer.

Burroughs revealed so much in his fiction but the journals are a more probing way we can peer into his mind and see what he was thinking in the last days.

One often wonders where good psychedelicists are headed in their final corporeal days, so works like this provide a certain insight not gleaned from their main body of work.

Burroughs was quite a character.

This book is one in Zondervan's Counterpoints Series, which presents the view of various (mostly) Evangelical writers on theological subjects. This book is sorely needed because Evangelical apologists have had a history of writing critically and polemically of one another (one thinks of the Clark/Van Til debate), with the result of the layman having a difficult time deciding among the various positions.

The problem with this book is either that the writers are too timid or are more irenic than their label would indicate. There are three authors who present variations on the traditional approach: the classical method (Craig), the evidential method (Habermas), and the cumulative case method (Feinberg). These approaches are quite similar, although some differences do arise. When the reader gets to John Frame's presuppositional method, he expects to get a starkly different approach. After all, Van Til was notorious for attacking "traditional" apologetics as "Roman Catholic" or "Arminian." Well, Frame tells us that he agrees with most of what Craig writes. The final writer, Kelly James Clark (who represents the "Reformed epistemological method"), says the same thing.

Perhaps the editor could have selected a follower of Gordon Clark (a rationalist who denied the proofs of God's existence) or a fideist to present a contrasting apologetic method.

Before I write anything, I would like to suggest that the reader of "Five Views on Apologetics" first read "Faith Has Its Reasons" by Kenneth Bow and Robert Bowman, Jr. (NavPress). Doing so will give you a good overview of the methodology taken by the different positions; it would be akin to reading a preview of this afternoon's football game, with a summary of the players and the strategy that will be used fully explained.

Overall "Five Views on Apologetics" is worthwhile for the serious-minded Christian. I do like these "View" books because they allow all sides to take part in a dialogue that certainly has more potential to get things accomplished rather than a free-for-all live debate. All sides get to give their side with succeeding rebuttals. This book certainly had some lively discussion as all of the participants had their own ideas of how apologetics should be handled. The five positions were: William Lane Craig (classical); Gary Habermas (evidential); Paul Feinberg (cumulative); John Frame (presuppositional); Kelly James Clark (Reformed Epistemological).

However, there were three weak points that I need to point out. First, I'm not sure the debaters were the best representatives of the positions they defended. For instance, Craig could be described as a combination classicist/evidentialist. Much of what he said could have been written by Habermas, as even Habermas admitted. Feinberg had, I believe, the weakest argumentation, as I just never did track with his thoughs. Meanwhile, Frame certainly has his own twist on Van Til's ideas, yet these twists make his position a "kinder, gentler" version of Reformed apologetics and thus is not truly representative of Van Tillians--and there are plenty of these thinkers out there. And Clark might as well let Alvin Plantinga write his section since Clark seemed to mention Plantinga in practically every paragraph.

Second, it is apparent that much of the differences quickly became similarities by the end of the book. In fact, Craig even mentioned how he appreciated the similarities the debaters had. If this is so, then why write the book in the first place? In fact, more than once a respondent to another's position declared, in essence, "Why, that could have been me writing! I think--fill in the name--really is a--fill in the position--like I am." This attitude prevailed through much of the book, especially in the concluding comments. (At the same time, perhaps we should rejoice that in a book of Christian division, so many similarities could be found!)

Finally, I think the book got a little too technical in some areas, especially by several of the writers. I think Craig is a master philosopher, and I've seen Bayes' Theorem before, but I'm still scratching my head trying to understand several pages of formulas he put together to support one of his points. Perhaps with some personal explanation I could better understand, but I'm thinking many reading this book would have been totally lost (as I humbly admit I was). Although I didn't agree with his stance, I thought John Frame did the best in explaining his philosophy in the simplist, most logical way possible.

Despite what I feel are its shortcomings, I do recommend this book for the serious student who is interested in apologetics. I enjoyed it very much and was certainly enlightened about the role apologetics takes in the Christian's life.

Few books have seriously tackled apologetic method, or how Christianity should be defended rationally. The last book I know of that surveyed options in this regard was Gordon Lewis, "Testing Christianity's Truth Claims" (Moody Press, 1976; republished by University Press of America).

This book presents five different approaches, each represented by one of its exponents: Classical Apologetics (William Lane Craig), Evidentialism (Gary Habermas), Culumulative Case Method (Paul Feinberg), Presuppositionalism (John Frame), and Reformed Epistemology (Kelly James Clark).

Much ground is covered concerning the Bible's approach to apologetics, where apologetic arguments should begin, how certain arguments for Christianity are, and so on. I will simply make a few comments.

The presentations by Craig and Habermas are the most worthwhile because they are the most intellectual rigorous and well-documented. They also tend to agree with each on most things and reinforce each others views. While I tend to favor a cumulative case method (influenced by E.J. Carnell and Francis Schaeffer, but with more appreciation for natural theology), Feinberg's comments are the weakest by far. He never mentions the leading exponent of this view in our generation (Carnell) nor Carnell's apt and well-published student (and my esteemed colleague), Dr. Gordon Lewis. Not one word about either one! His comments are brief, his documentation is thin, and he fails to advance anything very creative or helpful, I'm afraid. A better person should have been chosen, such as Gordon Lewis. Frame gives his "kinder, gentler" version of Cornelius Van Til, which still suffers from the same kinds of problems--most notably the fallacy of begging the question in favor of Christianity. Nevertheless, the notion of a "transcendental argument" for theism is a good one, but it should not carry all the weight of apologetics. Clark's material is philosophically well-informed (one would expect this of a student of Alvin Plantinga!), but apologetically timid. Clark almost sounds like a skeptic at times.

A few bones more bones to pick. The editor refers to Francis Schaeffer as a presuppositionalist. This is false; he was a verificationist with more in common with Carnell than with Van Til. Gordon Lewis's fine essay on Schaeffer's apologetic method in "Reflections on Francis Schaeffer" makes this very clear. None of the writers address the great apologetic resources found in Blaise Pascal. I also found at least two grammatical errors.

Nevertheless, as a professor of philosophy at a theological seminary who teaches apologetics, I found this volume very helpful and useful. But let's not get so involved in methodological concerns that we fail to go out in the world and defend our Christian faith as objectively true, existentially vital, and rationally compelling (Jude 3)!

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy Denver Seminary

I am a dental student taking gross anatomy, and like some of the folks who posted reviews below, my anatomy professor listed Grant's as the text to be used for the course. Put simply, Netters is a vastly better atlas, particularly for someone who has never taken gross anatomy before.

My issues with Grant's are many, ranging from the drawings to the way the index is organized. From start to finish, the book has some serious shortcomings which create substantial inconveniences for a new anatomy student.

Many of the drawings in Grant's atlas are far more lifelike than they are explanatory. It is almost as if the illustrator's intent was to show what one would see when dissecting, rather than explain what is what and where it is. This is particularly evident when dealing with the head/neck region (which, unfortunately, is a complicated area we focus on heavily) and the routes of the cranial nerves. The small footnotes at the bottom of the pages are almost useless, as it is difficult to determine what specifically they are referring to. There are very few boldfaced references (such as those you'd see in a cell biology textbook) that allow you to quickly locate a description of the item you're trying to understand in the picture, hence, you find yourself having to read the entire thing. Netters has almost no text, yet the drawings are done in a way that clearly explain what's going on, thus no need for text.

Another serious issue with the Grant's is the index. The major entries are not in boldface text. This is such a small detail (it wouldn't have cost them a cent more to make) that makes locating things much quicker. For example, there are hundreds of items under the entry "Nerves", yet "Nerves" is not in bold-faced text. That is inexcusable, considering the fact that most of the structures we study are muscles, nerves, arteries, fascias, processes, fossas, i.e. things that must be found under major entries. Believe it or not, it makes finding a topic in the index a real hassle. There's nothing to distinguish major entries from the items found beneath them, except for the indentation.

Although some of the problems with Grant's are small, they cause problems when you have to repeatedly deal with them. Anatomy is tough enough as is without having inconveniences from your atlas. On occasion, you'll find a picture in Grant's that is more descriptive than Netter's, but rarely. In general, Grant's is a lowsy book, which should be used only as a supplement to Netters in cases where you want a more lifelike picture.

I used Grant's Atlas of Anatomy during my gross anatomy class in medical school because it was the one recommended by the staff. It was fairly good, but not great. The illustrative pages on the twelve cranial nerves are perhaps the best. A few years after finishing that class, I found that Frank Netter M.D. had finally come out with an atlas of human anatomy. If your budget is limited (and most medical students have limited finances), buy Frank Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy because it is hands down the best atlas available. I wish it would have been around when I was struggling through first year gross anatomy class. Grant's Atlas may supplement it to some degree if you are looking for a second presentation for variety, but Netter's is without question unequaled. Beyond this, if you ever decide to specialize in a medical field involving surgery - neurosurgery, gynecology, general surgery, orthopedics etc. - you will have opportunity to continue using Netter's A! tlas after medical school, whereas Grant's Atlas isn't very good in this regard. In short: buy Netter. If you want another text to go with the first, Grant's Atlas isn't bad.

I'm a student of second year BMMD. Anatomy is one of the difficult subject but Grant's atlas of anatomy helps me learn and understand. This book shows clearly illustration.

Henry James' work, Washington Square, is simply a love story with psychological undertones. In it, the main character Catherine Sloper falls deeply in love with a handsome suitor, Morris Townsend. The irony here is that Catherine is a plain girl who possesses a "poor dumb eloquence." As well, besides possessing great wealth of her own, Catherine has an enormous inheritance from her deceased mother. Conversely, Morris is a handsome, debonair suitor whose financial situation may only be described as relative poverty. His charm is enjoyed by almost everyone but Catherine's father, Dr. Austin Sloper. Suspicious of Morris' motives, Dr. Sloper accuses him of marrying Catherine for her fortune and vows to remove all inheritances in her name should the union occur. These circumstances create a bitter relationship between father and daughter, as Catherine must eventually choose between her family and fortune and her lover. In her struggle, however, Catherine gains an admirable strength of character, which is central to the message of the story.

As examined through a brief plot summary, Washington Square contains no clear-cut revelations in its message. Upon careful investigation of the characters, however, it seems that James wants the reader to decide whether Morris' love is true or not. In other words, in terms of the main character's conflict, should Catherine have chosen her father or her lover? In the end, James has Catherine choose neither, thus carefully creating a plot that can be scrutinized from different perspectives. With each of Morris' actions, it is unclear whether he does it out of love for Catherine or out of greed for her money. The author achieves this effect by judicious word use and careful insertions of flaws in the characters of Morris Townsend and Dr. Sloper.

Washington Square was a novel I read for school after having visited Washington Square itself many times. Having said that, although it's an excellent read for literary analysis, it's also a rather dry novel. For a student wanting to complete a literary analysis and enjoy a good book at the same time, this is not good news, thus the 3.5 stars. However, its strong points are the psychological power and the keen insight James has on human nature. Read it for those things, if anything.

This relatively short novel is a wonderful way to become acquainted with the writing style of Henry James.Washington Square is much more accessable than some of his other works.
The plot revolves around a young woman who is living in Washington Square with her widowed physician father and his sister. The daughter Catherine is not considered particularly attractive by her father so that when a handsome young man begins to court her the father is imediately suspicious of his motives since Catherine is his only heir.
The tension between the father and his daughter is offset by the bond that the Aunt develops with the young man .

James allows us to perceive the motivations of each of these primary characters and we come to recognise that Catherine is in fact in danger of being deceived. The father who is not a very sympathetic character is insightful enough to do what is necessary in his view to prevent this.

The characters are all well concieved and remain true to type throughout the story.

A bonus is the setting of old New York and the scenes of a growing city are vividly drawn. Imagine a time when moving "uptown" meant moving to what is now the Village.

Overall I really enjoyed this and would highly recommend it

This book by Henry James is as different as can be from his longer works, but it has its own charm. The charactization is quite complex for a novella. It's just unfortunate that Catherine is so unredeemably staid. I realize that quite a few women chose to live a life alone in those days, but she seemed quite plodding to me. She does develop into a spinster that seems to enjoy that state. And Morris is quite the cad, but we the readers are never in any doubt as to that. The doctor father is another story, He's so right-minded that it's difficult to imagine anyone could be that stubborn. And the widowed aunt is a treasure - silly, manipulative and oh so romantic. This novella is written like a play since there are only four main characters, and most of the action takes place in the house on Washington Square. I really think this book looks deceptively simple, but it is not as simple as it appears. I enjoyed the story.

Comedy, in the strictest sense, is concerned with ultimate forgiveness and reconciliation. In Shakespeare's play, "The Tempest," the protagonist, Prospero, must come to terms with his brother Antonio, who conspired to have him driven from his duchy in Milan, and with the world of social interaction in general.

Magic, Power, and Conspiracy are the foundational thematic elements through which Shakespeare effects Prospero's reintegration into human society. Thrown into a boat with his infant daughter Miranda, Prospero comes to live on a nearly deserted island in the Mediterranean Sea. Prospero's concentration on developing his proficiency in Magic caused him to become alienated from his political and social responsibilities in Milan, leading to his expulsion. His brother Antonio conspired with Alonso, king of Naples, and seized the power Prospero forsook for book-learning.

Prospero hears of a sea voyage undertaken by his enemies, and, using his Magic, whips up a storm, a great tempest, which causes his enemies to be shipwrecked on his island. On the island, Prospero exercises total power - over the education of his daughter, his slave, the deformed Caliban, and now over his enemies. He engages Ariel, a sprite, to orchestrate the division of the traveling party, and to put them through various trials to exact vengeance and ultimately, submission from them.

"The Tempest" is a fine effort from Shakespeare, but the power relations in the play are problematic. Prospero's insistent dominance over the action of the play is extremely troubling. Although he is presented as a benevolent character, Prospero's relationships with Miranda, Caliban, and Ferdinand, King Alonso's son, complicate his overall worth as a man and an authority figure. The dynamic between the slave Caliban and the drunks, Trinculo and Stephano, is also very unsettling.

Overall, "The Tempest" remains a whimsical flight of imagination, while exploring intriguing themes of education, political intrigue, and romance. Certainly, it is still a well-constructed and entertaining play after nearly four hundred years.

One of the best works by Shakespeare and also his final full play (most likely), The Tempest draws on many elements that Shakespeare used in his earlier works and adds a comic twist. Shakespeare doesn't spend much time on character development in the Tempest, other than Prospero and possibly Caliban (e.g. Miranda is the ideal chaste woman, Trinculo & Stephano are lowly schemers). However, Prospero is extremely well developed and the simple aspects of the other characters do not detract from the story at all. There are many different levels of meaning at work in the play...some see it as a pro-colonialist diatribe, others see it as Shakespeare's own swan song, where Prospero himself is based on the Bard, and Prospero's surrendering of his magical powers is representative of Shakespeare giving up his craft. I read it as both, and a million other things, and that is one of the great things about the play...it can be read in so many different ways. The structure of the play seems almost chaotic at first, with so many things going on at once. However, if you read the play over again, or read some of the essays contained in the Signet Edition, it becomes much more clear, although still open-ended. The Signet Edition is excellent, and Signets in general are. Buy this over the Folger Library editions...the footnotes here are much easier to work with and make the reading much smoother overall.

Yes, there is once again murder brewing in the play of Shakespeare but only in a comical way. Not able to claim to be a Shakespeare expert, I have only read four of his other plays. However, it is in my opinion that this be the best one, most likely because it is a comedy and is much lighter that his other plays. This classic play tells the story of the former Duke of Milan who was wrongly dethrowned by his brother. Using his magical power that originally expelled him from Milan, he is able to bring the King (Alonso), Alonso's brother (Sebastian),his own brother (Antonio) and other servants to the his mostly vacant island. Ordering about the spirit Ariel, he manipulates his way into an interesting and funny situation. There is much to gain from reading this wonderful play which is one of Shakespeares last. I recommend this book to Shakespeare lovers and even more so, to variety readers such as myself. You won't be dissapointed by the plays light mood which is much better than Shakespeares serious murder stories.

William James is undoubtedly a great thinker. And he undoubtedly loves life, and loves mankind. This much is clear in his work - his sense of humor, insight, and approach to his topic are all evidence of this. James, however, cannot rightly be called a philosopher. While his ideas are insightful, and the abundance of them proves him a great thinker, his method of presentation and discussion falls short of the demanding science of western philosophy. James does not create a foundation of simple ideas and build upon them; he simply introduces a broad idea, and then does not even support it, but assumes that it is self evident.

Despite his flaws as a philosopher however, his work is a pleasure to read and, knowing its flaws, one can enjoy this book for what it is - a series of ideas and thoughts that do form a rather elegant approach to life, if not a true philosophy.

Depending on who you ask, american philosophy is an oxymoron. But the pragmatic schools of James, Pierce, and Dewey are truly a challenging and significant to philosophy as a whole.

James has a very peculiar way of viewing experience, for a philosopher, and a sort of colossal respect for truth that rivals Kant's. This book approaches in a very systematic way the problems that we have dealing with truth and its inherent elusiveness. Both Empiricist and Rationalist philosophical attitudes run aground when dealing with reality; certain aspects of both are better at dealing with particular facets of experince. That is, some of the "work" better than other in certain situations. (As James notes, Hegel or Kant have done little to advance any scientific knowledge-- but a wholly empirical philosophy can give offer us no end to strive towards that we will find humanly compelling) James makes the middle road between the two, and offers the philosphically radical suggestion that the closest to any "Truth" as a big T we are going to get is going to be through our examination of how particular notions of truth produce for us better explanations of experience. In fact (as James later elaborates) the best philosophy we can find is one that will be able to unstiffen the mind an be able to deal with various different truths. Plural.

If you can't see from this outlook, James's notion of philosophy is profoundly democratic. His philosophy is one of the best attempts I've ever encountered to form some sort of coherent system that accomodates mutually exclusive forms of truth. And such a system, also, is American Democracy.

The reviewers below fall into an error on this account by saying James apologizes for scoundrels. He does not; in fact, he was thoroughly anti-imperialist and in case we havn't noticed Nazism and Stalinism are systems built on Monistic systems of Truth. Look it up. Read the book, it's a classic, maybe the classic, of American Philosophy. A fitting testament to james' enduring genius

What follows is an example of the greatness of this book:

From Introduction by Bruce Kuklick to William James' Pragmatism.

James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of 'true' by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if in the long run it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "Cash Value" was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satisfactorily in this environment. In this sense the pragmatic theory of truth applied Darwinian ideas in philosophy; it made survival the test of intellectual as well as biological fitness. If what was true was what worked, then scientific truths were just those beliefs found to be workable. And we could investigate religion's claim to truth in the same manner. The enduring quality of religious beliefs throughout recorded history and in all cultures gave indirect support for the view that such beliefs worked. James also argued directly that such beliefs were satisfying; they enabled us to lead fuller, richer lives and were more viable than their alternatives. Religious beliefs were expedient in human existence, just as scientific beliefs were.

This book used to be the bible of image formats. Unfortunately, this bible is starting to show its age. Depending on what your interest is in graphics, you might find all the formats you need or be really disappointed. Most major image formats (like those used in web pages) are in there, but some very important ones that have appeared in the past 5 or so years are missing: Avid's OMFI, Softimage .pic, Maya's .iff, Pixar .tx, etc. The lack of an extensions index is an area where the book fails for me as an encyclopedia. While the final index does lists extension names, having a separate index for them would be nicer. So that if you had a file with extension .pic which you cannot read, you could easily figure out what formats it could correspond to. This is a problem with AVI, which is listed as Microsoft RIFF. Funny thing the book mentions that most people know AVIs by their extensions, but unless you look in the index, you will think it was missing. Still, some Microsoft image formats are missing (.ico files, for example). Other contradictions like those are listing the format for Pixar's .rib files, but not for their .tx files. Yes, the book also has descriptions of several popular non-image formats, such as 3D scene & object formats (Wavefront, Inventor, Radiance, etc), which can be either an annoyance or an added bonus depending on what you are looking. Animation formats (Quicktime, etc) are introduced but not covered in detail and given web links to search for more information. Formats not covered in the book are VRML, font formats (TrueType, etc), or Audio formats. If you are looking for source code or a library you can use to plug into your application, you will be very disappointed. The CD-ROM is just a web reprinting of all the info in the book, and the only software provided is Mosaic, a first & now slowest web browser, which in this day and age of Netscape and IE, is a big annoyance and a waste of disk space (you have to install it, since the installer looks for it & pages are named .ht_ instead of .htm or .html!). On a more positive note, the book offers beginners a good introduction to coding image loaders -- warning & providing solutions to problems such as byte ordering, alignment, etc. RLE encoding is given a very thorough description with several of its possible variations. The principles of other types of encoding (LZW, Huffman, CCITT, JPEG & Fractal) are described but not in so much detail. Wavelets are not even mentioned. In summary, most of the information is nothing you cannot get on the web if you spend enough time searching. The book & CD needs to be updated for the new millenium and since it is already pretty heavy, I would vote to split it in two: one for image formats and one for 3D formats.

My only negative comment: The section on GIFs doesn't discuss animated GIFs. There's just a little note that "the format supports multiple images in a file, but this is rarely used". If only they knew back then...

I've kept this book next to my computer desk for quite some time because I consider it an essential reference. There has never been a question about graphic file formats that I haven't been able to answer using this book. I feel the authors have done an outstanding job describing everything from the basics to complex file format features in a language that someone who isn't an artist can understand. As an application developer, I often need to know what's going on behind the scenes and this book makes everything clear.

This book is getting a tad dated, but still extremely valuable and a good buy. I'd love to see the authors update it. I know that I'd be the first in line to get the next edition.

This play can be read as anti-semitic. In fact, it's pretty hard to defend it from such charges. Shylock is a pretty rotten character and the fact that he is jewish is difficult to overlook (particularly since the other characters mention it on pretty much EVERY page). However, I think it is important to mention that the "heroes" of this play do not necessarily have to be interpreted as heroes. They are by no means perfect and there are many subtle (and some not-so-subtle) instances within the text in which their biases against ANYONE unlike them is illustrated. If one reads the play this way, then Shylock becomes more of a tragic figure rather than an absolutely heartless villain. I don't know. My feelings about this are mixed. There are a few funny parts of this play and the language is, as always, beautiful. The theme of putting a price on human beings is one which has been explored numerous times since. Overall, it is enjoyable, but perhaps not so much so as some of the other comedies. Do not read this play without having read a few others by Shakespeare first. It is an excellent play, but not his best and not his most enjoyable either.

This is a wonderful play - and unless you have seen it or read it you don't know it at all. That's because everything the popular culture tells us about this play is false (for example; how many of you think this play is about a merchant named Shylock? ;-)

The Merchant of Venice is a lively and happy morality tale. Good triumphs over bad - charity over greed - love over hate.
There is fine comedy. Portia is one of Shakespeare's greatest women (and he ennobled women more than any playwright in history). There are moments of empathy and pain with all the major characters. There is great humanity and earthiness in this play. These things are what elevate Shakespeare over any other playwright in English history.

Plays should be seen - not read. I recommend you see this play (if you can find a theater with the courage and skill to do it). But if it is not playing in your area this season - buy the book and read it.

After reading most of the other reviews here, I am fully aware that most of the reviewers didn't read carefully enough (or watch carefully enough if they saw the play.) Now, I'm not saying its not open for different interpretations, but there is one thing I would really like to get straight.

I read MoV for a Bar Mitzvah project on Anti-Semitism. Naturally, my sympathies went to Shylock. However, even if i were Christian, i still would've favored Shylock. What many people believe is that Shylock is a cold hearted ruthless person and only wanted to get back at Antonio because Antonio was a Christian.

Not true. Shylock specifically says something along the lines off, "Why should I lend money to you? You spit on me, and call me a Jewish dog!" I'm not saying that Shylock was a good guy, but I am saying that he is not the villain.

In fact, the "Merchant of Venice," in this story is actually Shylock, not Antonio, contrary to popular belief. My thoughts on the story was that Shylock requested a pound of Antonio's flesh because he did not trust Antonio. Who would trust someone that spat on him? The fact is, Antonio doesn't pay him back in the end.

Now, there's always something else we have to put into consideration. Would the judge had given the "spill one ounce of Christian blood" verdict at the end if Shylock were not a Jew?

This is the mark of a great play. A play that really gets you thinking. But I encourage you, I beg of you, that when you read it or see it, please do not hold Shylock up to being a cold hearted villain. Hold Antonio up to that image. (joking, of course, Antonio's not a bad guy, he's just not a good guy.)