Sherlock Holmes has been an obsession of mine since adolescence. When I came across this relatively expensive set of books in junior high school, I ran home and did every chore in the world in my entire neighborhood for three straight days --and added up the dimes and quarters people would give me until I had enough to buy these two volumes. They have been with me ever since. For the first time, I understood what all those words were that I couldn't find in a dictionary, with illustrations and explanations. Even more amazing, I learned that Sherlock Holmes was a real person -- or at least, the editors of these books believed so! The product of a great generation of Holmes fanatics, this collection is full of the arguments over what each story means, what has been included by Dr. Watson, and what must have been left out to protect the innocent. The one truly indispensable volume for Holmes fans, "The Annotated Sherlock Holmes" is an unadulterated joy!

If you ever wanted to read the entire Sherlock Holmes canon, this is the best book to buy. Also, if you are one of those Sherlock fans, you will certainly appreciate this book. Apart from Conan Doyle's original text, this book presents lots of interesting information about Victorian England, linking it with the text. If Holmes spends a crown on something, Baring-Gould will not only calculate its value today but will also show you a picture of the coins at that time. If Holmes and Dr. Watson have to take a transportation to go somewhere, Baring-Gould will show a picture and description of the exact transportation they used. Finally, if the two inseparable friends have to investigate something in a specific address, the book shows a map or picture of the site. However, the book most interesting quality is an extensive research the editor made in order to sort the stories chronologically, not in the order Conan Doyle wrote them but in the order they in fact happened. All those details make the book so real that after you finish this book, you will get a strange feeling that the most famous fictitious detective in the world really lived at 221b Baker Street or a strange feeling that Holmes was not simply a delusion of Dr. Watson, himself the alter ego of Conan Doyle.

the knowledge of when to stop." Thus remarks Holmes to Lestrade about the villainous Jonas Oldacre

( By the bye giving an excellent piece of advice to all artists, villainous or not. Truly the stage, as Watson keeps reminding us, lost a great actor when Holmes embarked upon the profession of consulting detective )

It would appear that Jonas, in his attempt to send the innocent John Hector Mc Farlane to the gallows, could not resist adding a final touch which brought his nefarious plans crashing down---he planted a stain of blood on the wall upon which Mc Farlane's fingerprint would be found!

Lestrade: "You are aware that no two thumb-marks are alike ? "
Holmes: "I have heard something of the kind. "

Whereupon Wiliaim S Baring-Gould, greatest of Holmseian addict/scholars treats us to a footnote on the margin regarding Galton's method of fingerprining, given to the British Association in 1899 and concludes that--

By my gold amethyst encrusted snuff-box, this is fun!

It's the best rendering of Conan Doyle's canon, complete with maps of London, illustrations from Collier's, vintage 1903; coats of arms, photographs, drawings--in brief, the world of S.H. made explicable, and vivid.

Naturally you knew that when Watson informs us that their long suffering landlady, Mrs.Hudson, lived on the first floor flat, he's using it in the English sense: what we Americans would call 'the second floor.' Or that a 'life preserver' was a short bludgeon, usually of flexible cane, whalebone, or the like loaded with lead at one end. Or that---

Hmm...now what was that about the supreme gift of the artist?

Since there's not a lot of Bewitched reference material out there, it was a delight to discover this book. It clearly is written from a fan perspective, but is professionally done. Pilato captures the essence of what made Bewitched so magical and relishes in discussing every aspect of the show, both large and small. If you're a fan of Bewitched, you MUST get this book!

"Bewitched Forever" is a fitting tribute to one of America's classic, magical, and most beloved series. It is evident that Herbie J. Pilato's devotion to Elizabeth Montgomery and "Bewitched" are matched only by his vast knowledge of the show and it's cast. The poignant forward by Montgomery's former husband and "Bewitched" director William Asher is icing on the cake to this wonderfully entertaining, informative, and extensive look at "Bewitched." As a lifelong fan of Elizabeth Montgomery and "Bewitched," I highly recommend "Bewitched Forever." Thank you Mr. Pilato for your efforts in creating such a wonderful piece for a most beloved and deserving actress and classic series.

If you are a fan of one of the BEST tv shows ever created this book is for you. There are great interviews with Elizabeth Montgomery, the two Darrins, and others from the show, plus great pictures from the show. And as an added bonus Mr. Pilato treats us to a little about the Bewitched spinoff Tabatha. No Bewitched collection is complete without this book.

I looked long and hard (and asked many a scholar) for the "perfect" Shakespeare publication that I might purchase to study "King Henry V" (for a experiential education requirement, I had undertaken the translation of Henry V into American Sign Language). The Arden Shakespeare came highly recommended by everyone, and has lived up entirely to all its rave reviews.

I will never buy Shakespeare from another publisher. While these books may be slightly more expensive than a "mass market" edition, I believe that if you are going to take the time to read and understand Shakespeare, it is well worth the extra dollar or two. The Introduction, the images, and plethora of footnotes are irreplaceable and nearly neccessary for a full understanding of the play (for those of us who are not scholars already). The photocopy of the original Quatro text in the appendix is also very interesting.

All in all, well worth it! I recommend that you buy ALL of Shakespeare's work from Arden's critical editions.

On D-Day British officers read Henry's famous words to their men as they approached the beach. When Churchill needed material for his famous "Few" speech, his thoughts turned to the pages of Henry V. From "once more into the breach" to "we happy few, we band of brothers" this play resonates with Shakespeare's paen to England's warrior king. Oh, you'll be a bit confused at the start if you haven't read Henry IV parts 1 and 2, but this is primarily the story of Henry V's victory at Agincourt. Whether the play glorifies war or just Henry you will have to decide. There is much food for thought here for the perceptive reader. But then Shakespeare is always provocative.

Required to read Henry for my AP English Language class, I came into the play with a bias. I honestly felt that it would be a boring political play. I was utterly wrong! A huge fan of Shakespeare, I found Henry V to be a formidable match for the Bard's more critically acclaimed plays, such as Hamlet and Macbeth. Henry has it all! Shakespeare's attitude toward Henry the King is certainly one of admiration. By communicating the fact that an effective monarch must have a complete understanding of the common subjects (Pistol and Bardolph and Quickly), Shakespeare sets up Henry to be the ideal Christian king. The controlled language of Henry's speeches, particularly his response to the Dauphin's idiotic insult, also glorifies Henry. I certainly recommend this play to anyone, fan of Shakespeare or not.

i read this a few months ago when i was 11, i think it's a cool book, a typical sweet valley book, but i love sv books, jessica is my favourite charactor anyway, well my friend lended it to me, and i couldn't put it down! i was reading it during dinner! it wasn't that sad, but i didn't really particulary like the ending, i wish jessica didn't dump aj :> oh well

This book is one that will never get dull. I read over and over again and each time, something new stands out. It was just like reading my diary. I could really relate to the character's reactions and problems.

Life is full of little surprises and you never know when one can happen. This story is about Jessica Wakefield and her little surprises of life. This book shares her feelings and thoughts about love,(one of her major surprises) life and school. My opinion on this book is that it was well written and seemed to be realistic. It's one of those books that you just can't put down! In the Sweet Valley High series there is another diary by Jessica. That one is probably the better of the two. I guess I would rate it a 10! I suggest this book to anyone who likes to read about love, life and school! If you don't like the book I'll be very surprised

Anyone interested in the modern view of the Jewish faith and the Jewish people must start in the past, and this book is the canonical reference. In addition, anyone who is interested in Biblical history and apologetics will be interested in the reading of this book, as well as those involved in the study of the ancient Greek language. The translator includes passages in original Greek for these readers, and as one who was learning ancient Greek at the time I read it, it was helpful to have these included in the book. It would take an established expert however to judge whether the translation of Whiston, who lived in the time of Isaac Newton, is in any sense an adequate one.

One also learns briefly of the life of Josephus, and gains an insight as to why Josephus chose to write this lengthy history of the Jewish people. What is most interesting about the reading of Josephus is his reliance on Jewish scriptures for delineating the history of the Jewish people before his time. He departs from this however when discussing the events of his own time. In addition, the reader obtains a discussion of the famous passages in Josephus on the historical authenticity of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, these being questioned by some scholars of Josephus.

This is a valuable resource for anyone who is interested in Palestine as it was during the intertestimental period. Himself a Jew who was taken captive by his Roman conquerors, Flavius Josephus became an accomplished historian of his day and his writings demonstrate an intimate knowledge of the Romans and Jews of his time. His writings offer insights into Jewish history, religion and customs as well as the war which ended Jewish independence for nearly two thousand years.

As with any account of history, this one bears its own biases and preferences. Begin with a personal study of Josephus and his background and what we know of the production of his historical accounts. From this starting point, however, nothing will prove more satisfying than reading the words of Josephus (in translation) for yourself! This volume begins with the historian's own autobiography and it only gets better as one continues to read.

The value of this volume is threefold, and all are noteworthy.

First, Josephus' account of the historical events and people in Judea during the 1st century A.D. has no peer. Josephus' facts are the most reliable from any secular historian during that period.

Second, Josephus' histories corroborate the Biblical accounts. Josephus, a Jewish general captured by the Romans during Judea's struggle for independence which ended in 70 A.D., mentions John the Baptist, the Herodian rulers of Judea, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus Christ. Josephus "fills in the blanks" by supplying detail not mentioned by the New Testament authors and gives flesh, bone (and blood) to the characters the Gospels and the Book of Acts relates.

Third, the translator, William Whiston, adds insightful and invaluable footnotes throughout the text. Whiston corrects Josephus where necessary or gives the reader more detail in support of Josephus' assertions by reference to other primary sources, many of which are no longer extant. Where Josephus refers to Jewish customs, Whiston explains them for the Gentile reader.

Thus, this book is best used as a reference book, though reading through Josephus' complete works is fruitful. The book is fairly compact for one containing 1000 pages. The pages are thin, which allows for its compact size, but which causes any highlighting or margin notes to "bleed" through to the reverse side of the page. The font size is 10 point, which makes for comfortable reading on the eyes. The appendices contain very helpful charts, including one which lists those excerpts from the Bible which run parallel to Josephus' chapters.

This is a great source book for any historian or Biblical scholar.

'Medea' by Euripedes is a classic and powerful Greek tragedy that broke all the rules of that time period. Euripedes takes two great figures in Medea and Jason, and uses Iconoclastic techniques brilliantly to make Jason seem stupid and Medea seem like a murderer. It is especially interesting because of the story that you need to understand outside of the play. You will need to know who the gods are and how Medea and Jason got together. Medea is a powerful sorceress, which is a major point in this play. The imagery of the death scenes were VIVIDLY scripted and the gods, who are supposed to represent all that is good and rightous, are also mocked and bashed by Euripedes. Overall, Euripedes defied all and created a tragic masterpiece, I will definately recommend you to read this. Thank you.

This is one of those remarkable plays that feels like it was written just last week. Medea is the daughter of the evil King Aeetes in Colchis -- on the remote, eastern side of the Black Sea. She assists Jason in slaying the serpent that guarded the golden fleece, and fell deeply in love with him. (See Apollonius Rhodius' Argonautica for a fuller treatment of the love episode at Colchis). She even killed her brother, Absrytus, on their way back to Greece.

Medea has one problem, however. Aside from the fact she is a witch, she is a barbarian, a non-Greek. The Greeks used the word "barbaros" to refer to all people who weren't Greek, because if they didn't speak Greek, it just sounded like "bar bar bar" to the Greeks.

So after Jason and Medea settle in together back in Greece, his homeland, he decides that his interests (and Medea's) are better served if he marries the daughter of King Creon of Corinth. Medea gets jealous, poisons the woman, and then kills her two children in revenge.

Medea is an absolutely riveting character, whose tragic problems are those of all woman who have left their homes and families to follow men to foreign lands, only to be scorned by them in the end. The speeches of Jason and Medea are remarkable point-counterpoint presentations which reflect the deep influence of the sophists of Euripides' day. Medea sounds, at times, like a proto-feminist. She is one of the most enduring dramatic creations of all times, revealing with each line the remarkable genius of Euripides, the most modern of the three great Greek tragedians

Every time there is a horrific story in the news about a mother murdering her children, the classic tragedy "Medea" by Euripides is mentioned. However, a close reading of the actual play shows that the point Euripides is trying to make in this drama is not about infanticide, but rather about the way "foreigners" are treated in Greece (this is best seen in the odes of the Chorus of Corinthian Women). The other key component of the play is the psychology of Medea and the way in which she constructs events to help convince herself to do the unspeakable deed and kill the two sons she has borne Jason. There is a very real sense in which Jason is the true villain of the piece and I do not think there is a comparable example in the extant Greek tragedies remain wherein a major mythological hero is made to look as bad as Euripides does in this play.

Another important thing to remember in reading "Medea" is that the basic elements of the story were already known to the Athenian audience that would be watching the play. Consequently, when the fact that Medea is going to kill her children is not a surprise what becomes important are the motivations the playwright presents in telling this version of the story. The audience remembers the story of the Quest for the Golden Fleece and how Medea betrayed her family and her native land to help Jason. In some versions of the story Medea goes so far as to kill her brother, chop up his body, and throw it into the sea so their father, the King of Colchis, must stop his pursuit of the Argo to retrieve the body of his son. However, as a foreigner Medea is not allowed to a true wife to Jason, and when he has the opportunity to improve his fortune by marrying the princess of Corinth, Medea and everything she had done for him are quickly forgotten.

To add insult to injury, Jason assures Medea that his sons will be well treated at the court while the King of Corinth, worried that the sorceress will seek vengeance, banishes her from the land. After securing sanctuary in Athens (certainly an ironic choice given this is where the play is being performed), Medea constructs a rather complex plan. Having coated a cloak with poison, she has her children deliver it to the princess; not only will the princess die when she puts on the cloak (and her father along with her), the complicity of the children in the crime will give her an excuse to justify killing in order to literally save them from the wrath of the Corinthians.

This raises an interest questions: Could Medea have taken the children with her to her exile in Athens? On the one hand I want to answer that obviously, yes, she can; there is certainly room in her dragon-drawn chariot. But given her status as a foreigner, if Jason goes to Athens and demands the return of his children, would he not then have a claim that Medea could not contest? More importantly, is not Medea's ultimate vengeance on Jason that she will hurt him by taking away everything he holds dear, namely his children and his princess bride?

In the final line of the play the Chorus laments: "Many things beyond expectation do the gods fulfill. That which was expected has not been accomplished; for that which was unexpected has god found the way. Such was the end of this story." This last line has also found its way into the conclusion of other dramas by Euripides ("Alcestis," "Bacchae" and "Andromache"), but I have always found it to fit the ending of "Medea" best, so I suspect that is where it originally came from and ended up being appended to those other plays sometime during the last several thousand years. However, the statement is rather disingenuous because one of the rather standard approaches in a play by Euripides is that his characters often deserve their fate. In a very real sense, Euripides provides justification for Medea's monstrous crime and his implicit argument to the Athenian audience is that the punishment fits the crime. However, Athenians would never give up their air of superiority; at least not until foreigners such as the Macedonians and the Romans conquered the self-professed cradle of democracy.

_Battle for the Mind_ presents a model for the physiological processes behind dramatic religious or political conversions and brainwashing based on the experiments of the Russian neuro-physiologist, I. P. Pavlov. Pavlov conducted experiments on dogs and found "equivalent" (in which the brain gives the same response to both strong and weak stimuli), "paradoxical" (in which the brain gives a response to weak stimuli but not to strong stimuli), and "ultra-paradoxical" (in which the brain gives a positive response to weak stimuli and a negative response to strong stimuli) behavior patterns present in the dogs under different conditions. From his experiments, he concluded that all dogs have a "breaking-point". Using these results, William Sargant (who worked with patients suffering from post-traumatic stress (PTSD) symptoms during the war) examines the phenomena of religious conversion and persuasion as well as brainwashing. Sargant conjectures that similiarly, all humans have a "breaking-point". The book includes discussion of war victims, religious and political conversions (especially emphasizing the techniques of Wesley in his mass conversions of people to Christianity), possession and rhythmic dance, brainwashing in ancient and modern times, as well as the eliciting of confessions. Much food for thought is presented as the author retells the stories of various individuals who have undergone drastic conversions or who have exhibited various forms of "paradoxical" behavior under the presence of sufficient stressors. The discussion of confession is particularly interesting, in that it reveals that often the interrogator becomes just as deluded as the confessor may be. In a world in which the masses are continuously bombarded by propaganda from all angles and the government, where cults are able to seize possession of individual minds and checking accounts, in which brainwashing takes place in totalitarian states, and in which the average person at any moment may be exposed to severe stressors, it is most important to study the human brain and the physiological processes behind conversions. The book is not reductionistic, the author allows the possibility of an external force or power to be the causal agent of any conversion. William Sargant's study will remain a classic for those of us who worry about the effects of political and religious propaganda and modern day stressors.

Robert Graves scholars claim that Graves "Englished" (that is, rewrote) this book for Sargant, which might help explain how such a complex subject ended up getting explained so clearly. Graves's involvement might also explain how Sargant was able to draw evidence from such an incredible range of history to explain his basic thesis. The result is an excellent book for psychologists and also for historians. What do these things have in common - Methodist sermons, ancient Greek mysteries, Jesuit training, battlefield fatigue in WWI and WWII, Voodoo ceremonies, rock and roll dancing, and the flood that almost killed Pavlov's dogs? They all show that under severe and/or prolonged stress, the mind can change radically, profoundly, and with lasting results. In all cases, Sargant concluded, it's a manifestation of a "normal" psychological process by the brain of accommodation to circumstances, which under severely abnormal circumstances can result in very surprising and strange accommodations indeed. When the mind is in such a "wiped" state, it can be reconstructed in many ways. Brainwashers, Sargant shows, use the state to get people to do things they normally wouldn't consider. A compassionate psychologist, however, can use this state to genuinely help a person recover from the trauma. Or, as in many religious conversions and "mystical" experiences as far back as ancient times, prolonged stress can actually be used therapeutically. Sargant clearly speaks from a great range of professional experience. He's not speculating.

If you've read Graves poetry, much influenced in the early stages by horrific personal experiences on World War I battlefields, this collaboration has something poignant about it. According to Sargant, Graves convinced him to write the book and it's easy to understand Graves's enthusiasm for what Sargant had to say. The result is an important (and also very readable) book.

This is one of very few books that I have read twice, and like several previous reviewers it would be very high on my list of essential reads. The first time I read it was soon after it was published. I was in my late teens, and it was a friend's recommendation. It made little immediate impact on me, but as time when by its resonance gave me insights into life changing incidences that I saw in others and myself (religious conversion, career changes, etc.).

The book is a clear exposition of those mechanisms for growth adaptations (or changes) within all our personalities, how these changes occur naturally, and how they can be artificially induced. He also discusses techniques that can inhibit the natural mechanisms for change.

I read it again 10 years ago to regain some insight into several intelligent and capable friends that, although hating their work, appeared to have had their ability for change inhibited by their use of soft drugs.

This book has a curiously positive unanimity amongst its reviewers, could we have been brainwashed :-)

I am pleased that it is back in print and feel almost honour bound to buy a copy (I borrowed it previously from our local lending library)

William Lee Miller's book Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography proves Abraham Lincoln was a most unique individual an
ethical politician. Miller introduces the Lincoln as he lived and breathe and Lincoln lived and breathe politics. Lincoln's practice of politics is familiar to us because it was partisan, compromising as well as searching for consenus and individual distinction.
Lincoln the politician seems commmon, it is his ethical quality on the rub of a matter which is outstanding. For Lincoln there was more to poltics than winning elections. There were larger issues of life to be effected by law and politics. Miller points out Lincoln achieved his moral basis from no individual but from the reading of books such as the Bible, Pilgrim's Progress, biographies of Washington and Shakespeare.
Miller indicates that in Lincoln's early political career the larger issue was the rise of the common man which Lincoln believed was best achieved by Henry Clay's Whig policies. Post-1854 Lincoln's moral issue was slavery. Lincoln recognized slavery was a moral issue and to present it politcally as a moral issue and not allow it to be presented as an economic issue clouded by the prejudice of the day as Lincoln's great political rival Douglas presented the slavery issue.
Miller presents Lincoln's strength of mind and in particular its ability to study and think an issue. His clear judgment balanced by a sincere sensitivity. This was best explained by Leonard Swett in the footnotes on p490 of Miller's book.
The best part of the book was the Stanton-Lincoln relationship on pp 410-426. Stanton began with disdain of Linclon but in working with Lincoln in the Civil War Stanton grew to respect Lincoln and be astonished by Lincoln's work. Miller points out the lack of vindictiveness in Lincoln and contrasts that with 20th century American Presidents. The ethical biography of Lincoln shows the gift to the Amercian people the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln was at our most crucial time.
This excellent and fresh biography of Lincoln shows he transcended his times and was a product of his times. He was a great man whose example gives us hope that an ethical politician is not and should not be an oxymoron.

This is a very scholarly work on the development of Lincoln's ethics as a man and a politician. The book is a deep study of Lincoln's writings and influences, the books he read, the candidates (Henry Clay) that he favored and the influences in his life such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I would recommend for those unfamiliar with the detail of Lincoln's life to read a primer as Miller brings forth information in such detail that the reader has to have more than a baseline of familiarity with Lincoln. As a scholar, Miller uses some phrases and language that reflect my limited education and caused me to occasionally keep a dictionary near by. I found that midway through the book that this need was less so.

In summary, the author notates the severe disadvantages that Lincoln had with a large and poor family, little schooling and s little opportunity for higher education and without the finer things in life such as well fitted clothing that must have caused more attention to Lincolns height and ungainly lean look. In spite of any set backs caused by losing future elections, even in cases where Lincoln had the inside track such as the Senate vote of 1855, Lincoln maintains a humility along with a sincere interest in staying on the high ground ethically. As Miller points out through extensive study of Lincoln's history, writings and course of study, Miller does well to describe the development of Lincoln's virtues. Miller notes that Lincoln is not politically naïve, he starts out an as industrious politician dealing with matters of economy but also graduates as a leading member of the Whig Party in his State and eventually a leader of the Republican Party. Lincoln is astute in that he disagrees with the Know Nothings but instead of criticizing them waits for their collapse so that their better followers may enjoin the new Republican Party. Miller frames Lincoln's successfully arguments about the evils of slavery and the intent of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Miller points out that Douglas and the growing State of Illinois gave Lincoln a National platform to espouse his views. After reading the passages from the debates (Lincoln initially engineers), I see Lincoln's argument more clearly that the Nebraska Act and popular sovereignty was absolutely wrong in that the Act allowed a small population to determine a national issue about the expansion of slavery into the territories. Miller also notes that Lincoln in his time stressed that slavery was wrong in clear, logical arguments with a point that anyone at anytime could be enslaved but his best argument was simply, that it was wrong and in violation of the Declaration of Independence. I am most impressed with not only Lincoln's stand against slavery, irregardless of his occasional carefulness about equality of the races for those times, but his strident ability to defend his position and impress those that heard him speak. His Humility is incredulous that he does not make those that defeated him or snubbed him his enemies but enlists them for the betterment of his party and the installation of his national Government. My favorite passage in the book deals with Stanton's initial meeting with Lincoln, where Lincoln is virtually used as a local boy for a case in his State but never taken serious as a true partner in the case. Lincoln later has no deliberation in later making Stanton his Secretary of War. Lincoln was not condescending to those that disagreed with him, he recognized that differences in geography and environment made men think differently but not necessarily evil. I agree with Miller, that the second Inaugural was his greatest speech, only Lincoln after four years of war could say "with malice toward none".

Perhaps no figure in American history has been the subject of more mythology, legend and revision than Abraham Lincoln. He has been elevated to the status of Christ-like martyrdom. He has been called a white supremacist and a racist. Revisionists of the right have accused him of fomenting war to promote mercantile interests. His motives and morality have been questioned. His commitment to the anti-slavery cause has been questioned. But who was the real Abraham Lincoln? What were his true thoughts on the great issue of the day? How did the prairie born son of illiterate pioneers become the most revered man in American History?

In this wonderful new book, William Lee Miller examines, not so much the events of Lincoln's life as the evolution of the character of the man historian Paul Johnson calls "a kind of moral genius." The book covers the years from Lincoln's birth until his inauguration in 1861. In particular, Miller examines how Lincoln's politics can be squared with his morality. Using Lincoln's own words, Miller effectively refutes the revisionists of both the right and the left and restores Lincoln to his rightful place as an American giant and irrepressible foe of slavery.

Miller is an unabashed admirer of Lincoln. Through careful scholarship and relentless logic, the author dissects Lincoln's words and actions, explores his motivations and raises and disposes of revisionist arguments. He does so in an amusing and folksy style that clearly reveals his affection and fascination with this greatest of all Americans. All of the positive traits associated with Lincoln are shown to be true. In speech after speech, Lincoln is revealed to be an intractable foe of slavery. Miller's exploration of Lincoln's character show a living politician to be sure, but a politician who clearly sees the elective process as a path to his moral goals, namely the containment and end of slavery. Lincoln is revealed to be unusually conciliatory and non-vindictive. For example, he placed Edwin Stanton in his cabinet despite Stanton's support for his Southern Democratic opponent and despite the fact that Lincoln was personally humiliated by Stanton years earlier. Not many presidents would do that. It reveals much about Lincoln's character.

Miller has no patience for arguments that attack Lincoln's character because he was not a morally pure abolitionist. Miller places Lincoln's pragmatism in its proper context, given the opinions of the electorate Lincoln faced in Illinois and then nationally. He also shows how Lincoln's pragmatic approach was in fact the moral and ethical method to solving as intractable a problem as American slavery. He contrasts Lincoln's pragmatic moral approach with that of Stephen Douglas who Miller contends lacked any morality at all.

During the vital six years between 1854 and Lincoln's election as President, Lincoln is shown to have developed a comprehensive and consistent moral perspective on slavery. He thought it a terrible evil and planned for its ultimate destruction. But Lincoln recognized that immediate abolition was not possible so the platform of the Republican party, which Lincoln helped build, was limited to the demand that slavery not be permitted in the territories. Douglas had no belief that slavery was immoral and would have allowed its spread to the territories to preserve the peace and the union. As Miller shows, there is no evidence that slavery was anything but Lincoln's prime concern from 1954 on. The Civil War was fought because the Southern states could not abide the election of a president determined to halt the spread of slavery. As Lincoln put it to Alexander Stephens after his election as president, "you think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub."

A key component of Lincoln's thinking that distinguishes him from many of his allies of the day is his magnanimity, most famously reflected in his "malice towards none..." second inaugural. Miller shows how this magnanimity was a key component of Lincoln's moral thinking. Lincoln always argued that slavery was an American, not merely a Southern problem. He never personally condemned the Southerners who supported slavery but instead tried to understand them and his program always called for accommodating their fears and concerns. In this book, Abraham Lincoln is revealed as a truly great American and a most moral man who proved to be a brilliant leader. He comes across, not as a saint but as a living breathing human being with desires and passions but with a real commitment to justice. This book should really be read by all college students as an example of how an American politician can be effective and still remain committed to his core principals. The brilliant scholarship and lively style makes it a must read for anyone with an interest in American history. I expect this book will be on many university history department reading lists.

In this next book in the landmark "Little House" series, the Ingalls family decide to leave their farm by Plum Creek to find a new homestead on the prairie. The grasshoppers and poor crops in Minnesota were a little too much for them. In addition, some bad times appear for the Ingalls family in the time period between this and the previous book in the series. The whole family had been stricken with scarlet fever and the oldest daughter, Mary, is now blind because of it. In addition, although it is never mentioned in the books, Laura had a little baby brother at this time (Charles Frederic, "Freddy") who died before his first birthday (1875-1876). And, a new baby sister has been added to the family, Grace Pearl Ingalls (1877-1941). Laura's father gets a job acting as a storekeeper for the Chicago and North Western Railroad who are laying tracks through the Dakota terretory. While working for them, he finds a new homestead on the prairie and brings the rest of his family out. There is concern as to whether he will be able to file his claim on time; but, he does. The Ingalls family are among the first to live near the new town of De Smet, South Dakota (although South Dakota doesn't become a state until 1889). The time frame of this book is 1879-1880 and Laura Elizabeth Ingalls is 12-13 years old. The book was a 1940 Newbery Honor Book (that is, a runner-up to the Medal winner) for best contribution to American children's literature. And, it deserved it! Near the end of the book, Laura gets her first glimpse at the boy who will later become her husband, Almanzo Wilder.

She went thorouh many hardships. While her father was store keeper of a railroad. Her family then was forced to go west for the winter. Laura did not want to go west for the winter. Then they were offered to live in a surveyors house while the surveyor was out for the winter. The house was all supplied because the surveyor thought that they were going to stay there for the winter. They thought that that was a dream house. It had everything they needed. Then everybody started coming to Desmet to get settled and there house was the only place to stay so they started charging people for it. Then Pa had to go and get the claim on there homestead. While he was gone some drunks stayed at there house.

This book is probably the best book for kids other than Holes! It is about a girl named Laura and her sisters Mary,Carrie and baby Grace also Ma and Pa. She has to move to a new homested on Silver Lake. Her family has just gone through a very hard time-Mary got blind! She has many adventures-one of her scariest would be when a wolf almost atacks her! This is one of MY personle favorites!

It becomes quite clear after reading Go Down Moses why many critics call this William Falkner's most mature book dealing with race. In Go Down Moses, the black characters are not only as well represented as may be possible from a white author, they are believable and easy to relate to. The main character "Uncle Ike", the grandson of an influential plantation owner, comes to represent everyone who struggles with identity in the miserable face of racism. The style of the book itself was confusing for readers and critics when first published, as it makes use of a series of chapters, each with its own title and numbered sections. Faulkner resisted having the book called a collection of short stories and most modern readers should have little problem with its nonsequential chapters and its sometimes, seemingly, unrelated characters. If you have read some Faulkner, especially A Light in August or Absalom, Absalom or if you enjoy authors such as Toni Morrison and Richard Wright you must read this book to get an idea of just how far Faulkner came toward wrestling with race in his time.

I read Go Down Moses in 1996 before taking a trip to Mississippi. I had never read Faulkner before and had only one criterion for picking a book of his: it had to take place in the mythical Yoknapatawpha County. I picked this one off the library shelf.

For any non-southern American whose sole exposure to what happened there was from history books, this should forever shatter the pat preconceptions and simplistic black and white (no pun intended!) formulas they were taught.

The book plunges you into a vast panorama of ambiguities and contradictions. It was clear to me from the first paragraph that Faulkner was a genius. In the whole history of literature, he surely stands among a select few at the very pinnacle of greatness.

Go Down Moses is a tremendous struggle to get through. Some parts are straightforward and easy, but there are others that you can't hope to make literal sense of. You're bombarded by its twisted grammar. Its frantic confusion. Its endlessly unresolved sentences. But through these, Faulkner ultimately conveys the pain of history -- past and present. The emotion of that pain seems more real to him than the specific incidents it sprang from. Why else would a book begun in pre-Civil War Mississippi -- entirely skip it -- picking up again a generation later?

This book is about the South. Having read it, Faulkner walked beside me every step of the way I took through his state. But this book also has a sub-theme that should not be overlooked. Faulkner was a profound environmentalist, although sharply contrasted with how we usually think of that term. Hunters don't much fit the mold of environmentalism -- and Faulkner was an avid one of that lot. So, in that sense, along with all the sociological, he can shake you up pretty good! Go Down Moses contains some of the most wrenching descriptions you could hope to find on the loss of wilderness. There is nothing ambiguous in his portrayal of that loss. Faulkner may confound everything you thought you believed of Southern sociology, but in an environmental sense, he leaves no room for confusion. Leave those trees standing!

This book will grip you; I can't imagine it having a lesser effect. Like all truly great art, it should change you forever.

Please, please do not pass over the other fine stories in GO DOWN, MOSES and go straight to "The Bear." This gem means much more when illuminated by the other parts of the text, and only by reading the entire book can you fully understand the meaning of Ike's repudiation of the McCaslin land. I recently completed a Faulkner course, and of all of his "genius" novels--"As I Lay Dying," "Light in August," "Go Down, Moses," "The Sound and the Fury," and "Absalom! Absalom!"--I believe that this one has the strongest emotional core. Read the whole thing; your experience will be much richer.