For those only wanting an introduction to the breed, the book is useful. If you already know a great deal about CKCS, skip this book--it lacks depth.

I think this book is a must have for anyone interested in this breed and wanting more information. She talks about the history, the health, the care and lots of cute pictures. My mate and I both read it cover to cover and found it very informative and helpful.

Helpful in explaining our dog to us. The housetraining part did the trick for us. We were having trouble and now no more accidents.Good advice on alot of stuff. We love our little cav.

It is always sad when I come across a biography with as many rich possibilities as Richard III and find that the author has destroyed the story by lacking the ability to write a simple story (and yes this includes a conclusion). If what you wish is a simple rendition of Richard III's basic biography please purchase and read this book. If you are looking for a richer context with which to view Richard III then please look elsewhere for satisfaction.

The bulk of the book is given over to a scholarly, detailed account of Richard's life and administration, which is what interests Ross. What does not interest Ross is whether or not Richard was a murderer. He is interested in Richard-the-man-in-the-context-of-his-times, not Richard, the man. The whole debate over the Princes in the Tower irks Ross extremely, and he begins his chapter on the subject by petulantly pitching into Ricardians for their interest in this subject; they are not even worth responding to, but since their arguments have gotten so much publicity (in scholarly terms) they must be responded to. Grudgingly. With this attitude, it's not surprising that Ross does egregiously stupid things, such as arguing that Richard must be guilty because the king always is guilty in cases of this kind, implicitly dismissing the possibility that anyone might do something differently from his or her forebears; there are, Ross says, no examples of political crimes committed without the king's knowledge--except, of course, he adds, the murder of Thomas a Becket--thus destroying his entire point, which wasn't a good argument in the first place. The rest of the chapter is up to the same standard. The book is worth getting, however, for the rest of the text and because it is considered the standard bio of Richard. The case for Richard's guilt in the disappearance of his nephews has been more convincingly argued by others, but Ricardians will find in appropriate chapter splendid material for a defence of Richard, albeit Ross did not intend it as such.

Charles Ross, one of the most respected historians of later medieval Britain, has produced a fairly standard biography of Richard III that, though more than adequate for scholars doing research, does not compare to his work on Edward IV in the Yale English Monarchs series. Ross is known to be a "traditionalist"--that is, one who views Richard III's guilt in the disappearance of the princes in the Tower as more than probable. This annoys many who sympathize with Richard III (see some of the other reviews). However, far from attempting to prove his contention, he simply states why he believes the scenario is a likely one. Anyone truly interested in the comparative study of Richard III's reputation should contrast this book with the 1956 biography by Paul Murray Kendall.

I read more than 75 novels each year and have read most of King's stuff. Obviously, with so much output from one writer, there are bound to be hits and misses. This one was a miss, in my opinion but there is still enough here to make it worth the read.

I had already read Desperation, the companion book to this volume, and came away with the feeling that I had just experienced a pretty good King novel. It also was far from his best but I enjoyed it none-the-less. So, naturally, I turned to this book, The Regulators, hoping for a similar experience. Stephen King is well known for marketing gimicry, pushing the envelope in the publishing business. At first it was through using brand names without permission. Then it was the alternate ego, Richard Bachman, followed by the serial novel (Green Mile) and now it is a "dual novel." Frankly, I don't think it worked this time. I just couldn't get the parallel between the two books/settings. Same names but different people and places. What was the point? Really, they are two seperate books.

In this novel, King definitely displays his famous talent for scene setting. The opening chapter is one of the best I've read, setting the stage for the coming horror. The plot was also pretty good, although the evil 'Tak' seemed somewhat ordinary. King uses a great mechanism to deliver the horror this time. The manifestation of the mind of a small autistic boy. The horrors come in the form of all of those things that frighten young children and, consequently, frighten us. The text is sprinkled throughout with other tidbits as well that help to tell the story: letters, postcards, diary entries, even a script. Another King tool to attack from all directions.

But somehow, it didn't all flow well together. There were so many characters that I lost track of who was who and as they started to die off, I found myself not caring too much who was left. Perhaps I was a victim of having read Desperation first. I guess I was expecting the same characters to survive.

Overall, a middle-of the road King entry. King purists will want to read this one but King samplers should pass.

A good book, but Desperation was better. I read Desperation first, and expected it to be similar, but the two books are completely different. The force of evil in both novels is the same, and the characters have the same names but different personalities, and different people survive at the end. The ending is also different, Desperation's is far better. The story involves an autistic boy named Seth who seems to have some special powers. Soon, it becomes apparent that he is infested by a being/power called Tak, which feeds on peoples' "life-force". Tak is using its limited but growing powers to turn a pleasant summer afternoon in this pleasant Ohio suburb into a living nightmare for all its residents. I think the biggest problem with this book is the characters. There are so many of them that it becomes confusing, and that the author doesn't spend much time on character development for any of them. As a result, we really don't get to "know" any of them (except maybe one), which for me is one of the things that makes a Stephen King (but apparently not Bachman) novel good. Still, it's a very amusing (and gory) story. The ending, while not quite the "epic" finish of Desperation, is still good.

The Regulators was one of the best books I've ever read. I completed it in 4 short days, reading it in the little free time I had. This book is basically a full scale slaughter of a suburban community looked through a child's imagination. It was definitely worth the read, especially for fans of King's other works. It was very similar to other things he had written; very descriptive, exteremely enthralling. I could not put it down. This would also be a great book for a person that has never read King before, introducing him to his basic style. I must admit, this book's predecessor is definitely better. I do not believe this was necessarily a "spin-off" on Desperation, but to see the same characters in this one instead of just their names would have been nice. Overall I give this 5 stars, and I must say the articles and letters and scripts put in throughout the book is an excellent idea.

I've never read the bible. I never will. there are far better fictional stories out there.

Are about as close as you come to good historical novels in the OT. Really one book sort of like the three synoptic books of NT, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

This book is very good and covers the ground well. I wish it were longer.

From an historical point of view, it comports well with what is unambiguously agreed upon as historical events. (David has been getting his knocks lately, but he is still the KING.)

I prefer to think of it in the classical sense, the end of the third phase of ancient Hebrew writings (of 12 as commonly stated) So, if you compared it to Gibbons "Decline & Fall of Roman Empire" you would be up to around chapter 30 of Gibbons.

I read these thing with a critical eye for finding fault, and find little to fault in this book, except to wish it were wider and longer.

An index with cross references such as to Elephantine documents or even Greek or Syrian writings might have been usefull.

But this is a great small book. I read it almost straight through. I think you will actually find it easy reading and hard to lay down.

Why is it that many of the books I'm looking at have such bad reviews from people who haven't even read them just because they are about the Christian faith. Now I haven't read this book but I am currently reading 1 Kings. And if they think this book is so fictional than try reading the book of Daniel which contains very specific prophecy about Alexander the Great and the fate of his kingdom.

I am not trying to force my faith on anyone. I am merely upset at those that dismiss my faith and what I believe as fictional without even investigating it. That is very demeaning to me.

This book has good stories and bad stories. No, there is no bad written story. There are some stories very difficult to believe, like "Death to the Easter Bunny!" By Alan Ryan. At least, I can read another Stephen King, "Nona". But it is not enough to get a 10. Paulo Sunao

Well this book is a mixed bag. Some of the stories I really liked and were really well written, yet others I just didn't like at all. I loved the chilling story of "Canavan's Back Yard," and I thought "The Rubber Room" was an interesting tale of a paranoid man thinking Jewish people had a conspiracy against him. Also, "Out Of Sorts" is a clever werewolf story. And as other have mentioned, "Down Among The Dead Man" is an excellent WWII vampire story (while that may sound bizarre, it is written so well you won't even notice just how odd this seems). However, like I said, I did not like some of the other stories. Like "Death To The Easter Bunny," for example. I just found this story repulsive (if you've read the book, you'll know what part I'm talking about.) And "The Crazy Chinaman" also seemed very out of place in this book. But in this book, the good outweighs the bad. I would recommend this book to fans of horror in general or fans of any of the authors.

This is a reprint of the Dodd, Mead Gallery of Horror from the early 1980's. There are a number of stories which stand out but "Down Among the Dead Men" by Gardner Dozois and Jack Dann in particular. This is a story you will not soon purge from your subconscious. There is also the classic "Canavan's Back Yard" by Joseph Payne Brennan which is one of the master's best. Seek out other collections from Jospeh Payne Brennan, he is one of the unknown masters. This is a collection which deserved to be reprinted although they marketed it as if it was a new collection. Highest marks!

I found a lot of interesting information in this book, but it seemed to be more about dogs in general than the specific breed. In fact, the second half of the book has pictures of other breeds. Overall, I think this book is a nice introduction to the breed but not very informative for those who already are well acquainted with the breed.

This started out good, but then strayed from the king charles. I did get some good info. I liked the pictures.

I ENJOYED THIS BOOK VERY MUCH. I DO KNOW A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THIS BREED AND FOUND IT ONE I COULD RECOMMEND TO NEW PUPPY OWNERS AS REQUIRED READING. THE AUTHOR WAS INFORMATIVE AND INTERESTING. THE DOGS ILLUSTRATED WERE LOVELY. I AM IN LOVE WITH THE DOG ON THE COVER.....HE IS A REAL "KEEPER."
I WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE DISCUSSION ON A RAW DIET AND MANY OTHER TOPICS NOT USUALLY COVERED IN AN INTRODUCTORY BOOK.

In the preface to "The King and the Gentleman" Wilson boldly states his determination not to shrink from a thorough examination of the religious issues of the time, a subject about which Wilson finds previous biographers to be diffident. He delivers on his promise, but to the detriment of the book: the book is often bogged down by the minutiae of 17th Century Protestantism. However, the dual biography format is often informative, particularly in describing the early lives of Cromwell and Charles I.

This books rates up there (or down there) with Venetia Murray's AN ELEGANT MADNESS. Like that book, the author has some nice illustrations. Like that book, the book is full of inaccuracies and mistakes (did you know for example, that George IV and Mrs Fitzherbert had 10 children, together? News to the long-deceased lady who had no issue by three marriages). And for accuracy with titles, forget it.

About half the book focuses on the Hanoverians, the Coburgs (Edward VII) and to some extent, the Windsors. While the Stuarts certainly are not neglected, the first half of the millenium (the Conqueror's family, the Angevins/Plantagenets) are largely neglected. There is no mention, for example, of the fact that Henry I's eldest illegitimate son, Robert, Earl of Gloucester was the most loyal supporter of his legitimate half-sister the Empress Matilda (Maud) in her battle with her cousin Stephen for the throne. And very little about Henry's other illegitimate children, except a mention that two of them died with their legitimate half-brother in a shipwreck. There is no mention of the fact that Rosamond Clifford, mistress of Henry II, was mother of William Longsword. And forget it, if you want to read anything about the mistresses of the Scottish kings before James VI & I and his mother Mary, Queen of the Scots. [The Welsh don't even get a look in, of course].

In fact, this book is mostly about the Stuarts and Hanoverian royal favorites (male and female), although the cover should have warned the reader (featuring, as it does, a portrait of Nell Gwynn).

To be fair, the author does discuss the political influence of some of the favorites, as well as the role they played in changing British history. [Hint: male favorites were far more influential, but the book would not sound so joicy if labelled otherwise]. Interestingly, the Villiers family looms large in the narrative with George Villiers bringing his whole family with him (a la Wydville) when he rose to the bed of James I. His relative Barbara Villiers was mistress of Charles II, while another relative Elizabeth Villiers was mistress of William III (of William and Mary). Both women and their male relative obtained many titles for their descendants and relatives. Today, at least one English duke and one Scottish earl (the terms refer to the peerage, not the nationality) trace their lineage to a royal mistress; many other peers and notables are descended from Charles II's many bastards. [There are some excellent books on royal bastards, which do a much better job checking facts and dates].

This book is a light read, and not one to be read if you are looking for detailed information on a particular monarch's amours (no bibliography is provided for each monarch, although footnotes help locate some sources for additional information).

The Stuarts are best served, but be wary when the author turns to the Hanoverians (when he appears to rely on second-hand sources). It is true that George I had a mistress, but one woman alleged to be his mistress was actually his illegitimate half-sister (and George I was not apparently her lover).

From the political point of view, I found the early Hanoverian chapter most interesting, when the author discussed the political maneuvering of the mistresses of the first two Georges. I was aware of course of the role played by certain ladies in the South Sea Bubble, and the importance of this scandal in Walpole's career. But reading about the role these mistresses played in developing the relationship between the King and the Prime Minister was certainly interesting. I wanted to read more at this point; unfortunately, the author moved on to discuss the Royal Marriages Act (the reign of George III) and so forth.

While I cannot recommend this book because of the many errors in titles, parentage, issue, and dates, a casual reader might still find this book of interest. Just beware of the errors. Some of them are obvious, others less so.

I wish that there was a better-researched book focusing on royal favorites (a nice generic term) from the early Middle Ages to the late Hanoverian period, particularly on their effects on politics and society. From that point, the antics of the Saxe-Coburgs and Windsors are less than relevant. Well, I am still looking...

My only complaint about this play is that Shakespeare should have had some dialogues where the characters discussed crucial history before the play opens. Gloucester (murdered or dead before the play but mentioned several times) had tried to usurp Richard's crown too many times. History itself is not sure if Gloucester died or was murdered. Bolingbroke for a while conspired with Gloucester and now sees another oppurtunity to usurp the crown.The virtuous John of Gaunt served Richard with honor and integrity and eventually moved parliament into arresting Gloucester for treason. This would of made John of Gaunt's rages all the more valid. Otherwise this play is outstanding! Richard shows himself to be capable of ruling at times, but gains our contempt when he seizes his the honorable John of Gaunt's wealth. John of Gaunt's final rage in 2.1 is a passage of immense rageful beauty. Also, Shakespeare moves us into strongly suspecting that Richard had Gloucester murdered. However, despite Richard's crime, Shakespeare masterfully reverses our feelings and moves us into having deep pity for Richard when he is deposed. The Bishop of Carlisle (Richard's true friend) provides some powerful passages of his own. I can not overestimate the grace in which Shakespeare increases our new won pity for Richard when Bolingbroke (Gaunt's rightful heir) regains his wealth and the death of Gloucester is left ambiguous. 5.1, when Richard sadly leaves his queen and can see that Henry IV and his followers will eventually divide is a scene of sorrowful beauty. 5.4 is chilling when Exton plots Richard's murder. 5.5 is chilling and captivating when Richard dies but manages to take two of the thugs down with him. The icing on the cake is that Bolingbroke (Henry IV) can only regret his actions and realize that he has gotten himself into a troublesome situation. But that will be covered in "1 Henry IV" and "2 Henry IV." We can easily argue that it is in "Richard II" where we see Shakespeare's mastery of the language at its finest.

Richard II was incompetent, wastefully extravagant, overtaxed his nobles and peasants, ignored his senior advisors, and lavished dukedoms on his favorites. His rival, Henry of Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), was popular with the common man and undeservingly suffered banishment and loss of all his property. And yet two centuries later Elizabethans viewed the overthrow of Richard II as fundamentally wrong and ultimately responsible for 100 years of crisis and civil war. Queen Elizabeth's government even censored Shakespeare's play.

Shakespeare masterfully manipulates our feelings and attitude toward Richard II and Bolingbroke. We initially watch Richard II try to reconcile differences between two apparently loyal subjects each challenging the other's loyalty to the king. He seemingly reluctantly approves a trial by combat. But a month later, only minutes before combat begins, he banishes both form England. We begin to question Richard's motivation.

Richard's subsequent behavior, especially his illegal seizure of Bolingbroke's land and title, persuades us that his overthrow is justified. But as King Richard's position declines, a more kingly, more contemplative ruler emerges. He faces overthrow and eventual death with dignity and courage. Meanwhile we see Bolingbroke, now Henry IV, beset with unease, uncertainty, and eventually guilt for his action.

Shakespeare also leaves us in in a state of uncertainty. What is the role of a subject? What are the limits of passive obedience? How do we reconcile the overthrow of an incompetent ruler with the divine right of kings? Will Henry IV, his children, or England itself suffer retribution?

Richard II has elements of a tragedy, but is fundamentally a historical play. I was late coming to Shakespeare's English histories and despite my familiarity with many of his works I found myself somewhat disoriented. I did not appreciate the complex relationships between the aristocratic families, nor what had happened before. Fortunately I was rescued by Peter Saccio, the author of "Shakespeare's English Kings". Saccio's delightful book explores how Shakespeare's imagination and actual history are intertwined.

I hope you enjoy Richard II as much as I have. It is the gateway to Henry IV (Parts 1 and 2) and Henry V, all exceptional plays.

The thing with Shakespeare histories is that almost no one reads them, as opposed to his tragedies and comedies. I don't know why that is. The histories that are read are either Henry V (largely due to Branagh's movie), Richard III (because the hunchback king is so over-the-top evil), or the gargantuan trilogy of Henry VI, with the nearly saintly king (at least by Part III) who much prefers contemplating religion and ethics to ruling and dealing with the cabals among his nobles.

So why read a relatively obscure history about a relatively obscure king? Aside from the obvious (it's Shakespeare, stupid), it is a wonderful piece of writing - intense, lyrical, and subtle. Richard II is morally ambiguous, initially an arrogant, callous figure who heeds no warnings against his behavior. Of course, his behavior, which includes seizing the property of nobles without regard for their heirs, leads to his downfall. Nothing in his character or behavior inspires his subjects so he has no passionate defenders when one of the wronged heirs leads a rebellion to depose Richard II. But Richard now becomes a much more sympathetic figure -especially in the scene where he confronts the usurper, Richard acknowledges his mistakes, but eloquently wonders what happens when the wronged subjects can depose the leader when they are wronged. What then of the monarchy, what then of England?

On top of the profound political musings, you get some extraordinarily lyrical Shakespeare (and that is truly extraordinary). Most well known may be the description of England that was used in the airline commercial a few years back... "This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, ..."

If you like Shakespeare and haven't read this play, you've missed a gem.

This book has the basics but it is obvious that Four Paws has their hands in this. The book advertises Four Paws Products and the rest is basics. This book is not written from a knowledgable viewpoint. It is a bunch of hype. There are other MUCH better written books on the breed. My favorite is a new book by well known breeder of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, Barbara Garnet-Smith. I've recommendend her book to all my new puppy owners.

I loved this book. So many beautiful pictures of the cavalier king charles. I am the proud owner of Lily, 8mths old and the book helped me tremendously when it came to basic information. HOw to house train, what to feed her, how to bathe her. I highly recomend this book.