Herodotus' Histories is often considered the gold standard of knowledge pertaining to the Persian empire. Little is made of the fact that this Ionian had certain political grudges against his political masters and had never visited Persia or had entry into Persian society. Xenophone however was a nobleman who lived amongst the Persians and the Medes and was acquaianted with their ways and histories. Xenophone's observations on Persian society and religion are far closer to modern scholarship than Herodotus. Furthermore even the chronological inaccuracies of Cyropaedia are in the Persian tradition. As evidenced by Sassanian histories, the Persians had the habit of attributing the conquests of dynasties to their founders. However the most fascinating and thrilling aspect of reading this book is that the educational stories attributed to Cyrus are identical to the stories found in Adab or the Persian courtly literature of Islamic era. Given that Xenophone was not translated into Persian or Arabic, this confirms the authenticity of the materials used by Xenophone. I love this book and have read it twice already. I recommend it to anyone who wants to have a closer look at the realities of Persia.

Xenophobia is the fear of foreigners. Yet Xenophon's greatest book was a biography of the most hated foe of the greeks, Cyrus.

Cyrus was the greatest emperor of the Persian empire, and the antecedent (see what a great scholar I am? I can't remember all the exact facts like a real student should; I read this stuff for fun) of the Persian emperor who Alexander defeated right before Alexander went crazy and decided to conquer the rest of the world while he was on a streak.

In today's Jingoistic anti-Iran & Iraq climate, it's illuminating to get the Persian perspective on world history, and since I haven't found any Persian histories written from the ancient Persian viewpoint, this book is the best I've read.

I was very impressed by this book. Not only does it present Richard III in an educated light but it also presents Jane Shore as more than just a harlot. As a fan of historical novels I would have to say this can be considered one of the best. The people are brought to light surrounded by facts and writers of the day giving history a more realistic and less flat feel.

Shakespeare portrays King Richard III as a hunchbacked thoroughly evil man. While based upon the historical Richard III, the play is a dramatization. Although classed as a history, remember that Shakespeare's histories aren't historically accurate biographies. Richard is a power-hungry brother of a king who murders, schemes, marries, and plots to usurp the throne from rightful heirs. Richard gets his due when he meets Henry Tudor on the field of battle and the reign of the Yorkist kings comes to an end. Written under the rule of a Tudor monarch (Elizabeth I), the play paints the brutal Richard in an especially unfavorable light. After all, the rise of the Tudors depended upon the death of Richard III. The treatment of women in the play has been criticized, especially the speed under which Anne accepts Richard III -- with her dead father in law in the scene, no less. The play compresses 14 years or so of real history into 5 acts. It is hard to go wrong with Shakespeare. A good but dark read.

Let's get one thing clear from the start: when I rate Shakespeare, I rate it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistently high ratings would not be very informative. If I was rating this against the general run of literature available, it would unquestionably rate 5 stars.

So what brings it down to 4, as compared to other Shakespeare? Primarily a few places where it demands a bit too much suspension of disbelief; the language is some of Shakespeare's best, and is comparatively easy for a modern reader (I found most of the footnotes to be sufficiently unnecessary to be actually more distraction than help). But for one thing, if Richard is withered, hunchbacked, and deformed, how is it that he has been able to kill so many of his victims in battle? For another thing, is it REALLY plausible that Princess Anne would be persuaded as she was by someone with nothing more going for him than Richard? To paraphrase the scene,

Anne: You killed my husband and his father! I hate you I hate you I hate you!

Richard: But I only did it 'cause I'm hot for you, babe! Wanna marry me?

Anne: Welll...maybe. Let me think about it.

(And, in fact, she marries him. Just like that.)

Also, there are virtually NO characters in this play that are sympathetic, save perhaps for the two murdered children and Richmond, and we really don't see enough of them to feel much connection; it dilutes the effectiveness of the portrayal of Richard's evil when almost all of the other characters are, if not just as bad, certainly bad enough.

Richard III is the most well crafted satanic character in all of Shakespeare's writing. What can get frightening is that you see his evil, and yet you like him. The play is dramatically frightening from one scene to the next. To this day, I never could forget the scene where Hastings is sentenced to death or when Richard is haunted by the 11 ghosts. But the virtuous Henry VII also offers captivating passages (especially his passage that announces the end of the War of the Roses.) It is also interesting to see how carefully Shakespeare had to handle Henry VII, seing his granddaughter Elizabeth was in the audience. To be sure, Richard III is blamed for several things he did not do. The dramatic irony is that whatever he was innocent of, all the circumstancial evidence says he murdered his nephews.(Rumors that he killed them continued to spread like fire. Not only did he start losing England's loyalty, but many of his own followers in a rage abandoned him and joined Henry VII. France began to humiliate Richard by broadcasting official accusations and Richard never so much as denied having done it. If he could have produced the princes, his troubles would have been over.)This one vile deed made it possible for Shakespeare to make Richard this monster from hell and convincingly pile a slew of vile deeds upon him of which he was innocent. But all that aside, women such as Richard's furious mother and the raging former Queen Margaret add to the drama and chills. The gradual unfolding of Margaret's curses adds a charming orginizational bonus to this masterpiece. If you want to enjoy this play all the more, make sure you read "3 Henry VI" first. Richard's demonic nature is heavily prepared in this preceeding play.

This is not the best or worst from Stephen King based on the novels of his that I've read. The idea is great and the story has an evil undercurrent running through it which is a trademark of Kings.

The basic story is how lawyer Billy Halleck and two others from his town cross a gypsy elder who then lays a different curse on each of them. Billy's curse is that he just keeps getting thinner, regardless of what he eats, every day he loses a few more pounds. The two other townsfolk have horrid curses inflicted on them, I don't want to give too much away but the reason for the skin disease is a bit confusing to me.

The curses themselves are absolutely disgusting and if King's idea was to make me feel a bit ill, it worked. Only thing is that it detracts from the enjoyment of the book. I prefer the scary approach to his novels. He also has a tendency to paint his main characters with flaws that leave you unsure as to whether you should hope they get out of the predicament or are happy for them to meet the fate they deserve. Once you meet the gypsies and find they are just as despicable as the cursed characters the book just becomes a race to the end to find out what happens. You don't end up barracking for anyone.

One character I did enjoy was the Ginelli, the New York mobster who comes to save Billy. He has an honesty that the other characters seem to lack but his motivation for getting involved in the situation as deeply as he does is unclear, and his fate is predictable.

Plenty of shocks and horror but it appears to be one that was done with less care than many of his others. However it is comparitvely short so if you are a fan and don't want to commit to one of his lengthy efforts then this is worth a try.

Of the five books that Stephen King published under the pen name of Richard Bachman, three of them involved making the numbers of the chapters part of the story. In "The Running Man" there was a countdown as the game progressed while in "The Long Walk" the miles added up. In "Thinner" each chapter gives us the weight of the protagnoist, Billy Halleck, as it plummets relentlessly down. As with his classic short story about smoking, "Quitters, Inc.," King took an American obsession and turned it into a nightmare come true. The cataylst for Billy's weight loss is that old chesnut, the gypsy curse. While driving one night Billy is, uh, distracted by his wife and runs down the elderly daughter of Tadzu Lempke, the leader of a band of gypsies who have invaded the town. Billy is a lawyer and his friends, the judge and police chief, make sure the woman's death is ruled an accident. But before Billy can celebrate, Tadzu touches him and utters the one word curse: "Thinner."

What makes "Thinner" the best of the Bachman books is that King works a whole bunch of other elements into the story. Unlike his earlier Bachman efforts with tended to be one note (e.g., walk till you drop), "Thinner" pours on the fun. Billy's family and doctors are overjoyed by his weight loss at first, but then it continues at an alarming rate, even as Billy spends all of his time eating everyting in site. They insist it is a psychological problem, or perhaps physiological, but a gypsy curse is beyond their ability to believe. Not so for Richie Ginelli, a mobster who is one of Billy's most grateful clients. Ginelli is old school and his mother knows about gypsy curses, so Richie is more than willing to fight fire with fire. Tadzu curses Billy. In an act of desperation Billy proclaims the Curse of the White Man from Town. Richie does everything he can to make that curse come true in an effort to force the old man to "take it off."

That campaign is what elevates "Thinner" above the rest of the Bachman books. In the world of Stephen King fighting back is always the most difficult part of the equation and I like the fact that this time around the effort is grounded in the real world. The gypsies have curses but Richie has automatic weaponry and a cunning honed in the underworld. The end result is that as you read "Thinner" you become open to the possibility that Billy might get out of this one alive, if only they can stop Tadzu's granddaughter Gina with her slingshot and ball bearings. There are other complications in Billy's life that add to the fun of the denoument, such as whatever is going on between Billy's wife and his doctor, so that once King gets the ball rolling it keeps picking up speed as it goes down that hill. We are not talking great fiction here, just a story that gives you second thoughts over every trying another diet.

So many people in today's world want to lose weight and do, but what happens when you are losing too much weight at a deadly rate? It all started when Layer, Billy Halleck, the main character hits an old gypsy woman with his car and kills her. Shortly after this accident, Billy and his wife, Heidi, see an old gypsy man. This man brushes Billy's face and whispers the word "Thinner." From this point on Billy loses more and more weight that starts to scare him to death. He just might die if he doesn't find the cure in time. Will he survive? This book is pretty good over all and I would give it four stars. Stephen King has written some good books including Roadwork, Carrie, The Shinning, and The Green Mile. I would say that Thinner was one of his better books. The book is a little slow in parts but it interesting most of the time. I would recommend it to all readers, because I though the ending was really surprising. Enjoy!