I'm a user of 3D Studio R4, and so I thought that I could easily transfer the lofting skills into 3ds max without too much of a problem. This book, however, doesn't use many of the techniques used in the Inside 3DStudioR4 book by New Riders. It's definitely not for beginning users looking to learn the fundamentals of using 3DSmax. I was disappointed at its learning curve, but I assume if you're comfortable with 3DSmax1, then this book might be for you. If somebody knows a book for 3DSmax2 that is in the same vein as Inside 3DStudio R4, then please email me ;)

Many books on the market will give you step by step instructions how how to create a scene, or create certain effects. Although this is sometimes handy, it doesn't easially allow the user to incorperate the skills they learned into their own work.

Inside 3D Studio Max shows you the concepts behind how the program works, and allows you to apply these concepts, and skills to your own work, rather than a preformatted tutorial. It is this fact, however, that makes the book not extremely useful for modelers who are new to the program. This book often speaks of the manual which ships with 3DS Max, and the writer made it clear that this was not yet ANOTHER MANUAL. Inside 3D Studio Max explores how to expand your ability.

If you have no prior modeling practice, read the manual which ships with Max, then buy this book. If you do that, you will appreciate what is taught in this massive book.

This is an overall GREAT book, and it has really helped me to become a much better 3D artist.

There's a thing common to all classic books: even if you've read one from cover to cover you discover something new every time you open it. Things that you glossed over earlier suddenly start to make sense. This book is no exception. Since 'Inside 3D Studio Rel. 3' the authors have provided an unique insight into the world's most popular 3D programs. This book raises the standard even further, providing enough grip for the novice and a treasure trove of knowledge of the professional. The best thing about this book is the explanation of the PRINCIPLES behind 3D Studio MAX. Instead of the 'do this-screen shot-do that' methodology, the authors have concentrated in the core ideas behind every tool and procedure. If you want MAX to be an extension to your right brain, get this book. Read it all the time. Do the tutorials. Keep referring to it for ideas. You'll discover what you were missing with other books -- the real goods on making MAX dance to your tune.

Jill Lepore has written an excellent historical account of King Philip's War in The Name of War. It does not quite live up to the subtitle (King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity) but it is a broad ranging and exciting view of an important event in American colonial history. One of the main pleasures of this book is in the ways it shows how this War in the 1670's was represented at the time and how its history was changed and manipulated in many various ways all the way through the end of the nineteenth century. The sources include diaries, newspaper account, letters, and plays (a very interesting part of the book), among other sources. Looking at all sources left by natives over the centuries also provides a great illumination on this horribly tragic period of time, particulary for the native Americans. An admirable piece of historical research and writing.

Three centuries ago, New England Native Americans were forced into war with the English colonists who had been gradually destroying the native economy by stealing their land, interfering with their hunting, fishing, and farming, etc. The resulting war, known as King Philip's War, decimated the English population and very nearly rid New England of whites entirely. English technology and European diseases ultimately won out over theWampanoags and their allies; there was never again an "Indian threat" in New England. "The Name of War" recounts the struggle as told in English accounts; official documents, diaries, and letters. Author Jill Lepore makes the point that history is always written by the victor. What makes the retelling of King Philip's War so one-sided is the fact that the conquered, the Native American tribes, had no written language in which to tell their side of the story. Very few natives of that time could read or write English and, if they left any accounts of the war, they have never been discovered. Lepore goes on to show that what subsequent generations of Americans thought about the war was based entirely on the writings of the colonists and later, anglo scholars and writers. Their view of the Native American ranged from pagan devil-worshippers, as shown by the Mathers and other early religious leaders, to Noble Savage (Cooper) and finally, Vanishing American (The Curse of Metamora). These attitudes, calcified in books and plays, became the stones upon which later White treatment of Indian nations in other parts of the country were based. The final confrontation at Wounded Knee two hundred years after King Philip's War, had its birth in the earliest chronicles of the seventeent-century. This book is a must for all who want to understand the basis for the disastrous Indian-White relations of the last three centuries .For those of us who make a living through writing, the book reminds us of the power of words and theawesome responsibility authors have to use those words wisely.

The author presents the story of the war as it should be told.
She neither takes the side of the colonists nor the Native Americans. She presents the story in a manner to allow the reader to make her or his own judgment about this historic event.
Most of us learned about the colonists in our history or social study courses in elementary and high school. A story that depicted the first Americans as heroes who among other things had to battle native savages to found this country. Little was

taught about the natives. Until recently most stories about the so-called King Philips war depicted it as a massacre by both sides. Little effort was made to look at the war in a balanced manner from both sides. For example, the author points out that the native Americans had lived here moving from their rich farm where they grew crops in season to their hunting ground in season. When the colonists arrived they misunderstood these moves by the natives to mean they had not fixed places to live and were nomads. Based on such a misconception the colonists took over these farm lands and hunting areas as their own property. And a big cause for the war was the reaction of the natives to take back their lands. The colonists also were egocentric by considering themselves as God's chosen race, as such they considered the natives as savage inferiors. As the author points out, many colonists thought the attack and it ferocity was the wrath of God because of God's displeasure with the way they lived in the new land. They thought the natives to represent evil and were intent on annihilating the native Americans. The racial ramifications of such thinking carried over into the western expansion in America at the expense of native Americans who were almost completely wiped out.
The value of the book is that the reader must form judgments about the actions of both sides and the implications for our later dealing with native Americans. This book unlike most of other writings about history does not present the author's personal view, rather the reader must form his or her own view.
It is a very good book for anyone interested in being challenged to decide what really caused this war and what implications it had for race relatioships in America later.

Kamen's biography of Philip V, which is the first English-language biography on this troubled soul for a long time, is an attempt at rehabilitation. In Philip's case, rehabilitation has its limits - for instance, the fact that he attended FEWER auto-da-fe's than his Hapsburg predecessors is hardly exculpatory. On the other hand, Kamen shows that Philip was a diligent man who, from the moment he arrived from Paris (he was French-born and indeed a grandson of Louis XIV), took his constitutional and religious roles extremely seriously, and withstood armed insurrection by the Hapsburg pretender, Archduke (later Emperor) Charles. Kamen also refutes the standard caricature of Philip as "dominated by women" and "tormented by desire for his wife." (He was uxorious! So what?) As to Philip's supposed "feeble-mindedness" and "madness," Kamen has the benefit of modern psychiatry, and as he explains, Philip's extravagant mood swings and melancholia are classic symptoms of manic depression. Finally, the title: he ruled "twice" not because of his supposed "madness," but because he abdicated in favor of his first-born son Louis, who then died only months later, leaving Philip to re-take the reins of power. A scholarly and impressive study of Spanish court life in the early eighteenth century.

Was the King Crazy?

Mr. Kamen's book is not really a biography of the Spanish king. Rather, it is a diatribe against other historians who described Philip V as weak, mentally disturbed and a disaster for this country. The author does not see it that way.

Mr. Kamen explains that Philip suffered from manic depression and bipolar disorder. Could that be another expression for mentally unfit? While the king spent days and weeks in bed, screaming loud and messing up himself and his surroundings, the author claims that he was still of a composed mind and absolutely lucid. Philip's second wife, Elizabeth Farnese, took over the command of the kingdom, saying that she only acted on the instructions of her husband. Do we want to believe her? What we can believe is that, during Philip?s first marriage to Marie Louise of Savoy and even beyond, the affairs of Spain were run by the king's grandfather, King Louis XIV of France. Under Elizabeth Farnese, the French influence lessened and was supplanted by an Italian hegemony.

Given this very strong foreign influence, and the considerable power still exercised by the Spanish grandees, one could question whether or not it really mattered that much if Philip was always lucid or bipolar. Mr. Kamen may have lost the basis for his argument.

Philip V is a king who is more often talked about than subjected to scholarly inquiry. His role in the war of Spanish Succession and his subsequent career on the throne and his second marriage have been the subject of numerous rumors and speculation. Henry Kamen's book rights a great wrong and restores Philip to the modern reader by subjecting his career and mental history to a modern sensibility. Philip's probable bi-polar disorder expalins a great deal about Philip's behavior Kamen's book is not only useful to the reader interested in Spain, but in 17th century European history in general.

I got interested in this period of history after reading Parkman's masterful "France and England" series. Drake's book is the opposite -- dull, politically correct, completely lacking a sense of drama, written more with a view to securing tenure than increasing knowledge of this period. There's all the buzzwords -- indentity and gender and sexual politics, hints of Foucault and Derrida... an absolute waste of money. I pity his students. I pity the study of history. Morrison, Parkman, Freeman, Foote -- where are you when we need you?

Historian James Drake presents an intriguing thesis in this book. In his view, King Philip's War was a civil war that tore apart a highly integrated European-Indian society. On the face of it, this idea seems ludicrous, but Drake presents a very convincing case. Even if Drake does not win you over, you learn a lot about both colonial and Indian societies. Even the most ardent critics of the work must admit that Drakes presents some significant challenges to conventional thinking.

The problem is that Drake does not know how to write well. The book is dreadfully slow and dry, with little penchent for anything but the most academic trivia. If one stays awake, you will find some very fascinating insights mixed together with the horrendously slow treatise, but often, it's not worth it.

For fans of colonial history, it's a must. For anyone else, be warned: it will be a tough read.

This is a clearly written and thoughtful analysis of King Philip's War. While some may disagree with the author's characterization of the conflict as a "civil war," Drake effectively illuminates the important and complex connections that developed among the New England colonies and some Native American nations and how those connections helped to bring about the war.

"Death of Kings" is the second Shakespearean murder mystery featuring the detecting skills of actor Nick Revill, and while the novel is well written, I found it to be a little disappointing as a murder mystery novel, in spite of the odd murder or two thrown in the middle of the book. "Death of Kings" is more a novel of political intrigue than it is a story of murder and mayhem.

It is the early months of 1601, and England is a veritable hotbed of rumours, portents and conspiracy theories. The Queen (Elizabeth I) is getting old, and unfortunately has no direct heir to the throne. Stories are being bruited about that Cecil, the Secretary to the Council, has all but persuaded the Queen to name the Spanish Infanta as her heir. Certainly the Earl of Essex, Robert Deverux, once a favourite of the Queen's, believes this rumour, and has stormed back to London in order to protect the throne (and, he says, the Queen) by mounting an insurrection. The question on everyone's mind is if he is really serious about protecting the Queen from those who would ill advise her, or if his plan is to put himself on the throne? Nick Revill finds himself in the thick of all this political shenanigans, when Cecil commands him to act as his spy.

The Chamberlain's Men, according to Cecil, is about to be commissioned to perform Shakespeare's Richard II by one of Essex's supporters. Not the most propitious of plays to perform right now since it deals with the supplanting of the rightful monarch by a usurper, ostensibly for 'the good of the country.' Nick is told to keep an eye and ear open, and to be on the lookout in particularly for an individual known as Merrick. And so Nick finds himself acting the unenviable role of spy, and watching his own friends and company. Soon however Nick finds himself having a foot in both camps (Cecil's and Essex's) when Shakespeare asks him to deliver a message to the Earl of Southampton on his behalf. This takes Nick deep into Essex's camp, and he is soon taken for an Essex supporter. And he cannot help but wonder how soon it will be before someone discovers that he is a spy. Nick's worst fears are realised when first, he becomes aware of the fact that he is being watched, and then that someone is trying to kill him. But who is after him? Is it a member of Essex's group? Or has Cecil decided that he has outlived his usefulness? Or is there someone else with a more sinister reason to end Nick's life?

I was a little disappointed with this Nick Revill murder mystery. The novel seemed to be chock-full of promising ingredients: there was political intrigue; an unknown murderer(s) stalking our hero; a few well conceived red herrings; two chillingly executed murders; and a host of eccentric and suspicious characters... And yet things fizzled a little for me, mainly because 'sitting on the edge of your seat' feeling was just not there in spite of the attempts on Nick's life. I found myself skimming through many pages of unnecessary political ruminations in order to get at the 'meat' of this particular mystery.

All in all "Death of Kings" is not a bad read -- it's interesting, informative and clever. However I definitely preferred the first Nick Revill murder mystery, "Sleep of Death."

An interesting read around Thanksgiving as it sheds new light on the initial settlers' relationships with the native americans. The book is informative but seems to skim over some interesting events and leaves you wondering.

This book deals with one of the great mysteries in history - who killed Philip II, father of Alexander the Great. My biggest complaint with this novel is the author's note. The author states that Alexander's character is very much as found in the historical documents; "rather shy, self-effacing, suffering from panic attacks, and very shy of women." Not quite. Every ancient source portrays him as gregarious, prone to excessive ego and ambition, incredibly bold and often reckless. There is no indication he was shy around women, rather that he was somewhat disinterested in them sexually until his mid-20's. Alexander had conquered the known world by his 30th birthday, and one has to question the author's opinion of his character.

For those who wish to make up their minds for themselves about Alexander's character, I recommend A.B. Bosworth's excellent, "Conquest and Empire, the Reign of Alexander the Great," available, of course, from Amazon.com.

I am a real fan of Ancient Greece in fiction....and looked forward to reading this novel with a great deal of interest.

But while the premise is an excellent one...some ideas should be left as just that, ideas, or at least they should be presented to more capable hands.

Apart from the numerous historical inaccuracies...the references to the authors of this time read like name dropping...the story centers on the efforts of a Jewish maiden, Miriam, to uncover the identity of Phillip of Macedon's murderer, not on Alexander, and the entire story suffers from stilted conversations, contrived circumstances, and a lack of time spent researching the actual daily lives of these people.

The characters are mere caricatures of the actual persons involved in the story, and even the 'invented' characters suffer from a serious lack of development and 'fleshing out'. The revelation of a character's involvement in the murder at the end is anti-climactic, as the character was never really given much importance in the story.

The author's note at the end attempts to justify the contents with claims that there is historical evidence to support most of the action, and the speculations made are at least partly grounded in fact. That part I can accept...but while the story centers on a murder...the greatest crime of the novel is the novel itself. It suffers greatly from lack of actual time spent researching the time period, and only the few facts and suppositions gleaned by the author prior to writing it that appear in the novel in no way qualify it as good historical fiction.

Nice try, Anna Apostolou, but many have done it better.

Historical mysteries are all the rage now, and so we come to the murder of a king in Ancient Greece, replete with conspiracy, intrigue, and witchcraft. Such novels are harder to write than regular detective novels: in addition to the mystery needing to be good, the historical aspects need to be good also. Here the author succeeds reasonably well, and the result is a good book, worth reading if you're interested in Greek history or mysteries.

I had only a sketchy knowledge of the murder of Philip of Macedon prior to this book, but what I saw in the book was good. The king is killed during a public ceremony by one of his own guards, who is about to escape, but killed by the guards under circumstances that make it look as if he was never intended to escape at all. There's also another assassin who's been killed, further confusing things.

The detective protagonist is the most interesting character in the book, a Jewish woman whose brother is a scribe for the king himself. Once the king is dead, Alexander (soon to be the Great) asks the woman and her brother to look into the murder, and what she finds is fun and intriguing. There's a spurned wife who indulges in witchcraft, and [unintellegent] son who seems harmless but is looking for a suspicious knife, a crafty old general who's scheming for power, a pair of brothers who are pretenders to the throne, etc. All of these are suspects, and Miriam, must sort through them and figure out who might or might not have done it.

Miriam and her brother are interesting characters, and the solution is believable, if a bit far-fetched. I would recommend the book, and will be looking for the sequel.

This is probably the saddest study on Alexander the Great I have ever read. Ashley wants us - seriously - to believe Nearchos' fleet battled with Neanderthal men. A misreading of Arrian by the author has convinced him that Aristobulus was the son of the Indian King Poros. There are major and minor mistakes on almost every page. At the price of 60 US dollars, you should really look for a better book.

I'm sorry, but this is as it is.