The biggest problem with the WSH and VBScript is that it is marketed as being a powerful but simple "macro" language. Nothing could be further from the truth. VBScript is essentially VB without the forms and graphics. VBScript is just as powerful, has the same controlling capabilities, and uses almost all the same commands and syntax as VB. To think of writing scripts for the WSH as anything less than programming is a mistake.

When I first got this book, I read a ways into it, decided I didn't have the time or energy to go on, and put it aside. Had I written a review at that point, it would not have been favorable. Then I learned more about the WSH, what it was and what my expectations should be, what a person could do with it - and I picked it back up, and really applied myself. And apply yourself you must for this book. The first 154 pages of this 600 page book teach you the syntax and structure of VBScript (and some JScript). It's a little dry, and easy to get lost in. But once you have that down, the rest of the book can really open things up and show you quite a bit.

Besides an introduction to the language, the book covers "upgrading" your old batch files, writing logon scripts for users, automating network tasks, SQL server, IIS server, as well as showing you how to use ActiveX objects for the file system, CDO, ADO (Database), etc. The book even goes so far as to touch on ADSI scripting for Windows NT and Windows 200 Active Directory.

Even though at this point in time the book is a little out-dated (written in the Windows NT 4 time), it is still a good learning tool. Not so unlike other "... in 21 days" books, the average person won't complete the book in that time, and you learn just as much correcting the errors in the code and doing the workshop material as you do from the actual guided lessons. If you're looking for a scripting solution that is quick and easy, WSH and VBScript isn't it, and neither is this book. If you're looking for a powerful automation tool for network and services automation, and you're willing to spend the time it will take to complete this book, then this could be the title for you.

For a programmer who has used VB, Java, or any ASP, this book will boost your skills incredibly with a minimal learning curve. It shows the basics of the WSH objects and an overview of VBScript and JScript within the first few chapters- it is worth buying the book just for those chapters alone.

If you are not familiar yet with the concepts of OOP and looking at object models, you might need a primer found in another book before looking into WSH. It is built purely on objects that your code will refence and it can be a bear to take on unprepared.

It will be interesting to see how the .Net framework will integrate the objects in WSH- there is a significant chance that little in this book will be completely valid after Windows XP and Visual Studio .Net have become standard. Nevertheless, this book is an invaluable tool to the Windows programmer who wants to simplify life by automating as many tasks as possible.

I am really new to WSH but this book made it really easy for me to grasp the concepts. It strarts from the basics and moves to harder material. I would recommend this book to anyone who needs to learn not just WSH but VBscript and jscript.

This book isn't so much Edgar Cayce on reincarnation as it is Noel Langley on reincarnation, with occasional refernces to Cayce. The conviction with which Langley tries to "prove" that reincarnation is, in fact, a Christian view is kind of scary. All of his examples of the plot to bury reincarantion in the bible seem to involve "evil women" of some sort or another; quite a turn off for me. I skipped over most of that. Otherwise, it's full of pretty interesting first-hand accounts.

What disappointed me about this book was that it wasn't so much Edgr Cayce on reincarnation as it was Noel Langley on Reincarnation and occasionally Edgar Cayce. His conviction, the need of the author to "prove" everything he said made it a little uncomfortable and sometimes boring to read, too. Otehrwise, it's interesting. Lots of good first-hand accounts.

I recommend this book 100%. These days I'm a lot less wordy (see below), but still hold the same conviction about Cayce. I think he was the real thing, and that his readings (particularly concerning reincarnation) still hold up today. If nothing else, this is a compelling read and will hold your interest, perhaps even spark some pertinent questions.

Peace.

The book gave excellant background information on the subject.

I was not looking for background, so it was not helpful to me. I believe it would be very good for someone interested in the technical aspects of the subject.

This book is just full of information about colors and gem stones. It makes you realize we live in a world that is alive with atomic particles and their vibrations and influences on the human body. It is almost like reading about magic, but without the mystery produced by illusions. Any reader interested in these subjects will enjoy reading it. Even the scientific parts are really interesting.

An engrossing and informative book that is chockful of facts and esoterica. I knew about Edgar Cayce before reading this book, but I didn't realize he covered these subjects in his clairvoyant readings. It made me realize even more how the world and everything that is in it is made up of atomic vibrations. The author covers a lot of material and keeps it in perspective throughout. I wish there had been more. Just wonderful! Mr. Cayce was a man of faith and a devout Christian.

Time's Arrow Time's Cycle written by Stephtn Jay Gould is a book that takes human thought to a new level in comprehending geology's vastness of history... the discovery of deep time. Gould works this book's major theme in the role of metaphor in the formulation and testing of scientific theories as the directionality (narrative history) of time's arrow or the immanence of time's cycle (immanent laws).

This book is both an account of geology's greatest discovery and philosophical commentary on the nature of scientific thought. As this thought takes us from thought of time in thousand of years to billions of years, inspired by empirical observation of rocks in the field.

Gould follows a single thread through three documents that mark the transition in our thinking: Thomas Burnet's four-volume "Sacred Theory of the Earth" (1680-1690), James Hutton's "Theory of the Earth (1795), and Charle Lyell's three-volume "Principle of Geology (1830-1833). Gould shifts through these writings giving the reader a history and background needed for a progressive march to the truth of the geological history through an enlightened observation.

Reading this book will captivate the curious reader and helps the human mind understand the vastness of time and the struggle to understand it.

The title of the review is an homage to Gould's oft mentioned love of baseball. This book is a cogent explanation of how European scientists (natural philosophers) recounciled the narrative tradition of history inherited from the Judeo-Christian template with the eternal return perspective of the Classical civilizations. Both view points-as-metaphors shed light on interpretation of the geological record. There are both serial and cyclic elements in the history of the earth, so the scientific community found truth in spite of the fact that individual scientists tended to emphasize one perspective over the other.

Gould exposes the 'cardboard cut-out' Whig version of history that most working scientists have received uncritically as hurried historical preambles to their study of geology per se. James Hutton, for example, is held up as a paragon of the field geologist who supposedly preceded his assertion of the existence of 'deep time' with countless hours in the field. Not so, says Gould. In fact, Hutton did his field work after he conceived the idea of a lengthy earth history and merely used his field observations to bolster his claim. Thomas Burnet, author of the much made-fun-of Sacred Theory of the Earth, is revealed to have been a champion of uniformitarianism before Hutton even conceived of it. Burnet refused to advance causes for events described in the Bible that could not be explained by the laws of physics as advanced by Isaac Newton. Finally, Charles Lyell is exposed as a master of rhetoric who conflated methodological and substantive aspects of uniformitarianism in order to sway his audience. No member of the scientific community contemporary to Lyell clung to the Mosaic timescale. He merely used it as a strawman. It was Lyell who managed to mate the narrative and eternal return perspectives into a coherent view of Earth history. First he did so by insisting the apparent progress observed in the fossil record was caused by the immense scale of the cycles of Earth history. Eventually he conceded the reality of evolution and allowed for the existence of an arrow of time whose path did not curve.

Gould's book is modified from a series of lectures, which is probably why there is so much uncharacteristic repetition of themes and ideas in this book. It was the only aspect of this book that I found irritating. Gould is also candid about his pride at uncovering various inaccuracies in the received wisdom and unearthing original themes to explain patterns in the history of geology. I have heard other people complain about this personality trait. I have no problem with it and believe that his satisfaction with his own cleverness is quite justifiable.

Stephen Jay Gould's love of science history really shows through in this work, which focuses on changing ideas about time and geology. It's well-researched and makes some very intriguing points about science in general, but if you have no patience for geology you probably won't get that far - it's nowhere near as accessible as his essay collections, but that's only to be expected. Every science major should read this book, and so should anyone who likes to think of themselves as well-informed about history and science.

There is no longer any point in being defensive about Pynchon. I personally don't have any doubt that, on the strengths of "Gravity's Rainbow" and to a slightly lesser extent "The Crying of Lot 49", he is the greatest living novelist working in the English language, for what that's worth. These books are no more demanding than the average Jacobean tragedy. Which, really, isn't very much.

The rewards of Pynchon have always outweighed the difficulties, anyway. "Mason & Dixon" is perhaps the foundling child of the rumour, current in the 80s, that Pynchon was writing a novel about the Civil War. He ended up giving us "Vineland", his frothiest work, which isn't to say that it's not haunted by malevolent spectres of Nixon and Reagan. "Mason & Dixon" probably demands some vague acquaintance with 18th century fiction, in order to see what Pynchon is getting at stylistically, but really, guys, they're on the shelf at bargain prices, and if you haven't read 'em by now ... Gawd help you.

I use the word "mellow" because this seems to me to be a sadder and more tolerant Pynchon at work. (It may only seem that way cause he's older, and we expect this kind of thing from a Late Style, but nevertheless...I'll get back to you on it when I've read it again.) He manages to combine a mischievous sense of the contemporary with a feel for the America-before-America that seems somehow right, even if I don't know how. A good example is the episode where the stuffy Mason and the goofy Dixon pay a call on Colonel George Washington, who happens to be smoking a pipe filled with some substance or other; the three of them promptly get the munchies, and call upon the servants for some eats. Or the bit when a blue-bespectacled Benjamin Franklin plays a glass harmonica in a chophouse, thereby presaging the phenomenon of the DJ. Or the scene where the pizza is invented. And so on.

What's surprising and new about the book is Pynchon's (apparent) uncomplicated fondness for his two heroes. Mason, pious, middle-class, respectable and socially ambitious - southern English to a T - is forever being embarrassed by the blunt, wide-eyed, Northern Dixon. It's almost as though he sees future silent comedy duos in this unlikely partnership. The book is endlessly cheeky, but it has a beating heart, and the heart is in the relationship of the eponymous surveyors. The closing pages are amongst the most haunting and straightforwardly moving that he has ever written - and yet, in them, there is still a tragic awareness of how American history is going to turn out...

Yes, it's "picaresque", which is to say that it doesn't exactly have a swift, economical plot and isn't exactly unencumbered by digressions. But these are part of the pleasures of literature, or at least they were until the recent craze for the novel that you read in order to be able to say that you've read it. "Mason & Dixon" does not yield all its splendours in one go. Few good novels do. Hang on - make that _no_ good novels. Nabokov always said that you never really read a novel, you only reread it - meaning that if you get it all in the first reading, it probably wasn't worth writing. Pynchon took classes from Nabokov, and this lesson sunk in.

The man is still the greatest, at least in my mother tongue. (Though I'll wave a small flag with John Berger's name on it, just because I can.) I just finished this book, and I look forward to a time when I've forgotten what it's like, so that I can read it again.

I first read Pynchon about 30 years ago. Unlike some friends who can remember every character and situation of Gravity's Rainbow or V., it was not specific characters or events which most intrigued me in Pynchon's writing, but the sense of place he invokes. The place is not geographic, but experiential. To read Pynchon seriously (and this requires a certain suspension of disbelief), to follow his logic through(it is there, though sometimes difficult)is to experience a paradigm shift. One cannot read Pynchon and fail to experience the world a bit differently afterward. With Mason & Dixon, not only does Pynchon more clearly develop the significance of his theory of Entropy as it applies to human society (the obliteration of the mythic, the homogenization of culture, the blanding of the imagination), but he demonstrates that he has become wordsmith without equal in (at least)current English literature. The meaning of this work aside, it must be read by everyone who writes or wishes to write for the sheer beuty of its prose.This novel represents a synthesis of historic and scientific knowledge, social analysis, wit, insight and sheer mastery of description unequalled by anything I have seen in Twentieth Century literature. Don't be afraid of this book. Be afraid to be afraid of it.

If you're a Pynchon fanatic, you bought this when it was released. If you're not, you might as well start here. Part of the beauty of the book is figuring out the anachronisms and mentally translating the period colloquialisms throughout the novel. Another part of the beauty is trying not to piss in your pants when reading the burlesque sections. Pynchon has written some wonderful slapstick, both pedestrian and complex, in the past, but this book has some of the funniest scenes ever written by anyone. And those scenes are sidelines to the main story.

Get a good atlas, some history references (i.e. early colonial American history and British colonial history, e.g. "The Rise and Fall of the British Empire" by Lawrence James), a really comfortable chair, and take a few days off work to fully enjoy. It also helps to not care if people see you cry. I started sniffling about 100 pages from the end since I knew I was close to finishing the book. Then, it got REALLY sad, and I bawled. "Gravity's Rainbow" exhausts you and exhilirates you from its sweeping concordance of conspiracy theories and history; "Mason & Dixon" exhausts you from its sheer beauty, and throws in a little conspiracy and history just to keep you on your toes.

For those who've rated the book here and complained about it's complexity, I can only say you need to work on your attention spans. Like all the other Pynchon books (with the exception of "Vineland" and maybe "Lot 49"), you should expect this book to become the central part of your free time for a few days. There are no wasted words or throw-away scenes here. There are sentences so finely constructed that they'll force you to re-read them several times, and there are chapters so dense that you'll wish you'd majored in history. Even the page numbers seem steeped in meaning after about 1/3 of the book.

Two things struck me while reading this book, the first is that I doubt there is a book out there that is truly balanced and not somewhat biased. The second thing was that Gore really got the shaft, not so much by the recount wars, but by the election official that came up with the Butterfly Ballot. In the history of the USA this decision ranks up there with new Coke and the XFL, what a mistake. As far as the reporting in the book it was not bad for a review of all the articles they had in the paper, but it did not really dig into the particular issues very deeply. I wanted more detail and behind the scenes with both the candidates. I also wanted more details on the court cases; I felt like the sky-high overview of the issues of the cases did not do such an important issue justice.

In reading the book I think a little bit of a democratic bias comes out, just a little, but enough to notice. I also thought it interesting that they had far more details of the Gore group then the Bush camp, it follows the perception that the Post is somewhat liberal in its views. The book is an overview that came out almost 10 minutes after Gore hung up the phone on the second concession call so there are a few more details out now that they did not get in the book. Overall it is a good effort and a readable book, but not the end all be all on the subject.

This book, by the editors of the Washington Post, does a good job of describing the events which led to the deadlocked 2000 Presidential election. In addition to detailing the paths which led to the deadlock, the book discusses all the post-election issues in a very readable format. Surprisingly, the books editors seem only slightly tilted towards Gore (especially considering it is the Washington Post, which is noted for its liberal bias), so no matter who you voted for, there is much to be found here for anyone with an interest in contemporary politics.

I personally think the Washington Post and NY Times are liberal rags that are generally not worth the paper they are printed on. However, in fairness, when they do well I think they should be commended. I read the NY Times "36 Days" and still think that book was not worth the paper it was printed on. It was nothing more than a reprint of their articles.

Conversely, though, Deadlock was a well-written book. Two passages are worth noting. The first is about the book itself. About one-third of the way into the first chapter the book says: "These are the ... decisions, alliances, power plays, snap judgments and personality flaws revealed when a flukishly close election is played out for staggering high stakes. Both sides were nimble and brilliant and occasionally shady; both sides were also capable of miscalculations, divisions and blame. The best and worst of politics were on displayed in those 36 days, and both sides trafficked in each. This is how it happened." Although the Post endorsed Al Gore (no surprise) they tried to be equal in their appraisal of how the two campaigns sought resolution in their favor.

As for the two sides' strategy one only has to look within the first three pages of Chapter 2 where the Post records that the Democrats enlisted the services of three authors who wrote "The Recount Primer". The book reads: "Anyone who read and heeded the booklet could predict how the two sides would play America's closest president election -- at least in the broad outlines. Gore would gamble; Bush would stall. Gore would preach a doctrine of uncounted ballots; Bush would extol the dependability of machines. Gore needed more: more counting, more examination, more weighing and pondering of more ballots. Bush needed it over while he was still ahead." The only trouble for the Gore forces with this gospel was that the Republicans knew the same gospel. The book attempted to show how the two sides played out the roles assigned them.

For a behind the scenes objective look at the two sides, I think the Post did a very decent job. This could have been a... job on the Republicans and conservatives, but generally it was not (though I expected it). It could have been a... job on the Democrats and liberals, but it was not (nor did I expect it). I am not accustomed to this degree of fairness from the liberal Washington Post nor do I expect to see it very often in the future.

Jude The Obscure goes against the normal strain in its treatment of topics ranging from marriage, ambition, dreams, and class-society. The book takes shocking twists and turns, and even though the subjects are often depressing, the sheer shock of what has just happened makes you want to read more. Hardy's main character is Jude, a poor, parentless boy whose ambitions far exceed the restrictions his class would put on him. Throughout his childhood he pushed himself in the studies of academia, he would always be seen with Latin books while delivering bread to the villagers. Eventually, as Jude grows he decides to move to Chirstminister-Jude's dream starting from his very early days of youth. Christminister is the center of all academic pursuit and home to the greatest colleges of learning. We follow Jude's adventures there, along with all of his attempts to being admitted into one of these institutions. This is not easy for a young man who has no money or family status behind him. One of Jude's great battles is between his burning desire to achieve higher learning, and his weakness towards women which draw him away from this goal. The elements which Jude's eventual children present, make an outlandish story even stranger by their actions. Certainly Hardy intended the children to present us with some additional lessons to consider while contemplating the book.

The book was difficult for me to read, as mentioned in other reviews, the depressing subject matter and gloominess is not inherently an inviting thing. However, by unfolding the story as Hardy did, following the dreams and failures of young Jude, I learned some lessons that I do not think I could have otherwise. I received a strong personal impression in the importance of not giving up on yourself. That even if your opportunities are not optimal, or you environment is not perfect, that you still have the ability to reach for your dreams. And at all costs you should not give up on your dreams, or believe that you are not capable of accomplishing them. I also thought a lot about the acts the society would have us perform, which are not securely right. Having read the book forced me to reflect about the daily choices I make, how many of those are really mine, and how many are artificial restraints institutions would have me believe I must make.

While I have read more entertaining books, I would have to recommend this one because of the unique perspective it presents. Hardy message allows us to think about important issues in a light not often seen through.

Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy is an intriguing book. It is the story of a young man named Jude who aspires to be a religious preacher. In Jude's pursuit of this goal, he is faced with opposition.
Jude is a poor orphan boy who lives with this aunt. He works by day and studies by candle light to get into Christminster, a special college for theologians. All seems well until a voluptuous woman distracts one Sunday from his studying. Before he knows it, he is not longer studying and married to a woman he does not love.
Jude falls in love with another young woman. Society frowns on them for she belongs to another.
Through the credible characters of Jude, Arabella, Sue, and Philloston, Hardy shows the effect society has upon the weak individual. Some would have you believe Jude the Obscure is an awful book, but it is not. It is a book that makes you think. When I was done reading it, I though, "Now what has that got to do with anything?" It has a lot to do with everything. It covers the subjects of God, love, fate, and society. What Hardy has to say should be heard. I recommend reading Jude the Obscure.

Prior to reading Jude the Obscure, I had a smattering of knowledge about the religious uproar it caused upon publication, which led Hardy to abandon novels and focus merely on poetry. His work being denounced and burned by the churches, Hardy felt that if that was to be the treatment of his work, he would no longer produce the work.

Now that I have read the novel, and having attempted to place myself in the mindset of the later 19th century morals and ideals, I can begin to understand why such an uproar was raised.

First, the story...Jude Fawley, of poor and meager birth, aspires to academic greatness. When it is recommended to him that he stay on the 'blue collar' course he has begun, and not wish for more, he decides to educate himself, one day hoping that it will position him for greater things.

Jude enters into a hasty marriage, which by later standards would be described as a 'shotgun' wedding, which he eventually comes to regret, and ends. Enter his cousin Sue, who becomes the love of his life. Sue also ends an unsatisfactory first marriage, freeing herself to be with Jude, whom she loves as well.

What follows is a descent into tragedy and despair, with numerous twists and turns along the way. Not wanting to spoil them, I will not divulge.

However, the remainder of the novel touches upon many, many themes that amounted to raising of the ire of the church in response. Divorce; childbirth out of wedlock; loss of faith in God; questioning religious ideals and teachings; all these and more are present in the latter half of the novel, and so much more.

Upon finishing the book, I was left to question were these really Hardy's own feelings illustrated in his work, or simply a realization of a course of events for the characters, and not a reflection on the author's beliefs. That, however, bears further reading on the life of Thomas Hardy.

Where I find fault with the novel is in the characters, and it is merely a distaste with their actions. Sue, the heroine, spends far too much time vacillating about her love for Jude and her desire to marry him. When Jude tries to do the right thing by Sue, and respect her wishes, she claims he has 'given up too easily, and doesn't seem at all disappointed'. Jude's first wife, Arabella, displays an utterly selfish, self-absorbed personality, and was, for me, unlikeble, and unsympathetic. Jude, a character capable of learning Latin and Greek and engaging in other scholarly pursuits, seems completely naive in the ways of the world, and further seems blinded by a sense of duty over a sense of the rights and wrongs of others. His actions make him appear to have no regard for himself, until the very end.

Perhaps this is exactly as Hardy meant the characters to be seen, perhaps not. I did enjoy the book more than I expected to, and apparently more than others who have said to me "What on earth are you reading THAT for???". Hardy is not a comedy writer, and one should not expect a glamorous, cheerful, tidy ending, it does not exist here.

While not the greatest of classic novels I have read, I can certainly see why this one has been discussed for over 100 years. While Dickens peppered his stories with levity to break up the gloom, Hardy continues on a downward spiral, leaving his characters in despair within and without. I recommend it to readers who enjoy a good characterization of later 19th century life in England. But if you are looking for something to put a smile on your face, Hardy might not be for you.

The current "WWJD" (What Would Jesus Do") phenomenon is not the Biblical understanding of how we are to determine right and wrong. While this book did not start that pop phenomenon, some may read this mistakenly. What Jesus would do would be different that you or I because He was fully man AND fully God, second Person of the Trinity. He was sinless, and although tempted in every way as we are, He did not sin. His purpose was to fulfill the Law in order to be the spotless sacrificial lamb of God, the atonement and substitute for our sins. He was the omniscient God incarnate, so He knew what was in each heart and what was the perfectly appropriate thing to say and do in each situation in order to accomplish His mission. In that sense, what He would do in a situation as God is a hypothetical we cannot know as finite creatures. What He might have done is a speculation. We are, however, TOLD in Scripture what we are to do, how as Christians we are to act and live.

I'd recommend reading Charles Sheldon's "In His Steps" before reading this. Then you decide who is the better writer and has a real handle on the concept.

I read this book with alot of hesitancy, being that it was loaned to me from one of our deacons, but I read it and once I got started, I couldn't stop! This book changed my outlook on life and how I should treat others. I loved this book and it's message so much that I bought 8 of them and gave them out to my co-workers. It has truely been an eye opener! Every Christian should read this book! If you didn't fully understand Jesus before, you will once you read this book.

Tanizaki's 1933 essay is an excellent introduction to the Japanese aesthetic. True, it IS the personal reflection on one man who, were he anyone else, would probably be dismissed as a curmudgeonly crackpot. However, 'western bashing' is not the issue here -- a point that he makes repeatedly is that had Japan remained closed to the influences and technology of the west, those things that have developed in Japan (and, arguably, later developed Japan) would have had a very different complexion. Although he does not speak for all Japanese, the points he makes -- tastes in architecture, decoration, etc -- appear over and over in ordinary Japanese people's homes and lives, even today, 70 years later. (I recommend this book to anyone going to visit Japan -- it gives most Westerners an entirely new perspective on how to view Japanese art.)

The ideas in Tanizaki's essay on the Japanese appreciation for shadows and nature-based arts and architecture should come as little surprise for those familiar with the Japanese culture and tradition. Tanizaki's suggestion that these inclinations came from practical origins made sense (a lot better than the still-common theory that the Japanese idea of aesthetics is a result of different, Japanese genes). It also seemed to me that the Japanese were more inclined to resign themselves to fate and find beauty in what was at hand (like the shadows) than to fight nature and create light at the expense of beauty.

What interested me most was the fact that Tanizaki has a "us versus them" mentality, not so much that Japan or the West is better than the other, just different. However, it seems that if a young Japanese person were to read this essay today, it would seem just as "foreign" as it does to an American.

Nevertheless, it was interesting to read Tanizaki's essay, which discusses everything from the theatre to the bathroom, gold and lacquer, women and race. One cannot help but read Tanizaki's essay without feeling his loss at the erosion of traditional society and the innate beauty within it. At the same time, it makes you look around and notice the lack of beauty in our everyday lives (in terms of art and architecture). America, too, was once a land of shadows and a people who we probably able to appreciate their beauty. Tanizaki probably never considered the fact that his culture and ours are really not so fundamentally different.

If you read this essay, don't get caught up in Tanizaki's occasional bad-mouthing of Western culture (remember that he probably would have never dreamed that this short essay would be translated and read in the West!) Instead, treat this as a rare look into a common Japanese mindset and an opportunity to see for yourself whether Tanizaki's praise of shadows is a worthy one or not.

Reviewers are treating Tanizaki's essay as a self-righteous narrative. It is, rather, an exposition of one man's aesthetic, which, perhaps mistakenly, he attributes to a nation. At the same time, he derides this nation, Japan, for relinquishing traditionalism, in favor of utilitarianism. Tanizaki did not use this essay to belittle western civilization- he used it to emphasize how western civilization was not, according to his perspective, complementary to eastern civilization. This essay is a powerful opinion piece, reflecting one man's disdain for, or arguably bewilderment at, the changing times and the dissolving of a time and place he loved. Tanizaki is a brilliant essayist; his work is revealing of passion and insight. To take this essay as an insult, or as "boring" and "whiny," is the crudest possible assessment. At best, demeaning the essay by ridiculing it as foolhardy words written by a grumpy old nationalist does nothing but prove Tanizaki's points about the incompatibility of western and eastern aesthetic. I don't believe all of what Tanizaki said to be true, either of aesthetics or of ethnic predispositions to given aesthetics, but I believe he had a valid case as foundation for his essay, and I strongly recommend reading it.

I enjoyed reading the book, but since the author purported to be telling the entire story, I would liked to have seen other characters who played a role in the Louisiana Purchase included: General Wilkonson, head of the American Army, a "confidant" of Jefferson while a spy on Spain's Payroll, Aaron Burr, the big intriguer who was scheming to make New Orleans part of a Southern Empire, and others including George Rogers Clarke who was intriguing with Spain and France to organize an Army, invade New Orleans and place it under French control

The other problem I had with the book is that the author led the reader to believe that, in the War of 1812, Jackson's defeat of the British was the deciding factor in America keeping New Orleans and thus the entire Louisiana Territory. Not true. Amerca and Britain had concluded a peace treaty before the battle of New Orleans was waged and won.

Jefferson's Great Gamble, by Charles Cermani is a gem. The author has exhibited the rare ability to lift the historical character right off the page, and allow us to meet that person on a very intimate basis.

The strength of Mr. Cermani's book rests on the wonderful characterizations of Jefferson, Bonaparte, Talleyrand, Marbois, Livingston, Madison and Monroe. The author expertly weaves the personalities of these men, their strengths, and weaknesses, into the fabric that is the story of The Louisiana Purchase. It is a complete story as told by Mr. Cermani. The actual facts of the purchase are not neglected, but highly enhanced by the various character studies, and exploration of how personalities, and circumstances determined the ultimate outcome.

Of particular interest were the descriptions of how Jefferson and Madison used disinformation to influence a decision by the French, and the very strange relationship the Jefferson administration had with their man in Paris, Robert Livingston.

Mr. Cermani also employed a style of writing that produced a very readable book. The flow of the text was wonderful, and was almost novel like as at times I could not put the book down.

I would encourage anyone with an interest in American history, or just good writing, to read this well researched, and written offering on one of the great events in American history. You won't be disappointed.

The value of Cerami's rendition of the Louisiana Purchase is l) its down-to-earth clarity, and 2) the way the historical participants come alive on every page! For those who know little or nothing about the importance of the Louisiana Purchase, this book will whet your appetite for more details of this exciting, invalualuable event that brought us the territory west of the Appalachians which, without it, we may never have become the world leader for freedom and democracy.

For those who have an understanding of why Jefferson and others forsaw the importance of U.S. expansion on this continent, the author brings the major players from the U.S., Spain and France to life for you through their negotiations, their letters, private thoughts, and individual personalities. This is history told at its best with uncomplicated clarity and at the same time gives enough pros and cons from all the countries involved to allow the reader to understand why negotiations were so difficult; and how we could have lost the whole deal had other personalities been in charge.

I now have a new sense of such simple facts as why the West became "the wild west", why the northeastern states are so small and the western states so much larger, why being one country that stretched from "sea to shining sea" gave us time to grow and mature in relative peace to European countries, and land with all the natural resources needed for independence.

Jefferson's Great Gamble whetted my appetite for more on the subject, so I bought A Wilderness So Immense, by Jon Kukla. I'm very glad I read the former first because it gave me a background to help understand Kukla's book, which I might have put down before finishing the first chapter because it's slow getting started. There are a lot of characters in Kukla's book mentioned only once (check the index) and in my opinion don't add any importance to the story of the La. Purchase; rather it makes the reading drag. But since I've a long way to go, I'll reserve final judgement on Kukla's book for now. Charles Cerami's book deserves five stars.