Ultimately, Viewing Olmsted is a savvy and thought-provoking, yet diminutive picture book. The collaboration of three brilliant photographers under the sponsorship of the Canadian Centre for Architecture, it guides the reader down three highly personal, present day tours of legendary parks designed by Olmsted, the patron saint of American landscape architecture. Happily, though, its readers are left to intellectually fend for themselves as to meanings or implications of Frederick Olmsted's work, genius, and lasting influence as the man who designed such famous spaces as Central Park. Academics and artists will appreciate the fresh visual perspectives offered on the man's legacy, the sometimes soothing, sometimes haunting nature-by-design retreats for the urban soul. Those with more than a passing interest in the ways in which man interacts with his 'natural' surroundings will appreciate vistas evocative of place rather than time. To the authors' credit, the book raises more questions than it answers, and is of a scale to fit neatly into a travel case. Far from definitive, the book is, nevertheless, a must have for architects, landscape architects, photographers, and Olmsted aficionados.

How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War by Edward H Bonekemper is an interesting book whichgoes too far to prove its point. In overstating his case that Lee was responsible for the Confederate failure, Bonekemper belief that Lee was not the military genius that history has made him is lost.

The central thesis is that Lee's offensive strategy, combined with overly complicated battle plans,led to the destruction of the Confederate Army and their inability to respond to Grant's offensive

strategy in '84 and '85. There is much evidence for the proposition that the offensive strategy bleed the Confederacy to the point where Lee was forced to retreat to Richmond. There is also much evidence to support the proposition that most of Lee's victories resulting in a higher percentage of casualties then suffered by the Union were phyric, at best. The most obvious fact is that the Union could absorb the losses and the South could not.

Whether a change in strategy would have resulted in a Confederate victory is an open question. However, given the political nature of the war, and the Northern war weariness, Lee's ability to continue to bleed the North could not have helped Lincoln get reelected.

Lee forgot that he did not have to win, just not lose. If there had been more Frederickburgs and less Chancellorvilles, both Lee "victories", Lee may have not lost. Bonekemper does a fine job bringing these issues to the forefront. If for only this reason, this is a worthwhile book.

The author's theory is that the North had the burden of conquering the South, a huge, defensible area consisting of eleven states. The South only had to play for a tie and only had to wear down the northern will to win. Specifically, the South had to hold onto its precious manpower resources and convince the North to vote Lincoln out of office in 1864. Instead, Lee unnecessarily went for the win, squandered his irreplaceable troops, and weakened his army so badly that military defeat became inevitable. With the Confederacy outnumbered four-to-one, Lee's aggressive strategy and tactics proved to be suicidal. The author looks beyond Lee's battles in the East and describes how Lee's Virginia-first myopia played a major role in crucial Confederate failures in the West. He itemizes Lee's refusals to provide reinforcements for Vicksburg or Tennessee in mid-1863, his causing James Longstreet to arrive at Chickamauga with only a third of his troops, his idea to move Longstreet away from Chattanooga just before Grant's troops broke through the undermanned Confederates there, and his failure to reinforce Atlanta in the critical months before the 1864 Presidential election. Lee's final failure as his continuing the hopeless and bloody slaughter after Union victory had been ensured by each of a series of events (the fall of Atlanta, the re-election of Lincoln, the fall of Petersburg and Richmond) is described. Finally, the author explores historian's treatment of Lee, including the deification of him by failed Confederate generals attempting to resurrect their own reputations. How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War is a unique, thoughtful, challenging reassessment of one of the pivotal participants in the American Civil War.

I found Mr. Bonnekemper's theory as to the weaknesses of generalship as he applies it to General Robert E. Lee a refreshing new viewpoint. Author Bonnekemper has done his homework and authenticates well, the failings of General Lee's strategy and tactics. If one can get past their preconcieved notions about the greatness of General Lee, this book makes a significant contribution to the study of the history of our Civil war. Mr. Bonnekemper does not degrade General Lee, he simply states the facts; that General Lee's excesses in committing troops to battle may well have resulted in opportunities lost. General Lee will always be revered as a fine gentleman, a man of honor, dignity and great personal courage. This book will not change that. It should be read for what it is, a scholarly contribution to the study of American history.

"Gone for Soldiers" focuses almost exclusively on the relationship between and experiences of General Winfield Scott and Captain Robert E. Lee during the Mexican-American War. Readers looking for much more will be disappointed. The war at large and the exploits of many of it's primary figures, including General Zachary Taylor and his major role in the conflict, are virtually ignored. However, when viewed as a prequel to Jeff Shaara's "Gods and Generals" and "The Last Full Measure", as well as his father's "The Killer Angels", this book is a worthy addition to the narrative thread the two men have woven. "Gone for Soldiers", while the least exciting of the narratives, is still an engaging and enjoyable read. Shaara, like his father, breathes life into the sometimes one-dimensional figures of history by using the historical fiction genre to give voice to their unrecorded musings and conversations. For readers looking for a more balanced history of the war, John Eisenhower's "So Far From God" is strongly recommended for it's thorough treatment of the subject. The "Class of 1846" by John Waugh is also an outstanding book for those interested in the pre-Civil War story of that war's participants.

Having brought the Civil War to life through his continuation of his father's classic, "The Killer Angels," Jeff Shaara has now ressurected one of America's most forgotten wars, the Mexican War.

In his latest novel, Mr. Shaara introduces us to many of the Civil War's greatest leaders as they learn their craft under fire in Mexico. The book follows the exploits and deeds of one General Winfield Scott as he leads the campaign to defeat Santa Anna's army.

At his side is a young engineer, Capt. Robert E. Lee. Shaara's portrayal of Lee as a young officer, unsure of his untested abilities and his place in the command structure, is truly wonderful. It is a whole different Lee than the polished General of the Civil War. With each new mission Scott assigns him, we can see Lee grow and mature as an officer.

Many of the other men who would later become Generals are also with Lee in Mexico, Grant, Jackson, Meade, Johnston, Pickett, Longstreet, albeit as Lieutenants. They are not given the same in depth treatment as Lee, but already you can see their abilities developing for command.

General Scott and Santa Anna are also portrayed in manners rarely seen. Few modern Americans have heard of Scott, which is a shame since he was one of the best Generals in our early history. Santa Anna is usually mentioned only in conjunction with the Alamo, but here he is given a very fair treatment.

Overall I would say this book is every bit as good as the Shaaras' works on the Civil War. Once again Jeff Shaara has restored life to a long dead period of our nation's history.

For those who have an interest in the American Civil War and in some of the more noted people who became involved in the conflict, will be able to see some of these people at the early stages when all fought on the same side. This "Prequil" to use the term is fitting for this book by Jeff Sharra. Gone For Soilders: A Novel of the Mexican War. Is a very insightful historical fiction. Though the story revolves more around Robert Lee, Jeff Sharra does introduce the reader to an early Sam Grant and James Longstreet.

Like his father before him who's book Killer Angels brought to life again the battle of Gettysbugh as seen through the eyes of some of the people found in Gone For Soilders. The characters are well fleshed out and the story moves along well. It should help bring more people to read up on Pre-Civil War America and some of the men whos names are covered in this fine novel.

Okay, you want to learn about cannabis breeding. Read something else. You can want to learn how to grow pot? Read something else. Clarke brings us a book that has the following problems: It presumes that you will understand basic genetic. It presumes that you know about growing. It presumes that you will understand how to do punnet squares and understand what terms like Heterozygous and Homozygous means. He tries to explain them as best he can but you will have to get another book to actually understand what he means. When you have done this and learned some basic genetics then you will read this book and find that most of it will not get you anywhere as a breeder or a grower.

The first time I read this book I came away thinking that I learned something new. Then I tried talking to a few breeders and got the old... "You have been reading Clarke haven't you?".... Breeders recognise this book as being shallow and out of touch with the cannabis breeding community. I will give you my case for this comment too. Here are a few questions about this book I had after reading it. Why doesn't he go and site a few comments made by actual cannabis breeders or a case study from a known cannabis breeder? (Who are more than willing to talk about their work if you search on the internet). Why doesn't he actually tell us about the history of a famous strain? Why does this book seem very vague?? I guess the only reason he has not done this is because he has probably never wanted to listen to a real breeder talk about their work. He does talk about people like Warmke who did some research during World War 2, but nothing about the breeders of today. That should set off a few warning bells for you about this book. When I buy books like this I want to read about something substantial behind the theory. That never emerges.

If you want to learn about cannabis breeding then read about Gregor Mendel and follow this up by reading books on 'How to true breed traits in Dogs and Cats'. Any book on plant genetics and breeding will give you a much better insight into cannabis botany than this book will. Growers and breeders will only recommend this book for a quick scan and forget. Cannabis breeders use techniques that most common plant breeders do. This book is not good and not worth the hype. It even has a quote from some guy called Richard Evans Schultes-Director, Harvard Botanical Museum who says - "Robert Clarkes splendid effort will be widely appreciated. His Marijuana Botany will be constantly consulted by a wide variety of researchers in the years to come." Well unfortunately that prediction has been short lived. No good cannabis breeder will recommend this book to anyone who is serious about cannabis botany. It is out of touch with the market, out of touch with breeding techniques and out of touch with the growing community. This book is in a world of it's own.

Marijuana Botany: An Advanced Study In the Propagation & Breeding of Distinctive Cannabis

ADVANCED. This is NOT the book to read if you have never grown or have no knowledge of basic concepts of growing marijuana. This is not a BASIC 'How-To' book. It says ADVANCED and it means just that! This is a study in ADVANCED MJ techniques and information of selective genetic manipulation and breeding. If you want an 'I just need to know how to grow herb.' book, DON'T BUY THIS ONE.

it is not a Grow Guide. There are plenty of books available for those who want to know how to grow mj -- this book is for people who want to know more about the "why" of their precious plants' botany.
This book is amazingly easy to comprehend; if you are serious about learning all you can about the BOTANY aspect of cannabis. It does require a degree of concentration, and is not for people who wish to have a quick "fix" for a plant problem.
This is one of those books that ANY grower could benefit from having in their library.

This book is very historical and full of facts and footnotes but that is its downfall. We don't get to see the real, personal man. It has alot of North Carolina politics and deals with some of the relations of England to the colonies but most people want to get to know the man intimately. It does tell of his death and the aftermath and goes into the legal fallout after Blackbeard's death, such as who had legal right to Blackbeard's loot. All in all I would rate it as average read.

as this book is more of an in-depth research paper concerning all things blackbeard, it deals mostly with litigation and politics surrounding his life. that is what all the known public records deal with, and that is almost all that is in this book. the last 75 pages are footnotes. it's well-researched and interesting if you want that level of information.

This book, while a bit dry in writing style, is a decent history. However, it is not a decent history of Blackbeard, himself. While the author makes some nice points about Blackbeard and the creation of his image, the main focus of the book is the political struggle that led up to the attack on the "retired" Blackbeard and the fallout from that action. If political intrigue between Virginia and North Carolina during this period is your interest you may enjoy this book. If you are looking for a history of Blackbeard, the man, look elsewhere.

Is Robert Clouse capable of writing above the 8th grade level? After reading "The Making of Enter the Dragon" and then the first two-thirds of this one (I couldn't take anymore) I have my doubts.

He isn't a bad director. He IS a bad writer, unless he is a master sandbagger.

I have been a Bruce Lee fan for more than 20 years so I naturally thought I would love this book. I didn't. It was one of the few books that I was unable to finish. After 125 pages, I just couldn't bear to have my intelligence insulted any longer. Neither will you.

Buy this for your 12 year old nephew who watches Kung Fu theatre and who takes Tae Kwon Do lessons at the YMCA. He will love it.

This book presents an excellent pictorial biography of Bruce Lee. It lacks detailed information on his life but compensates for this by presenting excellent pictures of Bruce in his daily life and in his screen endeavours.

This is a very good biography. Most of the other books regarding Bruce's life are more into his films and don't get into much more than that. This book has very detailed accounts of his life. There is some great stuff in here about how Bruce and his Chinese friends would goad the English boys into fights when he was young (to test their skills). Also he staged all kinds of practical jokes on people! He had a great sense of humor! I was very happy to read about his trips to India (attempting to film The Silent Flute). Absolutely great stuff in here. Some very touching stories in here, too. He attempted to marry a Japanese girl several times, but it didnt' work out. She wasn't interested in marrying him. There is some very good stuff in here. They have some great pictures in here, too, but sometimes they spread them over two pages where it doesn't make sense to do that because the spine of the book is over his head or something, so I wish they would have done a better job laying out the pictures. I also would have liked to see the book in color, and I don't know why they put an artists drawing of him on the cover when there are so many excellent actual pictures of him. But that's ok the material here is very good.

Robert Clouse was certainly trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator when he wrote this piece of garbage. What a shame that such an important story should be given such a hack job.

It is valuable for the behind the scenes information and the great photographs. It is a story that needed to be told. It is valuable as a history, but nearly every sentence that Clouse penned is an insult to your intelligence.

I do recommend buying this book, however. Hopefully one day, Mr. Clouse will write the same story, except for grownups, and this sloppy, rushed, middle school kid version will be forgotten.

Bruce Lee fans or cinematic enthusiasts will find this book interesting. There is not much depth of the insight into Bruce, however, when Robert Clouse provides it, it's quite revealing. Examples include Bruce's method of developing his concentration skills and how he practiced for a possible fight against Mohammed Ali.

Most of the book is about the hurdles Clouse overcame producing the movie. Considering the obstacles he had, which included the budget, lighting, props, gang fights, and challenges toward Bruce, etc., he and Bruce did a remarkable job. The book is full of photographs, however there aren't any great pictures of Bruce that you probably haven't already seen.

Ted Weimann, author of Warrior Speed.

THIS BOOK REALLY GAVE ME THE FEELING THAT I AM ONE OF THE STAFF THAT HELPING TO MAKE THE FILM,AND ALSO THE FEELING THAT I AM A TURIST THAT ALOUD TO ENTER TO SEE THE FILMING OF ENTER THE DRAGON.THE BOOK IS EXPLAINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENTER THE DRAGON. HOW DIFFICOULT WAS THE MAKING OF THE FILMS AND WHAT KINDS OF TROUBLES THE PRODUCERS HAS WHILE FILMING. A LOT OF BRUCE'S QUATATIONS AND HARD WORKING IN STARING,FIGHTING- SCENES DIRECTOING,PLUS OF MANY KNOWN,AND MOSTLY NOT KNOWN PICTURES TO THE PUBLIC.A VERY NICE BOOK AND FULL OF PHOTOS THAT GIVES A REAL INSPIRATION TO THE FILM,(I READ THE BOOK,AND KNOW 50% OF THE FILM BY HEART).VERY HIGHLY RECOMMANDED TO EVERY BRUCE LEE'S FAN!

An important, timely & vital point is being made by these authors. I listened intently to their ideas, mostly while jogging. I loved the prehistoric stuff, but after that it all became pretty familiar. I agreed with their thoughts on controlling our technology instead of it controlling us, but there's not much we can do about it when, in so many ways, we *are* our technology. Still, it is good & inspiring & true. Everyone should read it. I just gave it three stars because in the middle sections my running pace slowed considerably, indicating non-involvement.

I love Burke's books, especially Connections and The Day The Universe Changed. Combined with the author's great presentation, they are some of the finest non-fiction audio books in existence.

Unfortunately, this one really loses its way about half way through its course. What starts out as an excellent outline of prehistoric human development devolves into a meandering, unrealistic plea for changing human behavior.

Of course, you could just ditch the second tape in the set and listen to the first cassette several times. It's quite good on its own.

Axemakers Gift is the world's best kept open secret. Very enjoyable sound on only two cassettes is multiply distilled encyclopedic overview of the most significant and interesting things that have happened in the entire history of the world. Each world-changing phenomenon leads naturally to the next and shows their possibly hopeful implications for the future If I had my life to live over I would wish very early to hear Axemakers Gift to become instilled with its attitudes of confidence, cheerfulness, fearlessness, compassion, good will, hopefulness and unpretentious incredible erudition. It would give me a sound foundation for facing life instead of trying to think there was something wrong with me because I couldn't see things the way people told me to. I always knew somehow that when I was dying I would figure out what things had been all about but young people who hear this tape can start out from the first with a grounding that will give them enthusiasm for looking for new ideas and, even if they go down the tubes, I guess at least they'll have a sublime understanding of their real part in the great scheme of things. I listen to it again every few weeks to get my fix of sanity and truth and good will in the seeming hopeless of a "gotcha" world. All my thanks for Axemakers Gift, The Day the Universe Changed, and Connections.

Too much psychoanalysis and too little factual information. Almost 140 years after the Civil War and Blount searchs for personality quirks to define a complex and interesting gentleman, general and leader.

I'm disappointed too in the general trend for many historians to ever search and highlight as much negative as they can about our historical figures, especially military leaders.

It's easy to second guess and use modern beliefs to define the past. Blount (or anyone else for that matter go lead men in battle for four years) and then write your book.

Blount helps us understand the real Lee for a change, not the "marble man" admired and revered by simple Civil War buffs. Those looking for yet another breathless account of the same old stories will be intellectually overmatched by the insightful, sensitive and illuminating portrait Blount presents. A real contribution to understanding Lee, the Civil War, and the mindset which led the nation to and through that disaster.

This is the fourth Penguin Lives title I've read (the other three being Auchincloss on Wilson, Keegan on Churchill, and Johnson on Napoleon), and for pure biography, this one is the best of the four. Other reviewers who criticize the relative superficiality of Blount's analysis need to recognize that the Penguin Lives are not intended to be comprehensive, ground-breaking studies. That just couldn't be done in under 200 pages.

No, these books -- essays, almost -- are introductions to, surveys of, key historical figures. The question shouldn't be, Did Blount give us all the answers about Lee? but rather, Has Blount painted a sharp enough portrait that we have a clear idea of who the man was, why he did what he did, and what impact his life had? I think the answer to that latter question is a decisive Yes.

Unlike Keegan and Johnson, Blount is not a professional historian. But he's done a fine job with a subject all biographers admit to be a man very difficult to get close to. This fact in itself forms part of Blount's theme, as he explores the roots of Lee's famous reserve and inapproachability. He largely avoids pop psychoanalysis -- when he wades into those waters, he tells us he's doing so -- and his insights seem to make sense.

I particularly appreciated the way Blount addressed the issue that defines (many, if not most) modern treatments of Lee: the question of whether he can justly be called a Great Man while having fought, if not explicitly for slavery itself, at least for a nation and a culture in which slavery played a central role. The fact that Blount sees nuances to the discussion, instead of making the absolute, unarguable, definitive statement "Lee = slavery = evil", may cause ideologues, or people who just don't know any better, to reject his reasonings entirely. But that would be their loss because this section, too, is rewarding reading.

I said this book is good pure biography. That's because Blount is an excellent writer and storyteller, as well as a fine presenter and interpreter of facts. As a "humorist," (I've always hated that term), he has a keen eye for the ridiculous, both in human behavior and in historians' more labored interpretations.

So, no, this isn't a scholarly, definitive, biography that will become the new gold standard in Civil War Studies. But as a highly readable thumbnail portrait of one of the most loved and reviled, admired, misunderstood, and dare I say, greatest, figures in American history, I think it will be hard to beat.

At least they saved the title. Or should we say they stole a good title to market trivial trash. It copies the movie, and has all the flaws. The troopers in the movie had no guns. We're expected to believe that they flew starships and the best personal weapon they could find was an automatic rifle hardly better than 20th century. They had no guns. Even a battery of civil war field pieces would have been a major improvement. A Sherman tank would have been a miracle. Given the starship technology a viewer/reader would expect them to carry real guns that fire real destruction, not those puny ineffective popguns they died holding. The lack of credible weapons makes these troopers seem like ineffective jerks and destroys the credibility of the whole thing.

Heinlein's troopers wore armored suits and carried weapons sufficient to destroy everything alive within several hundred yards. They had to pay attention when they got within half a mile of each other so they wouldn't wipe each other out. Not these fools, they have to fire a hundred rounds to kill one unarmed bug. Pathetic and unbelievable.

The original Starship Troopers spends half the book discussion moral philosophy of government, command structure of troops, and the morals of space exploration. This has none of that. What a waste.

Maby I'm biased a little bit, but i found this book uninteresting and insulting to Robern Heinlein (may he rest in peace). I felt the book strayed too far from the original purpose of Heinlein's excellent book. This novel detailed the military aspect well, but completely missed the philosophical aspects of Heinleins book that made it a classic. The book is often thought of with the movie, even though they are nothing alike. It is unfortunate that this other seemed to have never even read the novel Starship Troopers, much less adhered to its purpose.

I really liked this trade-paperback because my parents prohibited my viewing the 1997 sci-fi thriller. This comic sets the stage by showing the prequel (Insect Touch) in which man comes in contact with the vicious arachnids, the tie-in (Brute Creations) in wich Raczak tries to save the inhabitants of Port Joe Smith, and the actual adaptation of the film itself.