C. S. Lewis would doubtless have scoffed at the idea of a reference book about himself, just as he disapproved of university courses devoted to modern authors on the sensible ground that "helps" to reading them are not needed and come between the writer and his audience.

Nonetheless, students and "fans" of the great Christian apologist and literary scholar now are offered two thick compendia on his life and work. Each has its virtues and faults, and both are worthwhile investments - though not a substitute for the straight, unfiltered Lewis.

The "Readers' Encyclopedia", reviewed here, contains articles by 44 contributors, many of them very prominent in the world of C. S. Lewis studies. The one striking absentee is Walter Hooper, Lewis' semi-official literary executor and solo author of the rival work, "C. S. Lewis: Companion and Guide". This omission is, as the saying goes, not accidental.

In more than 400 pages, consisting of a 57-page biography followed by topical entries, the Encyclopedia covers the full scope of Lewis' life, work and thought. The "work" draws the greatest attention. There are articles not only on the major books but also on virtually all of Lewis' shorter pieces, including even letters to newspapers. In addition to summarizing content, most of the contributors consider its significance, respond to the views of critics or advance criticisms of their own. They may admire their subject, but this volume is not the production of a fan club.

Weighing the Encyclopedia against the Companion, the latter is heavier (almost twice as many pages), but the former is wider in scope, with more attention to CSL's career as a scholar and more systematic coverage of his entire body of work. It makes room by treating topics more succinctly. Epitomes are shorter, there is less biographical detail, and quotations from the Lewis canon are less extensive. Unfortunately, one space saving idea was the omission of an index, the need for which is distinctly not obviated by putting articles into alphabetical order.

Often both works are excellent, though many times in different ways. The Companion's life of CSL's close friend Owen Barfield tells much about the man but is rather imprecise on his ideas and how they influenced Lewis. The Encyclopedia's fine article fills those gaps.

Elsewhere the Encyclopedia is clearly superior. The Companion's discussions of "An Experiment in Criticism" and "The Personal Heresy" leave out the context in which Lewis developed his critical theories. The Encyclopedia gives him a place in the debates occasioned by the "New Criticism".

The Companion has its innings, too. Its introductory biography is fuller and less given to unsupported psychological speculations. The Encyclopedia writer, curiously, accepts the conjectures of the anti-Christian polemicist A. N. Wilson on major issues (e. g., Lewis's relationship with Mrs. Moore and the impact of his debate with Professor Anscombe), even while pointing out that Wilson in unreliable in detail and malicious in intent.

There are spots, inevitably, where both volumes are weak. Neither describes the substance of Professor G. E. M. Anscombe's famous critique of Chapter III of "Miracles" or how Lewis amended the text to answer her criticisms. Those matters are surely of more lasting import than whether Lewis did or did not feel "defeated" after debating Anscombe.

They can also fail in different ways on the same topic. The Encyclopedia's article on "The Dark Tower", the now controversial novel fragment published after Lewis's death, is a one-sided diatribe on behalf of the theory that the work is a forgery. The Companion naturally does not allude to that allegation (as Walter Hooper is the accused forger), and it also says virtually nothing useful about the story. In fact, the uninspired plot summary is marked by omissions and mistakes. (The writer does not realize, for instance, that "Michael" is the given name of the protagonist, not of his Othertime double.)

Finally, each volume has its (very small) share of this-can't-be-real lapses. An Encyclopedia article begins, "C. S. Lewis followed traditional theological thinking of his time in presuming the Holy Spirit was the third person of the Trinity." What a ripe example of the liberal historicizing that CSL so persistently combated! But it is probably a more serious matter that the Companion barely notices "The Allegory of Love", Lewis's pioneering work on medieval love poetry that laid the foundation of his academic reputation.

But let me pause here. It is easy - and an occasion of intellectual sin - to scrutinize every inch of a mighty edifice in search of blemishes. Overall, the Encyclopedia is a capacious and well-wrought work. It may not be a work that C. S. Lewis would have desired anyone to undertake, but I do not think that he can be displeased with the quality of the result.

If you can have only one reference work on Jack Lewis, this is the one to have. This volume is well edited, well written, and complete. You can find allmost as much about some of Lewis' obscure essays as about the Chronicles of Narnia and the Screwtape Letters. Most of the entries include suggestions for further reading. There is also short but reasonably complete biography included, written by John Bremer.

The book was one of the Petsitters Club series and I like thewhole series. I thought this was a very good book. Everyone shouldread it because if you like dogs and if you like gigapets, you'll like this story a lot. The characters made me laugh. I learned that dogs are smarter than you think they are. I did a book report on this book and got an A+ on it.

I am a first-grader, almost ready to go into second grade. I liked this book because it had one of my favorite dogs and I liked the people in the book. My favorite characters are Matthew and Sam. I think you should read this book because it is interesting and the beginning, middle, and end are very good! This was my first chapter book, and I read it all by myself!

A super tool for the beginer or other golfer who hasn't figured out what's happening when they hit the ball. Good if you shoot say over 95. I was a little disapointed in the brevity of the book, ( a careful reading took me less than two hours). It is as clear as it gets and it was usefull, but if your looking to break 90 or lower, look elsewhere.

I value this book. It tells you how, like all the other books to setup correctly but by understanding the physics of ball flight it gives you the confidence to trust that setup and make adjustments. It explains what is going on with your swing and grip by helping you understand the flight of the ball. It's a quick read and re-read.

I've only golfed for about 3 years, off and on, and I've always been afflicted by a monster slice. After reading this, I noticed results the first time I played. It didn't "cure" my problem, but it vastly improved the situation by focusing me the real causes of the slice. It really helped for hitting the long ball...and translated well for the short game. I loved it.

While this is the best overall modern biography of King John, it is a bit dated with so much new research having been done in this field. For those seriously interested in this subject, the works of Ralph Turner and S.D.Church should also be considered. If possible, the best overall biography still remains Kate Norgates but it is ancient at this point.

This is indeed an good work and a compliment to the series. I would advise readers to buy the paperback edition, except that your website lists it as Henry II, published by the University of California press. I thought that Yale was doing this series. Anyway, the two books are separate in subject.

If you've been conditioned by the Robin Hood stories to think of King John as the ultimate bad guy, read this book. It will show you that, while he was not a saint and not the best ruler of England, he really was not all that bad. I found this to be a useful, informative, and well-written biography. One of the points I came away with was that King John was apparently the founder of the great British navy, that pride of later generations. His struggles with Pope Innocent III show him to be a nationalist, even a patriot of sorts. And those rebellious barons who forced the Magna Carta upon the king may have had some valid arguments, but it can also be argued that John was doing the best he could. This book shows that John compares favorably with his much more popular brother Richard the Lionheart.

This is a fascinating integration of science, technology and business.

The author makes an excellent case for the necessity, feasibility and promise of free market space exploration and exploitation. His justification is the long-range goal of self-sufficient space flight, which he contrasts eloquently with the wasteful, short-term and politically-motivated excursions of the last 40 years.

A number of facts may surprise you: the amount of information garnered from extensive research into the subject; the amount of considerate planning scientists and businessmen have devoted to the prospect; and how soon profitable space-mining could begin. The author, one of the field's leading scientist-businessmen, is well-qualified to present the material.

I found the book's wealth of scientific data overwhelming at times. Readers more familiar with physics and chemistry will find it easier to read. Nonetheless, the scientific data is important to support the author's "conservative" (his word) projections of how much wealth we can create by "mining the sky."

There is some poor explicit philosophy in the concluding chapters. Be aware of it and disregard it-it does nothing to advance or discredit his primary thesis: that the sky-indeed, the universe-is ours for the taking.

Finally, a book by someone who knows what he's talking about! John S. Lewis has impressive credentials in the area of space resources, and he gives them to the reader in a concise, objective manner. This book is a far cry from other space authors' uses of hyperbole, criticism, or wild assumptions. The book also stays within the general realm of the believable, not straying too far from facts to speculate about "what could be done with this." While such asides are mildly entertaining, it is my belief both that the reader can imagine her own wild developments from space technology and resources; and that the real future will prove even today's best thought-out plans to be hokey and narrow-minded. John S. Lewis shows a rare mix of expertise, prose, and restraint, and makes this a must-have for anyone interested in this area.

An excellent book that truly stretched my ideas of mankind's place in the universe. I found some of the business ideas mildly uncomfortable, but the science seems waterproof, and the author's enthusiasm and optimism shine through the technical details. Underlying the science and engineering and business is an exhilirating breath of philosophy that borders on the metaphysical. Dr Lewis certainly provides plenty of objective justification for his ideas, but between the lines you can capture the heady euphoria of the early days of space exploration. These passages verge on the sublime. EXCELLENT.

While you can certainly finish the book in 30 days, you'll most likely forget the vocabularies in at least half of the chapters by the time you are done. The quiz in each chapter is useful. The diagnostic test at the beginning of the book can crush your self-esteem - which is to be redeemed after reading the book. "30 days" in the title is misleading, because readers probably need to go through the chapters again and again to make sure they truly remember the words. So make it "45-50 days to a more powerful vocabulary"!

Furthermore, believe it or not: it is not a bad cram book if you have less than 3 months to study for SAT or GRE! I find vocabulary builders (such as this title) much better study tools for SAT or GRE than conventional exam preparation guides like Princeton Review or Barron's - at least for the verbal section.

While this book is very helpful in building a more powerful vocabulary, a more appropriate title would be "45 days to a more powerful vocabulary in just 60 minutes a day!" Some lessons must be repeated if you want to really know some of the words. There are no really ground breaking vocabulary memorization techniques in this book either. However, it does a great job of organizing certain vocabulary terms. If you can spare an hour a day for 45 days, this books can be a great help!

This book is excellent. I worked through this book in less than 30 days, because I found it difficult to stop after just one exercise. I improved my SAT verbal by 90 points thanks to this book, and it began in me a love of words that continues siepaternally. This is the best vocabulary builder I have come across.

This book is great. I got it when I was 7, and now am 13 doing all sorts of great tricks. All the props are included (so you dont have to waste any time making your own) and there are great illustrations. (i.e. For one trick, one side of the page shows your view of the trick, while the other side shows the spectator's view. (a MUST for all magic tricks) So if you like magic, (or if you don't) this book will get you started in no time at all.

This book teaches you the basics of magic. It includes everything you need to know from card tricks to small illusions. This book is great for beginners of magic. I am a magician and I loved this book. One of the reasons this book is great for everyone is because it includes all the props you need! Also for the serious magician the Klutz Book of Magic (The Movie) is a great companion for visual learners. Buy them both today

This book was absolutely great, it got me on my feet in the world of magic. I got this book at age 10 and did my first Birthday-Magic Show at age 12 I am now 13 and doing at least one party a week a long with the occasional nursing home ect. I owe it all to this book i wasn't even interested in magic before I got it and look at me now i have twenty different Magic Books and can perform over 300 tricks spontaneusly. Out of all my books I like this one the best. I have other Klutz Books and would reccomend any of them even if you don't like magic I'm sure they have a book about something you like . thanks for your time

This is a collection of essays by various historians on alternate military outcomes in history, arranged in chronological order from Ancient times to 1983. Although there are some interesting essays on the American Revolution and a few other areas, the book is very disappointing. The "big name" historians provide the worst-written essays, almost afterthoughts. The essay by John Keegan on what if Hitler had pursued a Mediterranean strategy in 1941-2 totally ignores logistics and Nazi political objectives. Stephen Ambrose's essay on what if D-Day had failed rests on non-military reasoning and is ridiculous (as if the Allies would have abandoned D-Day because of bad weather). In light of Peter Tsouras' excellent "Disaster at D-Day", Ambrose's essay appears pathetic. Other essays are rather pedestrian, like several on what if the South had won the Civil War. Yawn. How many times is this going to be passed around? Many interesting and almost situations, like Operation Sealion, or what if Iraq had invaded Saudi Arabia in 1990 are ignored. None of the essays do a very good job on strategic analysis and assume too much about single win/loss results (e.g. a Southern victory at Gettysburg was unlikely to have won the war, since the North had already lost several battles without any real reduction in its will to win). This book is a collection of not-very original quasi-historical fluff.

For anyone who likes history, this book is an uneven, but overall excellent and very enjoyable, series of exercises in "counterfactual" history. Not the silly, frivolous, or nonsensical kind, where Robert E. Lee all of a sudden is given a nuclear bomb, but instead serious, meaty (even highly PROBABLE) ones, like what would have happened if there hadn't been a mysterious plague outside the walls of Jerusalem, or if there had been a Persian victory at Salamis, or if Genghis Khan's drunken third son (Ogadai)had not died just as his hordes were poised to conquer (and probably annhilate) Europe, or if Cortes had been killed or been captured Tenochtitlan, etc.

The major flaw with this book is that the essays are of somewhat uneven interest level, style, and quality. Personally, for instance, I found the essay on the Mongols to be fascinating, sending chills down my spine! "D Day Fails" by Stephen Ambrose, on the other hand, didn't do much for me at all, nor did "Funeral in Berlin." In general, I would say that the essays covering earlier periods in human history tend to be better than ones covering more recent history. Possibly this is in part because the later periods have been covered to death. I mean, how many "counterfactuals" on the US Civil War can there be before we get sick of them? But a well-written, tightly-reasoned counterfactual which, based on events hundreds or even thousands of years ago, quite plausibly leads to a result where there is no Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, or Western culture at all, is absolutely fascinating in my opinion. If nothing else, books like "What If?" show how important CHANCE is in human history, as well as the importance of the INDIVIDUAL, as opposed to some Hegelian/Marxist-Leninist historical "inevitability." The bottom line is that it is rare that anything is truly "inevitable", and the aptly titled "What If?" gives us some excellent case studies.

Heard the taped version of WHAT IF?: THE WORLD'S FOREMOST
MILITARY HISTORIANS IMAGINE WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, edited
by Robert Cowley . . . I often speculate about lots of things, and so do the contributors to this book--including Stephen E. Ambrose, John Keegan, David McCollough, and James M. McPherson (to name just a few).

For example, what if:
George Washington had never made his miraculous escape
from the British on Long Island in the early dawn of August 29, 1776?

a Confederate aide hadn't accidentally lost General Robert E. Lee's plans for invading the North?

the Allied invasion on D Day had failed?

These and a whole host of other questions are considered . . . the resultant answers are often fun, but at the same time, sometimes frightening . . . as in, Hitler's case . . . had he not attacked Russia when he did, he might have moved into the Middle East and secured the oil supplies the Third Reich so badly needed, thus helping it retain its power in Europe . . . can you just imagine the present-day implications for that scenario?

If you're a history buff, this is a MUST read . . . but methinks
that others will enjoy it and become much more interested
in the subject as a result . . . I know that I'm now looking
forward to Coweley's follow-up effort, WHAT IF? 2.

First delivered as lectures at Oxford, "The Landscape of History" is eloquent, short, witty -- and evanescent. The reader should know that author Gaddis does NOT describe how historians weigh evidence and construct narratives about the past on the basis of surviving documents and other data. Instead, he attempts to put the discipline of history on a solid intellectual foundation by stressing its similarities to observation-based disciplines such as astronomy and paleontology, which, like history, do not rely on repeatable laboratory experiments yet manage to achieve the status of "hard" sciences. The effort to defend history's intellectual credentials is unnecessary since our ability to make sense of past human conduct is part of human self-understanding and thus stands in no need of "foundations." It is also farfetched: I almost put down the book for good when Gaddis outlined the affinities between biography and fractal geometry. On the other hand, the chapter on causation and counterfactuals is quite good. My advice to prospective buyers: wait for "The Landscape of History" to show up in remaindered book catalogues, which should happen by 2004. In the meantime, read some essays on historiography by Isaiah Berlin or Michael Oakeshott.

This short (151 pages) book, really an extended essay, is more of a philosophical meditation on the nature of the historian's craft than it is an instruction manual of historical method. But this is not an esoteric treatise on the nature of causation, or a reflection on such deep questions as the nature of truth, although these issues are addressed briefly, particularly in the chapter entitled, "Causation, Contingency, and Counterfactuals." Most of the work, however, is devoted to various comparisons of History with Science. There are some tremendously interesting observations here. Gaddis points out that many branches of science, such as geology and evolutionary science, are founded on propositions that are no more experimentally verifiable than are the observations of historians. It is worth noting that these, like history, deal with events that occur over extended periods of time. He also draws parallels with modern physics (relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) and fractal geometry, and makes allusions to certain aspects of chaos theory and set theory. One scientific area that he does not mention is computer science, but the study of neural networks and programs employing "fuzzy logic" could also be used to bolster his contention that many fields of modern science contain within their basic postulates an element of uncertainty and unpredictability that mirror the apparent capriciousness of the course of human affairs. He draws a distinction between those areas of science and others, particularly the "social sciences" and especially economics, which, in his view, attempt to describe complex problems in terms of rigid, categorically independent and dependent variables. Because these approaches oversimplify to the point of absurdity, he argues that they cannot approximate, or, in his formulation, "represent" reality to an acceptable degree.

There is much in this short book to provoke thought. I don't know much about chaos theory or fractal geometry, and so I cannot comment as to whether Gaddis is merely picking and choosing from the periphery of those fields to illustrate his point, or whether he is truly describing fundamental similarities. Certainly, he does not provide detailed descriptions. And that, perhaps, is the main weakness of the book. The flip tone that he employs at numerous points undermines the seriousness of the discussion and contributes to an impression of a dilettantism, which is not mitigated by a more detailed description of the complex scientific concepts to which he alludes. The overall sense is of undergraduate lectures by a bright professor who is trying to connect his young audience with some difficult concepts. In some ways, however, that is a strength, in that the argument is more accessible than it would be otherwise. But there is a price to be paid.

I had the privilege of attending Prof. Gaddis' lectures in Oxford, and enjoyed every minute of it. His writing accurately reflects the lectures; the only thing missing is the Q&A at the end.

This is not a methodological how-to for historians, it is a philosophical look at the tradecraft, mostly done by comparing it to other disciplines, especially the hard sciences and social sciences. Historians will no doubt enjoy reviewing (maybe reitering) what they've been doing all along; students will undoubtedly learn much from this study.

Many of the critical comments during the Q&A reflected current fads in historiography, such as subaltern studies, triumphalism, etc. Some of this made it into the book, in Prof. Gaddis' emphasis on solid academic analysis. It is impossible to achieve a totally detached point of view, but the historian should strive toward that goal through the rigors of an honest review of the facts, and the subsequent interpretation. Causation is a difficult point here, in that the latest fads attempt to ascribe causation to whatever their favorite subaltern. Prof. Gaddis notes that causation is perhaps the best we can hope for, turning the clock backwards, searching for the point of no return in events leading to the subject in question.

His use of metaphors lends much humor to the book, I especially empathized with the one about the spilled truckload of Marmite on the highway between Oxford and London.

All in all, a delightful book to read, I hope it quickly replaces the really tedious textbooks normally assigned to the study of historiography; it will add greatly to classes on methodology.

Thanks you, Prof. Gaddis, for this witty, eminently readable gem of a book.