It's a shame that more people don't know about the life of Frederick Douglass. He goes beyond being just a "Neat Guy" or somebody who overcame something bad, as the author tries to show. McFeely's book does an adequate job of showing the long list of Douglass' accomplishments that would impress anyone during any era while reminding people that this was a guy who couldn't read until he was a teenager. Douglass found a balance between the brute force of mind and body to clear intimidating obstacles from his path and create a life that he seemed to enjoy. Readers will know of his thirst to learn, an escape to the North, fist fights on the docks as a ship caulker, his lectures and writings, world travel, role of advisor to several President's, newspaperman, Bank President (that didn't go too well) and even an Ambassador who defied the Navy. McFeely's one annoying tendency is pretending to know what Douglass was thinking and feeling at any given moment - as if the book was concocted after a seance. Douglass left ample writings upon his death, but was relatively unemotional and guarded about his inner thoughts. Fine. McFeely needed to use more letters and writings of contemporaries to try and fill in gaps and give meaning to Douglass' actions, not provide speculation mixed with fact. In the end, readers are left with a book that does well at describing an independent, forceful and determined man who left an impression on this country like a thumbprint on wet concrete. If you can brush aside McFeely's subjective Oprahization of Douglass' inner thoughts, then you can enjoy the book.

Looking for a biography of the former slave turned lecturer and abolitionist, I came across this work by author McFeely. The first section regarding the birth and circumstances of Douglass' flight to freedom was full of what I consider "psychobabble". The author makes too many conjectures concerning the relationship of Douglass with his owner, including possible latent homosexual feelings but never includes any information to back this claim up. The story picks up when Douglass moves to New England and becomes involved in the abolistionist causes. His travels to England and his relationship with women working for the cause of women's suffrage is particularly interesting. However, the remainder of the book seems to meander with no purpose.

I am still searching for a biography which puts this man's life into context.

Frederick Douglass is an authentic American and a heroic figure. For those wishing to become aquainted with a chronicle of his life, McFeely's book will do the job.

Born a slave in Maryland, Douglass accomplished the difficult task of self education in an era when slaves were not taught under penalty of law. "Running away with himself" (as Southerners used to describe slaves who escaped) twenty years before the Civil War, he became one of our country's great orators in telling the tale of his life as a bondsman and urging that America embrace emancipation of all slaves. He was perhaps the anti-slavery movement's best spokesman. Not only for the sheer eloquence with which he captivated audiences, but as living proof that a black could be educated to a level reached by few people of any race.

Douglass did his part for the Union in the Civil War and bought into Republicanism as the best political vehicle for achieving the end of slavery and the leveling up of blacks to their rightful place in American society. His hopes were frustrated after the Civil War when his party turned away from Reconstruction and blacks were subjugated anew by racism, indifference and Jim Crowism.

Douglass was an idealist in that he believed that America could be exhorted into granting slaves not only their freedom but their civil rights and social equality. His country failed his vision miserably and he ended his life personnally successful (as successful as his skin color could take him in the 1890's) but very distraught at the chasm between his hopes for a free America and the reality.

This is an adequate book, though dry at times. It follows Douglass chronologically. In episodes where his life was a fascinating story -- as a slave, his escape, his establishment in the North, as a politician and as US minister to Haiti -- the book is a fascinating tale. Not so fascinating are long accounts of his work on the road delivering speeches as an agent of the anti-slavery movement. Part of the problem with writing a biography of a man who was in large part a professional orator is that the chapters focusing on that work are not very exciting. Mcfeely spends a lot of ink detailing his journies on the stump and his meetings with many characters who were part of the American and English anti-slavery movements. Douglass's life flow, when examined chronologically, produces a story of varying degrees of drama. Although any biograhpher is limited by his character, I had the feeling throughout that Douglass's life could be told with more verve without sacrificing the facts.

What McFeely should have jettisoned were several parts where he delved into psychobabble -- speculations about sexual attraction or the depth of feeling between Douglass and several figures in his life. Human feelings and attractions are an important part of any biography and certainly shaped Douglass's life. McFeeley speculates on several without any facts to support his views. These are relegated to the first half of the book and do not intrude greatly, however.

If one needs or wants to learn about the life of this great American, McFeeley's book will fill the bill.

If you are looking for a book on OS design, this is most certainly not the one. However, this book may come in handy for UNIX-like system implementors on the Intel architecture. Despite what the introduction of the book reads, this is mostly just source code, and few comments, most of which I would expect to see /* */ around -- no incredible insight here. The only real reasons one might get this book is if one is a *BSD fan or if one is implementing an OS on the Intel architecture and is looking for ways other people have resolved related issues.

This was an interesting book. Its hard to know exactly what this book is trying to be. Is it trying to be like the Lions Commentary? nope.. since its not complete source code...

Basically they give you most of the core kernel functions etc, locore.s, and give you the design decisions, whys and hows.

I found it to be done pretty well, and it made a good reference, but one needs to remember the time in which 386BSD was written in.

Overall, a good book for any unix coder os design person.

This is a very nice book filling a long-empty niche: the low-level description of the logic and algorithms of an operating system. Probably the Lions' book was the last widely known good example of this kind. Well, 386BSD is dead but FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD are its direct descendants. And although they have diverged they still have a lot in common with 386BSD. The older versions of them are very close to 386BSD and still can be downloaded for free. It's not a general book on the principles of the OSes. It's not a high-level description of abstract Unix. It's a down-to-the-Earth discussion of the routines in the BSD kernel and the explanation of the design decisions in its base. It hits the information vacuum between the high-level descriptions, such as Vahalia's and McKusick et al. books and the raw source code. If you ever read the BSD source code and wondered what does such-and-such function do and when is it used and why does it do it in this way but not in some another way and how is it connected to the high-level picture then this is a just right book for you. But it's not an introductory reading, before reading it better get the general picture of what's going on in there from the McKusick's and Vahalia's books.

This book, published in the early 1950's, summarizes the changes to our society during the first half of the 20th century. Comparing these changes to those of the second half, it can be inferred that the pace of historical change has actually slowed down. The world is actually becoming more stable. A fascinating perspective on modern times

Well, this book was recommended to me by a teacher who was surprised by the fact I went through my US History class without learning much about the first half of the twentieth century. I only knew about the New Deal & FDR. This book is wonderful. It gives a more colorful perspective on the first half of the twentieth than a textbook could ever and what's ironic is it doesn't talk about the New Deal as much as my US History teacher did. From this book, I've learned more what America was like and who were the truly big movers and shakers, and it wasn't always the president! If you like history and you want to read something from someone who actually lived through the "big change" (and want to read something less formal that a textbook and chuckle about situations of the past), I truly recommend this book. What's even more ironic is the book I have was one of the original copies which only cost 85 cents. Now it's up to about $25. For a paperback! What a change!

Nice piece of work that does a good job of tracing the transformations that took place in the first half of the century. I found an old copy at a bookstore for $20 in mint condition...on-line you may find it cheaper at an auction. Writing style is a bit dry, so the book does plod in some places. Still, a good starter for anyone wanting to better understand the growth of the USA from rural/isolationist to global superpower.

I found this book exremely biased, especially on its treatment of ethics and environmentalism, which were extremely collectivistic and altruistic. I felt like I was also overcharged for the text book, for something so vaguely written.

Most textbooks do a very poor job of addressing current issues in a clear, accurate, concise manner. This book, however, is to be commended. I especially found the resource information and discussion cases to be a tremendous benefit. The discussion questions and current event topics encourage the students to explore these issues outside of class, in their businesses and in the community. Business and society is a topic of extreme importance. Unfortunately, it often goes overlooked in so many universities and colleges. Overall, I rank this book as a worthwhile investment and hope the authors continue to explore these important issues in business and education.

The author has attempted to use concepts from sociobiology to provide a way to evaluate business ethics and practice. It is badly flawed because he does not understand some of the basic sociobiological principles he needs to accomplish his goal.

Don't be put off by the title, the bland cover, or that it's part of a series in business ethics. This is a terrific and provocative book! Frederick offers a compelling framework for understanding the conflicts among the values centered on the essential economizing function of business; ecology; and the inherent power-aggrandizement of the corporation. The thesis presented here challanges both anti-business environmental elites as well as corporate apologists.

When the standard reference sources are consulted regarding Frederick William there are usually two things mentioned. He is credited with an innovative taxing system, and laying the foundation for the famed standing Prussian army. Derek McKays meticulous research includes details including the household expenditures of the Elector. In ten chapters the book gives a detail filled account of the life of Frederick William. The book provides a vast quatity of information that is not easily obtained in English elsewhere. In the first chapter there is discussion of his parents and grandparents, and other impressive family connections. The first chapters also establish the ruinous condition of the Hohenzollern family holdings at the time of Frederick William's accession. In chapters three and four his early years as Elector are covered. Chapters six through nine give a detailed account of his mature years, and a small final chapter wraps things up. Typical of this book's "stick to the facts" report style there are no reflective excursions into praise or criticism of the Elector's life. Still, Derek McKay must concede "... he was undoubtedly the greatest of the electors of Brandenburg." (pg. 223), and "... his reign set his dynasty and state on the road to their future greatness in Germany and Europe." (pg. 262)

Unlike most contemporary Greek helps, Alsop's index doesn't do all of the work for you. It does however, greatly reduce the time you will spend using B.A.G.D. Students who are familiar with B.A.G.D. will spend less time finding the root stem of words in the New Testament that have contracted and elided beyond recognition. Tasks such as parsing are left to the student.

This is one of the shoddiest books on Shakespeare I have ever read. Its basic approach is to assert some facile generalities about how free market economies help everybody and then find them in Shakespeare by means of very selective quotation. In effect, the book attempts to use the prestige of The Bard's Universal Spirit to prove or lend legitimacy to free market ideas. Its readings of Shakespeare are uninteresting. It waves away 200 years of more careful scholarship as mistaken without taking the time to provide anything like a sustained alternative reading. Worst of all, in discussing markets and economies (and nature) it consistently ignores the fact that there are sometimes losers who may not think the game has been so grand.

If you are trying to "Escape from Modernism," to transcend the ironical postmodern culture of despair with a "Culture of Hope," this book will enchant you. If you believe that the world is drenched in racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia, not to mention US imperialism, then this book may teach you a lesson. In "Shakespeare" Turner finds it intriguing that business uses words like "bond" "trust" "interest" and "honor" that are used in social discourse to describe moral and social obligations. Could it be that business is a moral and social endeavor that holds its participants to the highest standards and not a criminal conspiracy of robber barons? Here's another interesting topic that Turner examines: when businessmen sign a contract, they condemn themselves to break it. For no contract can include every detail or foresee every contingency. That pound of flesh, for instance, did it include blood spillage, or not? So how do you deal with broken contracts? With give and take--with mercy--that's how. You know: "the quality of mercy is not strained..." It's a radical notion, isn't it, that a culture of contract forces people to be merciful even as others are merciful unto them. And Shakespeare, according to Turner, figured it all out 400 years ago.

Of course, if you are not familiar with Phantom of the Opera (the musical), you shouldn't go anywhere near this book, because it won't make any sense whatsoever.

If you are a Phantom fan, however, this is what I have to say:
First of all, the only redeeming quality of this novel is that it isn't a novel! The introduction reveals beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is, in fact, a synopsis of what could have become a sequel to ALW's musical. This is also evident throughout the book, which is conveniently divided into scenes. At some points you can guess exactly what kind of musical number would have accompanied that particular scene (e.g. Darius' dream would be a spectacular scene, Pierre's Latin lesson would be the teacher's first song: a tune about Ireland!, Erik would have a hit solo when he finds out he has a son - that chapter even ends with a rhyme which may well be taken from that song, the party after the première would provide the opportunity for a large chorus and so on). With sufficiently good music, costumes, sets and cast it might have become a decent musical. It wouldn't have had much of a plot but many stage musicals don't. Nevertheless, I am thankful that the idea of a Phantom sequel didn't go any further since it would have ruined the original musical, which is complete in itself and has an effective "open ending". Besides, a sequel where Erik ends up winning would have made a mockery of the original tragic message of the story.

As for The Phantom of Manhattan, the story is uninteresting (bad guy chases innocent child and look, here's Christine and the Phantom and Raoul and Meg and Madame Giry again, o joy!) and the characters two-dimensional. It reads as a play and consequently we never know what anybody is thinking. This wouldn't have been such a flaw if their actions and words had shown it, but that characterization is sketchy at best. The background story is altered at will to suit Forsyth's intentions. This is not unusual in a piece of fan fiction, but quite frankly it's upsetting when the writer tries to justify his choices by saying that the author of the original novel was "wrong"! I realize that he's saying this for the sake of continuity, to eliminate the inconsistencies, but just saying that "this novel is based on the musical version of POTO, not Leroux's novel" would be a much more honest approach, as well as a more sympathetic one. As it is, one gets an impression of incredible arrogance which is impossible to shake off during the rest of the book. As if this wasn't enough, Forsyth says some unnecessary and downright mean things about Leroux's writing. I am not opposed to literary criticism, but the foreword of a pastiche is not the proper place for it. Besides, most of Forsyth's opinions seem more like childish nitpicking than anything else ("The weight of the chandelier was SEVEN tons, ha!" is not what I'd call an astute remark).

In short, the writer is no novelist (and, apparently, neither is ALW who helped Forsyth come up with the plot), this book is no novel (it's a commercial ad for a musical that, mercifully, never saw the light of day), there is no plot but that is no reason not to read Phantom of Manhattan for a few laughs and to boost your self-confidence by saying to yourself "I could do better than that!" (and you'd be right, you probably could!). But whatever you do, borrow, don't buy!

Forsyth, supposedly with Andrew Lloyd-Webber's collaboration, imagines what would have happened if the Phantom of the Opera escaped to New York in the late 1800s becomming rich and powerful. A deathbed letter from Antoinette Giry, the woman who sprung a sixteen-year-old Erik Mullheim from a freak show and sheltered him in the Paris Opera House, reveals that he sired a son in his one night with Christine Daae, now one of two top divas in Europe.

Christine comes to New York in 1906 to open the new Manhattan Opera House secretly bankrolled by Erik. Fast forward to 1940 when a reporter who became part of the story in 1906 is now telling a Columbia Journalism School class what happened and how it ended setting up a corny but well delivered finale.

Note the sharp contrast between the handful of Amazon reviews of the audio version vs. the close to 100 reviews that panned the book. The use of a dozen professional narrators, many once well known actors, adds considerable energy to the different segments of the story and made the audiobook work. When I saw it on a [stores] discount table, I had no idea what I was buying. It definitely was worth the shot.

Frederick Forsyth has written a continuation of the Andrew Lloyd Webber production of "Phantom of the Opera." This is the story of what happened after Erik fled the opera house.

If you get this book and wish to understand it better, read the preface. Many of the people who gave their reviews obviously did not because he states that he continues where Webber left off.

This book is based on a variety of narratives, including Erik's. It makes it very different in following the story. Indeed, I like what Forsyth did. The viewpoints allow us to see it unfolding in many different ways yet the story continues to march forward. I found that it did not drag at all.

I do give it (and the Webber production) a big "Hurrah!" for letting Erik be something more than a deformed "monster." Far too long (and even continuing today) people who don't add up to society's idea of beautiful have been shunned and considered to be stupid. Erik has proven them all wrong. The nice part of Webber's production and this book is that it left all of the original book's ideas that he was a monster because he was different behind. Both Forsyth's book and Webber's production show him as more of a tragic figure, cut off of everything that he truly has a right to simply by virtue of being a human being.

If you love the Webber production and feel that being different shouldn't label someone a monster, then this book I think you'll like.

Am I the only one who knows that Mr. Douglass lost his mother at an early age and that contrary to this book, she was not a major influence in his life? The author didn't do his homework. This book is full of inaccuracies about Douglass' life.