This is a beautifully written book, probably written for children, but totally enjoyable for grown ups.

A book of Narnians is a must-have for all Narnia fans. Pauline Baynes's illustrations put all the Narnians right in your hands. Even though the map in the back is not completely accurate, (I'm very picky) the references and drawings, along with short summaries of the characters are wonderful to have. Though nothing is as fantastic to read as the Chronicles, this is a well written easy read book for all those who want a deeper view of the Narnians and their world. Keep it close by while reading the Chronicles, so you can "zoom in" on the characters and their personalities!

This book is big people theology in little people terms.

Lewis Carroll sends Alice on a second set of adventures in some territory that is beyond our world. This time she crosses a mirror and enters a game of chess. She will eventually become a queen but she will in all possible ways express her deep desire to rebel against a world that is seen as having too many limitations and frustrating rules. She will in a way rebel against the game of chess itself when she comes to the end of it and pulls the tablecloth from under all the pawns and pieces to have peace and quiet, to free herself of absolute slavery. But what is she the slave of ? Of rules, the rules of the game, the rules of society, the rules of education. Of words and their silly ambiguities that enable them to mean both one sense and its reverse, that enable them to lead to absurd statements and declarations that completely block her in blind alleys and impasses. But at the same time, her return to the normal world that transforms those adventures into a dream, is a rejection of such adventures and of such rebellion as being absurd and purely fantasmatic, dreamlike. There is in this book a rather sad lesson that comes out of this ending : children can dream adventures, can dream perfect freedom, but reason brings them back to the comfortable world of everyday life and submission. And there is no other way possible. This book is pessimistic about a possible evolution from one generation to the next thanks to the retension of childish, childlike dreams, forgetting that the world can only change and progress thanks to the fuel those dreams represent in our social engine.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

"Through The Looking Glass" is, perhaps, not QUITE as good as "Alice's Adventures In Wonderland", but it's close enough to still rate five stars. Not, properly, a sequel to the first book, there is no indication at any point in it that the Alice (clearly the same individual, slightly older) from this book ever had the adventures in the first one; there is no reference to her previous adventures, even when she once again meets Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Obviously, the two books are intended as parallel adventures, not subsequent ones.

The most memorable bits from this book are doubtlessly the poem, "Jabberwocky", as well as chapter six, "Humpty Dumpty". But all of the book is marvellous, and not to be missed by anyone who enjoys a magical romp through silliness and playful use of the English language.

(This review refers to the unabridged "Dover Thrift Edition".)

Carrol was a profound and wonderful writer, and Through the Looking Glass... is definate proof of this. Though there isn't much evidence that he was a pedophile, you shouldn't grade his works simply on who he might or might not have been. Through the Looking Glass... is one of the greatest works of literature in the english language, and will continue to be despite the author's supposed problems.

Most people think they know what project management is all about and might think they don't need, at the very least, a quick prep course in the subject. This book is a wonderful starting point for those people. It's not going to give you all the answers, but it does say some very valid things that most of us just assume we know already.

If you need an easy-to-read, beginners level book for Project Management, this is definetely the book. Very clear writing and good examples. It is a fundation builder for a newbie project manager.

If you are looking for a book that introduce you into project management without boring then it's a good point to begin. It'll give you the basis with an easy and nice prose including for non english.
After read it you'll have better criterion selecting another books to increase you knowledge on project management.

V.I. Lenin (1870-1924) breathed during the height of the second industrial revolution. He witnessed the wild, berserk scramble for colonies and the absurd carnage of the first world war. This work's worth exists in a labor to systemically integrate imperialism upon the substructure of national financial capital. According to Lenin, a capitalist economy centralizes industry and banking, finance capital becomes exported, and nationalistic centers of capital compete for dominance. Ineluctably, productive forces are aligned on one side, and colonies of raw materials dominated by finance capital are situated on the other. War will only result as capitalist states are compelled to redress the fissure.

Several points argue against the dependency theorist. Marxists, with their idiosyncratic class theory of the state, miss the relationship between legitimacy and strategy of state power, reducing everything to economic power differentials. They focus on class struggle, supposedly the manifestation of economic "contradictions." This overlooks historic dynamics going back centuries that include constitutional, technological, economic, cultural, and legal changes that are not epiphenomenal precipitates of an economic base. In addition, nationalistic financial centers unleashing war upon another makes little sense now in an era where nation-states are becoming obsolete. In a world with weapons of mass destruction held by "virtual" states, mass immigration, environmental challenges, epidemiological concerns, and a vulnerable, privatized critical infrastructure, future war will be undertaken for reasons unrelated to capital export.

Lenin misses the development of the state which was occurring in his history. Under many state-nations, the state was the realization of the nation, its order, its will. James Madison writes in Federalist #63: "The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former." One thinks of more extreme examples, such as Rousseau's general will and Hegel's deification of the state as a living god. Napoleon was the apotheosis of the state-nation.

However, state-rights were challenged as national-rightists began to assert themselves. Bismarck's effort for unification is the most notable example. Americans are more familiar with the American Civil War. The United States changed from a Union to a Nation, as seen in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in 1863. States eventually were deemed legitimate by how well they promoted the general welfare of a specific nation. This was legitimized at Versailles -- self-determination being most important -- the state taking care of the welfare of a nation, rather than the other way around. Most of Lenin's colonies are nation-states today. Such nationalistic loyalty will become increasingly challenged as market-states, with internationally floating finance capital, blossom into existence as more and more question the nationalistic paradigm, as seen by change in Western reaction to the four Yugoslav wars of the 1990's. Sovereignty was once opaque, particular to a nation. Now nationality is becoming irrelevant to human rights -- a basis for legitimacy, as crime and war become blurred.

As far as Lenin's historical scheme is concerned, several points can be noted. Capital flows from France went overwhelmingly to Russia where profits could be made during that period, not to her colonies. (Lenin dismisses this as mere government "loan" capital...) Some blame Britain for undermining Argentina's economy with capital investment -- but one forgets -- the favorite target for British capital in the 19th century was the United States of America. The current financial relationship between the U.S. and Japan has not brought upon imperialism. In addition, with the earlier Portuguese empire -- the cost of policing their empire was actually greater than the benefit of their far-flung gains, leading to its demise. Dutch imperialism faltered in the 18th century -- though Indonesia was retained until the 20th -- because her prosperity was based upon tight control of the Baltic. These are just a few of many examples that confront the dependency theorist.

Lastly, in the modern context, the price of raw materials has been falling worldwide for years. The prosperity of LDCs will become more and more contingent upon the intelligence of their workforce. Most colonial cold war conflicts were battles to the death over which form of nation-state was legitimate -- parliamentary, socialist, or fascist. Whether the "rather dead than red" style policies were ethical can be debated, but surely one can understand the urgency (or paranoia?) of the Americans in the 50s, with the Soviets with the bomb, China previously turning red, communists on the move in Indochina, Korea, Latin America, Africa, et cetera. Many American and Soviet-implemented horrors were strategic in basis, not economic.

This work is essential for those interested in Marxist theory. I cannot see how it is applicable to today's world, but for anyone seeking to understand the 20th century, particularly the viewpoint of one of its major actors, I'd recommend it.

"Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism," seems to me more academic than propaganda-based. I expected a noisy ideological diatribe. Lenin does not predict guarantees of the future, or spout the superiority of a correct socialism (i.e. Communist Manifesto, Marx) - instead, Lenin examines intelligently the international economic state of the 10's by citing and challenging the pro-capitalist and 'quasi'-socialist scholars of that time. It was written for the everyday critical person.

It made sense to me of how Lenin viewed Capitalism in global terms, rather than individual or local terms. If the individual Bourgeois exploits the collective proletariat, then Lenin goes further that a majority Bourgeois country (i.e. USA) exploits a majority prolerariat (Mexico) country. And in the largest sense, international monopolies and large banks direct the inner workings of this exploitation-dynamic, regardless of what geographic state they represent. Backed up with a lot of creditable statistics,a clear and comprehensive insight, this book is extremely convincing; especially when one considers today's 'globalization' phenomena.

Even with his analysis of the 1910's, one gains a better understanding of the capitalist development of the 21st century -Lenin wouldn't be surprised by the economic paralysis of third world countries, the huge debts of certain states and certain citizens, and the massive power of the IMF.

However, no matter how convincing Lenin may be, it is important to be cautious of him. Lenin finished this book in one of the most important events as a politician in 1916. In 1917, gaining victory in the revolution, he announced to the press of the "one-party state," which censored any thought, idea, or action that did not fall under the context of Marxist tenets. In a sense, Lenin founded the beginnings of Totalitarianism. How tragic! But it is not unknown that when politicians bite the granite, they no longer become nice and virtuous human beings.

He justified noble ends with corrupt means. I have experienced the 'heat,' of radical-oriented books. Lenin's Imperialism is certainly one of them. This heat increased my knowledge of a certain thing in a certain perspective, but burned off my common sense and intuition. I used to think this to be a feeling of 'enlightenment,' (cheesy, but true) and discovered that I only lost my freedom to think for myself.

I know this is a weird comment, but make sure to consider context, content, and open-minded inquiry when reading such material! It's important for freedom! Altogether, two thumbs up to Imperialism, judged by its tremendous importance and intelligent insights. But reader, beware! Don't get caught up in the heat! Be careful! Remember 1917?

This is one of Lenin's major works. He shows how the economical system of capitalism leads to large contradictions between states and war. A clasic still relevant in theese times of "globalisation" (imperialism).

This book is a little helpful when trying to figure out what something in a dream means. It's cool to see the background for something but it doesn't always necessarily help. The dream symbol dictionary doesn't have enough symbols and I often am finding that the things I am dreaming of aren't in there.

An excellent resource for any lay person looking for infomation on dream meanings and symbols!

To go directly to what you want, if your memory needs to be refreshed, this is it ! No fooling around with hundreds of pages. Reminds me of the cheat sheets I use to make to get me on the right track.

This book has important new information about prostate cancer. It is one of the first books to point out that surgery is not the way to go.

This is a useful and very interesting collection of biographies of founders, prophets, and leaders of new religions. Most of the figures are from the twentieth century, but a few are from as early as the sixteenth. The biographies are objective and informative, providing in one convenient place a great deal of esoteric knowledge about modern religion. I especially enjoyed going through the entire dictionary, discovering how dominant certain themes are among these people, such as poor education and childhood illness.
I only have two complaints. The first is---buyer beware!---the title is misleading, suggesting coverage of new religions in general. The truth is that this is a dictionary about new religions that have had a significant impact on the United States, with almost no exceptions. The coverage of U.S. religion seems to be comprehensive (including some very odd new-Pagan, etc. figures who don't seem to have a wide following--but a plus is that the author includes some very interesting Native American holy people); it just wasn't what I expected from the title. A second criticism is that the volume has a really impressive bibliography---but all references are listed alphabetically at the end of the book, rather than citing the applicable works after each entry, where they would be much more useful.

The short stories of Sinclair Lewis have a sense of humour. They do not match up to his novels, however. One of them, "Moths in the Arc Light," is similar to Babbitt. It tells of a business man who looks out the office window. From across the street, and from her office, a woman is doing the same to him. This carries on until, at last, the man talks to her.

The tales are meant as nothing more than mild entertainment. They are plausible enough to work. But they do not have the epic quality of "The Aspern Papers" by Henry James or Tolstoy's story of a madman.

I came across an editorial recently referring to a "Babbit-type" person and decided it was time to read this book. It was a good read. At times I laughed aloud. There were passages I was tempted to memorize for quoting. I did care what happened to Babbit.

But I'd like to alert young readers that despite Lewis' efforts to make Babbit sympathetic, he is a charicature. In my mid-forties, I've known many businessmen, seen many unexamined lives and mid-life crises. Even 80 years after Babbit was written (when conformity is less in vogue in the US) I've known many conformists.

I haven't known anyone like Babbit. It is out of character for a people person like Babbit to be *so* fond of Paul and yet blind to Paul's needs. It is out of character for him to be so protective of Paul and yet so estranged from his own children.

Enjoy the book and let it remind you to think for yourself and to be real, but don't let it convince you that businessmen are doomed to conformity and to sacrifice of all their ideals. To be good at business is to weild power and though we don't see it ni "Babbit", that power can be used for good. Babbit is almost as much a charicature as are Ayn Rand's businessmen heroes.

Incidentally, as good as this was, I thought Lewis' "Arrowsmith" was better.

Sinclair Lewis wrote a series of satires that exposed the hypocrisy of early 20th century America. “Babbitt” is a snapshot of the life of George F. Babbitt, a somewhat prosperous middle class businessman who lives in Zenith, Ohio. Zenith has a population of 300,000+, and has an active business community. This community has its own rituals and ironclad rules. These rules consist of being one of the gang, being a member of all the right clubs and organizations, and never deviating from the ideals of business and money. These rules cause enormous difficulties for Babbitt when he goes through a midlife crisis at the end of the book and begins spouting liberal ideas and associating with the “wrong” crowd.

This is my first encounter with Sinclair Lewis. I really don’t know why I chose to read “Babbitt” first, as I also have copies of “Main Street” and “Arrowsmith”. I think it was the unusual cover of the Penguin edition, which is a picture of a painting called “Booster” by Grant Wood. To me, that picture IS Babbitt, and I’ll always be able to see Babbitt in my head whenever I’m reminded of this book.There really isn’t a lot of symbolism here (and the symbolism that is here is pretty easy to decipher) and the prose is much closer to our present day writing and speech. This is brilliant satire, and you’ll laugh out loud at many of the situations Babbitt gets himself into. An especially hilarious incident occurs when one of the local millionaire businessmen finally accepts an invitation to dine with Babbitt. The evening goes badly because Babbitt is in a lower social class. Lewis then shows Babbitt going to a dinner at an old friends house who is in a lower class then him. It’s hilarious to see the similarities between the two events, and it brings home how class is strictly enforced in Zenith, and by extension, America.

Babbitt is a person that I found myself both hating and liking, often within the space of one page. He’s ignorant, in that he is a major conformist who often repeats slogans and phrases merely because others in his circle say the same things. He’s a namedropper who refers to people he doesn’t even know as though they were his best friends. He’s also high volume. Babbitt is one of those people we all know who is always boisterous and noisy so they can hide their own insecurities or ignorance. Just when you think you can’t stand Babbitt for another second, Lewis tosses in a situation that makes you feel for the man. Babbitt is the boss at a real estate company, and he worries about his employees liking him. When a confrontation arises with one of his salesmen, Babbitt frets and doesn’t want to fire the guy, although the rules of business eventually force him to do exactly that. He wants all of his employees to like him. He also feels bad about cheating on his wife while she is away and worries about what his children will think of him when he comes in drunk after a night of carousing. Ultimately, although Babbitt can be a major heel, the reader is almost forced to sympathize with him. This is true especially at the end of the book, when Babbitt renounces his liberal ways and rejoins his old colleagues. His return to the pack is not quite complete, however. Babbitt is changed by his transgression, and has learned a few lessons that he imparts to his son on the last page of the book, thus ending the tale on an upbeat note.

I would like to have seen a better section of explanatory notes in this Penguin edition. While some of the more obscure references are defined, many are not. Also, some of the language in the book is very 1920’s slang, and for a 21st century ear, it can be difficult to pick up on some of them. This book is both funny and sad, but well worth reading. Sinclair Lewis eventually won Pulitzer and Nobel prizes for his literary endeavors. It’s not hard to see why. Recommended.

Sinclair Lewis is generally relegated to second-rate status by the academics - despite the fact that he was America's first Nobel Prize winner for Literature. As Robertson Davies, among others, asserted, Lewis is vastly under-rated and under-read among American novelists. He deserves far more attention - because of his literary gifts as well as his ability to mirror and illuminate the American character. Sinclair Lewis understood very well the forces at work in America in the early to mid part of the 20th century - not all of it positive. Perhaps Lewis' unpopularity in America is in part due to his caricatures of Americans in an unflattering light. No one should consider Lewis in the pantheon of literary immortals - but surely he fits somewhere in the curriculum. Lewis is highly readable, his satire is highly amusing, his prose is intelligent and his observations on the pitfalls and hypocrisy of pursuit of happiness in America are brilliant. His portrayal of Babbitt as the Lost Soul, knowing that he is lost but without the willingness or moral courage to find meaning in his existence, is a moving commentary on middle class America "getting ahead" that continues to be contemporary to subsequent generations.