I think this book would be slightly better if it was a little more optimistic, but there is such a lot of negative views, it is hard to keep reading at points. It is the chilling tale of a nuclear holocaust aftermath, that goes from tregedy to tragedy. Allthough if you feel you could use a reality check this book is for you. Very powerful and grim. Excellant read. Try to think positive.

Brother in the Land was part of our english class last year...but it really made me thoughtful and I enjoyed reading it. I can only recommend it to everyone.

I feel that this is an excellant piece telling the story of a town caught in a nuclear holocaust. I read this story for an english assignment but I liked this book so much I read it again and again.

A good book if you like mystery. Good to read because it is about young kids and there is no violenc

In To Grandmother's House We Go there are three main characters. They are Nathan, Rosie, and Kevin, Their dad was dead so then when they find out their mom might be dying too, they decide they have to do something. They decide to go find their grandmother's house. When they get there finally they start hearing strange noises. They start a quest to find out who else was living at grandmother's house along with them, Uncle George, and Grandma.
I liked this book a lot. It is especially good for kids, either boys or girls. It is very interesting. I could hardly put the book down the whole time I was reading it. One of the reasons I like this book a lot is that it is very realistic, but also very fiction because most kids wouldn't be able to go to their grandmother's house by themselves. I gave this book 5 stars.

As always,Willo is able to capture feelings and create characters that are identifiable to all of us. Who could not enjoy this book?

This was one of the few books by blackmen that had good storys that reflect on black culture and done from a spiritual tone. It also reflected the ability of American Baptist to step out and pull something like this together. This is the kind of work that should be done on a yearly bases.

Relevent stories for African-American men. Definitely not fiction.

This book is mostly about the 3 children who had moved into the manse. Even though they are very "different" and interesting kids, I don't find them interesting, unlike Anne was when she was younger. I've seen a review which compares Faith to Anne - in their ways of getting into all sorts of unpredictable and unexpected trouble, imaginations, and making up all sorts of original excuses... But I felt Faith lacked Anne's fire and zest and didn't impress me at all.

This books is drifting apart from the series' main character - Anne. She is a small, supporting character in this book , and the closest we get to hearing about her are a few small stories about her kids... Which is my main reason for feeling this book should not belong in the Anne series...

I don't quite like Anne of Ingleside as I always want to know more about Anne but Montgomery just focused on Anne's children in the book.However,Rainbow Valley turned out to be completely different.It is as funny,delightful as other novels in the Anne series.Now, I love Anne's children and the manse children very much.But I don't like Mary Vance, she just seemed to be wicked though I know she was actually not, she was just brutally frank. The adventures of the children were as exciting as Anne's.They were all nice little souls.They were angels and to be loved by every one in the world.After reading Anne, I am now looking forward to having the chance to play in graveyards.They are no longer dreadful but beautiful places which bring you much joy and fun as soon as you finish Rainbow Valley. Lastly I think Anne Shirley is Anne Shirley. I can never accept Mrs. Doctor dear or Anne Blythe.

I really think the only reason not to find "Rainbow Valley" one of L. M. Montgomery's better novels in the Anne series is because it obviously has the least to do with Anne or her children. This one is really more about the four Meredith children who belong to Ingleside's new widowed minister, so I can see where some readers would be less than pleased with the direction. But the ending of this novel, where Una Meredith communes with her mother's wedding dress before going off to get her father a wife, is as touching as anything Montgomery ever wrote. All in all, "Rainbow Valley" reminds me more of "The Story Girl" and "The Golden Road" than any of the other Anne books, with the Meredith children having a series of humorous misadventures. I am also impressed because as you can tell from the ending when Walter Blythe speaks of "The Piper," that Montgomery is already committed to writing about what happens to these children during World War I in her next Anne book, "Rilla of Ingleside." Even though it is atypical "Rainbow Valley" is my second favorite book in the Anne series and I am the proud owner of a first edition copy.

This is one of those books with controversy surrounding it so I have to do two reviews of the book. First off, the story of a naive girl with feminist notions and a slightly warped brother is great fun. Podkayne is delightful as she stumbles into adulthood. Her narrative interrupted by notes from her brother is a series of growth and maturity in a modern society with conflicting viewpoints on what women should be. Many times Podkayne in trying to fight against societal limitations ignores her own personal limitations and its that tension that makes for an interesting read.

Now about the ending. The original publication changed Heinlein's ending. Heinlein had to make it palatable for audiences. This book has both endings with the publisher (and many essays by fanboys) saying that they prefer Heinlein's first one to his second one, mostly because Heinlein preferred the first one and hated the very notion of doing a rewrite. However the second ending brings home Heinlein's point quite well and makes it a story instead of a Heinlein sermon.

Considering Heinlein's intention is to say that working mothers neglect their families and create psychopaths and neglected children and that they should be punished as Podkayne's mother is punished, it is good that the sermon was not allowed to be played out in the first one. It is still there in the second ending but it isn't so blatant. Heinlein was a lousy preacher but a great story teller. Besides the first ending would make Podkayne's reappearance as an adult in later Heinlein works impossible.

Either way, read the book for yourself. Decide which ending works for you. I personally think that the original ending is about as useless as "early previously unpublished works", "conceptual sequels based on author's notes", and "poems written when the poet was horrid", but that might not be your opinion.

First, I think this is yet another Heinlein great. There are two versions of this book on the market. The difference between them is how the story ends. Heinlein originally wrote a particular ending, the publisher didn't like it and talked Heinlein into changing it. Later, a publishing company (I don't recall which) had a contest. People read both endings of the book. The original manuscript ending, and the first published version. They then wrote essays arguing for which version to print in a new paperback edition. They decided to include both endings, so now you can decide for yourself. But read the book at any rate. If you want another Heinlein with a female central character, try Friday and To Sail Beyond the Sunset. Of course the women in those books don't have the innocent child-like character of Podkayne.

After a decade of writing novels for young people (known as juveniles back then -- today we'd call them young adult novels), Robert Heinlein came back to the form for one last shot. "Podkayne of Mars" is a charming story of a young girl's ambition to become the first female starship captain, and her travels to Venus with her uncle and her sociopathic genius of a younger brother. This edition puts together Heinlein's original ending, the rewritten published ending, and a spate of letters from fans arguing over their relative merits. I read the story first as a teenager with the gentler ending; I reread it recently with both endings. Personally, I think either ending works, although I generally think Heinlein knew what he was doing in the first place before editors started demanding cuts. A novel that promotes the idea of the equality of women, as well as a diatribe against racism, "Podkayne" was ahead of its time for 1963 (although the subjects were in the air the previous decade, they weren't in literature for young people at all). The argument at the end of the novel, blaming the mother and father for neglecting their children, has rubbed some people the wrong way; but the idea that one of the parents ought to be home raising the child isn't all that dangerous, is it? After all, a dominant majority of our prison population was raised without a father in the home, while the mother struggled. Good parenting creates good children; bad parenting, Heinlein is arguing, creates bad children. I, for one, don't object to Heinlein's literature carrying philosophical or moral arguments; they help me to think about my own positions, even when I disagree with Heinlein. In my opinion, Heinlein's tendency to have his characters voice strong opinions (which many label preaching), is precisely the reason we're still talking about him. There are many writers of his era who told great stories; there are few we're still bothering to read. "Podkayne of Mars" is a great story, but it's also a great argument: enjoy it on both counts, and feel free to disagree. I think Heinlein wanted it that way.

The Stanislaski Brothers is a book of 2 complete stories; one about Mikhail Stanislaski (Luring a Lady) and the other about Alexi Stanislaski (Convincing Alex). I have to admit I liked Mikhail a little better than Alexi. Something about his story held me more and I felt it more compelling, a little more romantic. That is not to say that I did not enjoy Alexi as well, his is a great story.

Both are great romance stories, every woman's fantasy! Mikhail and Alexi are both fabulous leading men, very different people but each sensitive, caring and loving in their own way. I really like it when Nora Roberts writes about families you can feel as if you are a part of them and get to know everyone - I just love this family, wish I could have met them! I can't wait to read The Stanislaski Sisters!

The Stanislaski Brothers is a book of 2 complete stories, " Luring a Lady ," and "Convincing Alex ." You will just love the Stanislaski family and the brothers are no exception. The Stanislaski Brothers are strong willed, manly Ukrainian men, Mikhail and Alex. Both are great romance stories, every woman's dream cone true. Both the brothers are wonderful leading men, very different people but each sensitive, caring, passionate and loving in their own way. Both these brothers' stories will absolutely delight the readers. The romances are very fun and upbeat. All of the characters are just so real and lovable. I really love the way Nora Roberts writes about families, you can feel as if you are a part of them and get to know everyone. I just love this family! I can't wait to read The Stanislaski Sisters next.

In the first story of this book which is about Mikhail, a brilliant craftsman, he ends up into Sydney Hayward's office one day, demanding that she pay attention to his run-down apartment building. Sydney isn't used to men like Mikhail, and Mikhail isn't used to women like Sydney. But his charm is not wasted on her, and soon the fire flame under the heat of their passion.

In the second story of this book, Alex who is a cop, arrests Bess McNee, a soap opera writer. Yes, this is true and it does start the story off to an upbeat plot where you do not wish to lay the book down. Bess decides that this sexy detective is just what she needs, both on a professional level as well as a personal level. Bess has a history of falling in and out of love, and a few engagements under her belt. Bess must find a way to convince Alex that her love is forever.

I enjoy Nora Roberts books. The Stanislaski Brothers has two novels in one book. The first story involves Mikhail and his romance with Sydney. An unlikely duo at first glance, Sydney is a polished, sheltered, high society woman who becomes president of her grandfather's company upon his death. Mikhail was raised in the Ukraine until his family fought their way to the United States. Sydney mistakes him for a carpenter and hires him to make improvements on a building owned by her company and where Mikhail lives. She discovers he is not a simple carpenter but a complex man of many talents. Mikhail vows to win Sydney's heart. The second story revolves around Mikhail's younger brother, Alex, a tough street cop who arrests Bess McNee for soliciting, only to discover she is a soap opera writer doing "research". They fight to solve the murders of several prostitutes while falling in love. Bess has a history of "collecting" fiances, will Alex simply be added to that group, or will he believe in her declarations of love?
Both stories were a delight. I recommend them highly! Enjoy...

As an avid fan of Nora Roberts, I was delighted to see the story of the Three Fates start and end within the pages of one book. It must have been tempting to split the story line into three lucrative and separate entities, but instead the reader is treated to real interaction between each pair of lovers. In fact, this interaction between all the players is one of the strengths of this book.

Ms. Roberts has once again given us engaging characters. Her depiction of Cleo, especially, was beautifully drawn. The reader is allowed to see the entire woman, not just the hot stripper. The Irish contingent is Nora Roberts at her best -- lovable, laughable, and a family truly united. Her villian, Anita, is almost a cardboard cut-out of evel personified, and does not really have an impact on the story line, other than to act as a catalyst for the other characters.

An exceptionally enjoyable read!

When you're as prolific a writer as Nora Roberts, you're bound to repeat yourself a time or two, but The Three Fates rings just a bit too familiar for me. I was waiting at the door of the bookstore the day this was released and had finished it by dinner. And while if offered an interesting story (the mystery and romance of the Three Fates, three silver statues, was the best part) the characters were too similar to other recent paperback trilogies. Basically, she crammed three love stories into one book but I never really felt that I got to know any of the characters well enough to connect with them, with the sole exception of Dr. Tia Marsh. Her shy, hypochondriac was funny and sweet and I enjoyed watching her change and grow. But I would have liked to learn more the Sullivan family, Cleo and Jack. I'd love to see Ms. Roberts' next hardcover focus on one set of lovers so you can really get to know and understand the characters. These three sets of lovers all fell too hard, too fast for there to be any enjoyment watching them take the fall. I wouldn't pass this one by, just don't expect too much.

this books is great, especially if you are more drawn to Nora's romantic suspense novels. It never fails to amaze me how Nora links her characters together, and this book is a prime example of that.
For those of you who are avid Nora fans, you know her books range from romance, romatic suspence, fantsy and more. In this book, you get a little of all her genius. Starting with historical, with the sinking of the Lusitania, then the legend of the Three Fates, a trio of small statues and the quest of several people trying to obtain them. Nora also gives the reader a little bit a greek mythology, which makes me wonder, is there anything this woman can't write about?
Once again, she introduces us to three siblings, and gives the book a strong family element. The siblings of course, find love, but never without trial. The villian is a little over the top, as her motivation is not really substanial enough to make her actions believable. I only point that out if that sort of thing matters to you, to me it does not, because I certainly don't read her novel for their believability, I read them to be swept away in a story. And that, unquestionably, is something her novels always do for me.
Is this book my favorite of hers? No. But it's definately worth the price of the harcover.

I started this book really wanting to like it. From the jacket blurbs it looked like a book right up my alley (creative non-fiction.) Brothers&Keepers seemed like a book where the author had stretched the limits of creative nonfiction -- brought in different perspectives, used different voices, used different narrators. Overall, for me though, the book did not work. Ironically, I don't like the book for the very reason I was attracted to it. I think he went to far in adding new techniques and tricks at the expense of the story I thought he was trying to tell.

Wideman covers just about every possible combination of voice, tense, point of view, and narration. One of the old "rules" of fiction was to keep POV changes to a minimum. This is supposed to help the reader identify with a character and not have to reorient himself or herself and thus "fall out of the story." Likewise, the rules of writing discourage tense changes, hoping to keep a supple continuum going in the reader's mind. But in this book, Wideman wanders all over the place, sometimes shifting three or four times within the same page. (see page 8). Although I admire Wideman for trying this, for me as a reader, breaking the rules had exactly the effect the rulemakers fear -- I fell out of the story and became confused, disoriented, and disinterested.

But If You Must Do It, DO It.

To compound this problem, Wideman makes one more mistake in shifting realities. He doesn't keep it up. The first chapter of the book makes it seem as though we are going to get a heck of a ride, running all over the place looking for the truth. But in the last two sections, Wideman seems to fall into a reporter's notebook and never come out. Granted we do get to see Robby's words both printed and spoken, but the mishmash of thought, opinion, different tenses and voices is much quieter as the book drones on.

Many times it felt like he was showing off the fact that he was breaking the rules, rather than breaking the rules in order to tell a story that could not be told any other way. This may be because he is an academic, a professor who discusses the structure of literature all day long. He might feel a certain obligation to approach his writing from a litcrit perspective and deliberately do things in his writing that would make for good English papers.

An extraordinary tale of two brothers. One convicted of murder, another an English professor. Two lives. Two paths taken. Each word has been crafted with honesty, poidnancy, compassion and love. Each word illuminating the tragedy of racism showing the flipside of the American dream.

John Edgar Wideman's brilliant prose breaks through the humdrum of standard biographies and presents readers with a combination of family memoir, true crime narrative, and a scathing indictment of the "justice" system. His own learned, scholarly discourse and his brother's street dialect alternate throughout to give readers a dual perspective of family, culture, and society.

Wideman neither lionizes nor blames his brother, Robert, but not so ironically, he recognizes in his little brother the true modern day romantic: the chance-taker, the rebel with a cause, and the convict who retains his dignity through loss and ordeal.

Nevertheless, I would not undermine or degrade Wideman's book by calling it "uplifting" or "inspirational." There are enough canned chicken-soup books for those who prefer spoonfeeding to hard realism and true brotherly love.

Most people today are truly ignorant of many of the key events of first century Palestine, in spite of its importance to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Eisenman considers all available documents from this time, including many which have not been discussed outside of academic circles. It has long been observed that "the victors write the histories." Not until I read this book did I have any real feeling for what this meant in terms of our understanding of the first century. Eisenman describes the many groups of this era in terms of those which survived (the Romans, the Christians, and the Jews who were philosophically Pharisees) and those which did not (any of the other branches of Judaism, including that of Jesus and his true successor, James). Once you understand the true dimensions of this historical divide, the schism described in the second chapter of Galatians will never be the same for you. I cannot recommend more strongly that you make the effort to read this book, although I agree with the others that it is a difficult book to read.

I am now reading "James the Brother of Jesus." It is challenging and dense. Dr. Eisneman makes many tangential remarks (even in the middle of long complex sentences!) and I find myself re-reading and parsing sentences on every page. But despite this, I feel there is much to praise in this book. On the simplest level, it has allowed me to break free from my conventional understanding of early Christianity.

I wonder how I could have spent years not giving a second thought to: (1) the veiled (and not so veiled) power struggle between Paul and the leaders in Jerusalem, (2) the fact that the leadership in Jerusalem surely had a far more intimate knowledge of Jesus than did Paul, and (3) the astonishing inconsistency between the Gospels' portrayal of occupied Palestine and what we actually know about that period. As one reviewer said (above), "There is nothing new here". If that's true, Eisenman has done me a wonderful service: showing me this "old" information in a new way.

Some readers complain that Eisenman's Book is too long, con-fused and not edited correctly. I disagree. This book clarifies, synthesizes and produces wonder at the pass of almost every sentence. Given the importance of his huge task, Eisenman's sentences and sections are usually crisp and minimal which only heightens the full impact of his evidence and implications.

Most of what I find in `James Brother of Jesus' I have read in bits and pieces in other extremely speculative and much less respected works like `Holy Blood, Holy Grail', `Dead Sea Scrolls Deception,' `The Hiram Key' and Barbara Thiering's work. These works have been ignored and dismissed by the Christian establishment for a long time on the basis of weak evidence and wild leaps of imagination. They had a point.

But Eisenman's work towers over anything that has gone before it in its breadth and depth of internal historical research. He brings the Christian tradition, with its shadowlands of history and myth, to a critical point with monumental power. That is, never before has the dichotomy between the historical Jesus via James and the Myth of Jesus via Paul been drawn so clearly, carefully and exhaustively. If you are a `thinking Christian', as opposed to a dogmatic apologist, read this book. The confusion in the Christian soul between the historical reality of Jesus and the existential reality of the spirit or myth of Jesus `the Christ' must be confronted. With `James The Brother Of Jesus' Christian Ostrich time is over.

My only argument with Eisenman is theological and teleological. 1)Theological - by implying that the Pauline `myth' of Jesus Christ is shattered by the revelations about the real history of James, he, like many other iconoclasts, misses the point. Christianity, like all religions, is a myth that structures social relations, psychological perception, ethics, behaviours and history itself. No more, and certainly no less than any other religion. The origins of Christianity's anti-Semitism is well taken and is vitally important given the recent revelations about `Hitler's Pope'. But there has been much Good as well in this myth. 2) Which leads to the teleological question `Why write this? To what end?' Is it to rub Christian noses in the cesspool of history, as if other traditions, didn't have them? Or is it a Jack Nicholson `You Can't Handle The Truth' kind of throwing down the gauntlet challenge to Christians? Some of us can handle it, and have struggled with the dichotomy between the existential myth and empirical facts of Christianity to be able to accomodate the `twin' Jesus.

In sum. - Read It!

First, the good things: it must have taken courage to write the book, because of the possibility of betraying the privacy of the family. At the same time, the writing process must have been immensely satisfying. I imagine Jay finishing it, sitting back, smiling, and saying "If God takes me tomorrow, that's ok; the story has been told." In fact, Jay came to visit my college English class, and he told us that's exactly what he was thinking. I know how difficult it is to tell a true story about oneself in such remarkable detail, which is why the book earns three stars. But based on its execution, I'd rather only give it two. Here's why...

Is this book really about Robert? How many times does Jay congratulate himself on rising above a background that was out to get him? He went to Columbia, you know. And did he mention he's a writer? He throws that in so many times, you just KNOW he views being a writer as the noblest and most enviable profession in the world. The phrase "my accomplishments" crops up an awful lot, especially in a book supposedly dedicated to a mentally ill brother. Also, did Jay mention he's a writer?

And yes, the sentence structure was maddening (pun intended). A sentence can go on for an entire page, sometimes to such ridiculous lengths that I'd walk down the hall and read it aloud to my friends, just to show them with what I was dealing. I understand this problem a bit, though. I imagine Jay sitting at his desk with so much to say, afraid that if he doesn't put as much down as possible, as soon as it comes into his head, he'll lose it. So he erects a quick parenthetical fence and sends it down.

Basically, when I'd finished reading the book for my English class, I wished that Robert could come to visit instead of Jay. Much as Jay tries to overshadow him, Robert is the star of this book and a truly fascinating character. I realize that I only know about Robert through Jay's writing, so I respect Jay for that. But the book irritated me to no end. I guess I'm just not sensitive enough.

As someone who has made a career of helping the mentally ill, This book broke my heart. Yet I believed the problems existed as stated.

As the parent of a child who, as a teen, developed the need for the safety of psychiatric hospitals, I cried for Jay and his family.

As someone who became clinically depressed after my child's serious suicide attempt, I easily understood the need for what sometimes seemed like unrealistic optimism.

This book offers something for anyone involved with people who are mentally ill. Read it. Keep it. Learn from it.

If you're looking for a way to help a mentally ill relative, you must read this compelling book and its (equally compelling) successor, "Transforming Madness: New Lives for People Living with Mental Illness," also by Morrow. No, don't just read them. Buy them; tuck them away in a visible, dust-free spot; pull them out for inspiration when your relationship with your relative falls into a pothole. Big Neugie and Little Neugie will help pull the two of you out of it and go on with your lives together.