After four years of college, I could no longer run from chemistry. After numerous drops from the class, I finally found a chemistry book which is easy to understand. This book has every example problem you could think of. Every chapter gives you a good introduction, then cuts strait to the points every novice chemistry student should know to pass a general college level class. I do suggest a run through of chemistry in high school before stepping up to this book. I would have liked to have seen a book accompany the text which shows the drawn out ways to answer the review questions at the end of every chapter. Other than that this book is very down to earth and easy to follow.

This book is very well written, with helpful diagrams and detailed examples. It is easy to understand and text and with this book it is truly not hard to understand chemistry and do well. I easily got an A in Chemistry I and I believe that everyone who failed the class simply didn't look over the book or their notes after class. It certainly wasn't the fault of the professor or the text- both explained chemistry very well.

This is a very good text book. It has many colorful pictures to keep my interest when I was reading it along my course. Generally, it is well written and easy to understand.

The felicitously written book has done a great deal to raise John Adams' reputation among the general public. Ellis concentrates on Adams' retirement years with chapters on his political writings, his correspondence with Jefferson, his other friendships, and his family life. While Ellis' goal is to explore Adams' character, this book necessarily covers Adams' remarkable achievements and explains clearly Adams' contributions as a political thinker. Adams was a complex figure; warm-hearted, sometimes vituperative, an unsystematic thinker and writer and thinker with remarkable insights. Adams refusal to accept the somewhat facile conventions of Jeffersonian liberalism made him an anachronism but his skepticism about American exceptionalism proved prescient. Adams was also remarkably accurate in major policy decisions. Over and over again, he made the right choice, even when his choices were unpopular. His pursuit of neutrality during his Presidency, for example, left him politically isolated but was undoubtedly the correct policy. As Ellis points out, Adams' reputation among scholars has risen steadily over the last fifty years. Today, he stands second only to Washington in the Pantheon of the Founders. Ellis's book and the just published biography by David McCullough are boosting awareness of Adams' achievements among the general public. An interesting corollary of this phenomenon is a corresponding fall in the reputation of Adams' political rival, intellectual antagonist, and friend; Thomas Jefferson. To scholars, Jefferson's achievements seem less than they did a generation ago. Pauline Maier summarized this clearly when she described Jefferson not as the author of the Declaration of Independence but rather as its draftsman; emphasizing the collective production of that great document. In the aftermath of the Civil Rights and Womens Movements, a man like Adams, who was able to treat intelligent women with relative equality, is more attractive than a probable sexual exploiter of his slaves like Jefferson. True to his Puritan heritage, Adams felt that reputation and adulation were snares and fatal to true virtue. His conduct towards his contemporaries tended to degrade his reputation. It is clear also that Adams hoped, perhaps expected, that posterity would rate him highly. As with other predictions, Adams appears correct.

I am like dspector -- I searched this book out after reading Ellis's "American Sphinx" on Jefferson. I am now a true John Adams fan. I have also read Ferling's biography of Adams, and agreed that it was more thorough, but not that it was as well written. Ellis has no equal in writing historical biography!

I'm now interested in knowing if anyone is working on a John Adams Memorial comparable to the Washington and Jefferson memorials in D.C. Why is he ignored? How about putting him on some of our money???

Ellis' work focuses on the latter part of Adams' life. While it makes no claim to be a complete biography, the book serves as an excellent foundation for those seeking to learn more about our most underappreciated founding father. Through detailed comparisons with Jefferson - Adams' rival and close friend who has been treated more kindly by America's collective consciousness - Ellis begins to illuminate many levels of the New Englander's character. In doing so, he helps us understand why Adams was not, and probably never will be, adored by the nation he helped to create

Many Georgians and many tourists enjoy the recreation and relaxation of Jekyll Island, one of the jewels of Georgia's "Golden Isles." One of the attractions for visitors to the Island is staying at, or visiting, the restored hotel, The Jekyll Island Club, and touring the "cottages" built by the millionaires who originally developed the island more than one hundred years ago. In The Jekyl Island Club, Brent Monahan takes us back to the time when J. P. Morgan, Joseph Pulitzer, and other tycoons and robber barons vacationed in splendor, and ran their little island as part of their fiefdoms. When one of the guests on the island is found dead from a gunshot, however, they have to acknowledge the local authority, at least enough to have the Brunswick sheriff make official their idea of what happened. Enter John Le Brun, high sheriff of Brunswick and a person with good reason to hold a grudge against the captains of industry who occupy what was formerly his home. Le Brun has his own problems, including a brand new chief deputy who recently returned home is disgrace from Philadelphia and is the son of the local judge. The judge is not a fan of the sheriff's, and is totally in the pocket of the Jekyl Island Club membership. In launching his investigation Le Brun must face the disdain, if not enmity, of club members and some of their staff; concerns about the loyalty of his own deputy; his own feelings; and his sense of justice. The pressure is on, in part because President McKinley is soon to visit the Island, traveling over from Thomasville where he is vacationing at the vacation home of his advisor, Ohio Senator Hanna, to meet with the some of the millionaires and House Speaker Reed, a guest of Morgan's. President McKinley's visit actually happened, and Monahan uses that historical fact and the residual glamor of the Jekyl Island Club, to fashion a neat little mystery. In an afterword Monahan also notes that before and after the millionaires' ownership, Jekyll was spelled with two "l's." While it was their private preserve, there was only one. While this book is not a great mystery, it is a solid one. The greatest charm, however, is in its bringing to life the era of conspicuous opulence and filling out the pictures today's visitors to Jekyll Island have in their imaginations.

Pretty cool book - the ties between the characters and persons they portray are incredible... i found myself questioning, could this be real or is it just fiction...

It starts out a little slow (some very long chapters) but soon you are hooked. The fascination of moguls of that time and their impact on our history. Well written. You wish there were other books about Sheriff John Le Brun and his crime solving abilities.

Although I agree with the criticisma made by other readers, I still loves "Shadows On The Hudson" and consider it a worthwhile and engrossing book.

Singer writes about a small group of exciles who survived the Holocaust be fleeing to New York City and creating a community in the shadows of the Hudson river. It was here that they contemplated their devastaing past and doubious future.

The characters are intelleigent and intense, anguished by their expulsion from their homeland and the collapse of their cultural and religious values.

This is a long, deep novel that deals with some of the fundamental problems of human existence. More than any other writer, Singer (at least in this book) reminds me of Dostoyevsky, whose characters were constantly in existentialist turmoil over questions such as good vs. evil and whether or not there is a God (and if there is, is He good, evil or indifferent?) Of course, while Dostoyevsky was a Christian, all of the characters in Shadows on the Hudson are Jewish holocaust survivors who have recently emigrated to New York from Europe shortly after World War ll. This is something that none of them can forget, even for a day, as many barely escaped while their loved ones perished. Beyond this confrontation with evil and death, the novel is largely about the philosophical war between religious orthodoxy and hedonistic modern life. Contemporary readers who do not come from a strongly religious background may have some difficulty appreciating this dilemma. The mass culture that Singer found vulgar and amoral in the 50s has now all but taken over in America, leaving many people no frame of reference for any other type of existence. While there is much philosophizing, Singer succeeds in creating flesh and blood characters whose moral anguish is not simply abstract, but put to the test in daily life. The character we spend the most time with is Hertz Grein, a middle-aged man whose religious yearnings are in stark contrast to his lifestyle. He is a married man who has had a long affair with another woman. As the novel opens, he is preparing to run off with yet another woman. Grein's behavior through most of this book is both irrational and indefensible. He lies to all three women, and makes all his decisions on the whim of the moment. At the same time, he is hardly without a conscience. On the contrary, he is deeply ashamed of the pain he causes others and desperately wants to redeem himself. Reading Shadows on the Hudson, I got the feeling that Singer himself, as he wrote the book, was struggling with the very issues faced by Grein and his other, equally fascinating and conflicted characters. The central problem posed by the book is the paradox of faith. On the one hand, there is no evidence that God exists. Indeed, the prevalence of suffering and evil suggests an indifferent universe. On the other hand, life without faith is unbearable and leads to a world without meaning or values. Does this mean that we should, even in the absence of evidence, embrace a strict moral code? Although the conclusion of Shadows on the Hudson is somewhat ambiguous, Singer seems to answer this question tentatively in the affirmative. Whether or not you agree (I actually don't), the question is an extremely important one and this book gets to the core of it.

Shadows on the Hudson is one of the best novels I've ever read. The people are real--and thank god, they're deeply sexual and deeply intelligent. Some readers are irked by the one, some by the other characteristic; by me a novel flops if the people are too dumb, or too free from the driving burdens and blessings of relentless sexuality. This more or less simultaneous wrestling with sex, faith and its lack, and the problem of theodicy (why God permits evil) is Singer's forte. Only Tolstoy does it better, but there is more real flesh in Singer, while the religious issues are at least as alive as those of Tolstoy's stellar episode toward the end of Anna Karenina, in which Levin successfully struggles toward theism. Singer's characters know what Tolstoy's don't: that 6 million Jews and 20 million Russians are gone who should not be gone. This novel is art, and monumental art; not another pleasure cruise for the beach umbrella.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about the man behind the LOTR, The Hobbit, and the Silmarillion. Largely based on Tolkien's own letters, as well as perspectives from critics, friends and family, Pearce's book offers a fresh and insightful perspective of Christianity's influence on Tolkien's philosophy and use of myth. I have seen no other work that provides such an articulate and well documented linkage between the man's faith and his works. Pearce succinctly and effectively dismantles claims that Tolkien is either reactionary or escapist, while furthering the case that the creative genius is one of the most important and influential authors of this century. As a Christian, I am inspired by Pearce's description of Tolkien's Theocentric approach to life and to his work. Traveling in Christian "fundamentalist" circles, I too often see Tolkien's name associated with occult and New Age activity. Of all criticisms leveled at the man and his works, I'm sure that these unfair allegations would hurt this devout Christian more than all others. Only a profound misunderstanding of the man and his myth ( and Myth, in general ) could lead to such a confused opinion. T:M&M also educated me as to the profound impact Tolkien had on his fellow Inkling, C.S. Lewis, the renowned Christian apologist, whose own works, including the Narnia tales ( which were heavily influenced by Tolkien), are staples in every Christian bookstore. And yet Tolkien's name is often pronounced with contempt in Christian circles. Again, this book may help to silence this kind of calumny. Furthermore, Pearce's book has prompted me to read the works of G.K. Chesterton ( another noted apologist ) , as well as more of the letters, essays, and unfinished tales of Tolkien himself. T:M&M reminded me of my early days as a born again Christian. Having discovered Tolkien two years before I "discovered" Christ, I now recall the odd sense of familiarity and recognition when I read the Bible for the first time. At the time I simply attributed this to a primitive recognition of the Truth which is hardwired into the hearts of all men. I still believe that, but I also recognize that I was "remembering" my previous experience with Tolkien. His myths were just as he had intended them - a variation on the theme of the "True Myth" of Christ Jesus. Thanks to Mr. Pearce for helping me recognize this.

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work" (Tolkien, in a letter to Robert Murray)

These words might not be to the liking of many Tolkien critics, analysts or pseudo-writers that have been trying to unravel the Tolkien Myth. I believe that many of them have been at least partially unsuccessful due to the simple fact that they underestimated or totally overlooked the main essence of Tolkien's life which was his spiritual faith as a Catholic.

Of course, this is by no means popular for a writer. Indeed , being a Catholic can mean instant "unpopularity" in certain cases; a paradox considering that Tolkien is by all means an extremely popular personality. Probably popularity has been helped by misunderstanding the man as a consequence of so many superfluous opinions by wrongly called "Tolkien experts".

It is thus with great enthusiasm that I read this essay by Joseph Pearce. It is a well documented and objective work that reaches on to the very deep roots of Tolkien's motivations and perceptions of the world which were based on his Christian beliefs and his life as a convinced Catholic.

The essay begins with a lively description of the turbulence caused when several reader polls established Tolkien as "The Author of the Century". Although this is an interesting (even fun) part, the most valuable comes from the rest of the book where we discover a proper view of Tolkien as essentially a Catholic author. Pearce , convincingly achieves this through an impartial presentation of documents, facts and original testimonials that permits us to glimpse the "Real Tolkien".
Written in an agile and practical style, it permits a clear and pleasant reading without falling into the usual dull academicism of many essays.

I consider this, along with "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien" a most illuminating source to enjoy and truly understand the creator of such beauty as "The Lord of the Rings". Regarding beauty, let me end quoting Tolkien again: "...Our Lady, upon which all my own small perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded"

J.R.R. Tolkien's work and life have been misconstrued by critics who never understood a modern man's devotion to faith. He was misconstrued even by his "authorized" biographer. Pearce pierces through the crusts of insult and mischaracterization of Tolkien (the first chapter reprints some of the fiercest critical comments by those who lack the imagination to see past the mundane in literature and who write "Lord of the Rings" off as a childish fantasy), and his study is an excellant overview of Professor Tolkien's life and works. Though Pearce's book can be read in a day, it has sufficient grounding and insight to explain why Middle-Earth is so full and satisfying when so many other very-well-thought-out subsequent fantasy worlds appear hollow. This book is must for Tolkien's fans and for anyone interested in the intertwining of faith and literature; and a quick, fun, and enlightening read for anyone interested in twentieth-century literature, who is undogmatic about what that literature must be. Those who brand religious faith (particularly Tolkien's devout Christianity) as irrelevant and/or literature as nothing more than a tool mirroring their own Nihilistic mindset will not understand this book at all. "The Lord of the Rings" will probably be read into the Fourth Millenium, and this fine study of its author dispenses with the patronizing and pseudo-Freudian claptrap that so often surrounds Tolkien and his sub-creation like a dreary fog, directing sunshine into areas many critics and academics wish were left foggy.

This is the central question explored by Conrad in Lord Jim. Jim is ultimately a character who inspires our sympathy due to his inability to find reconcilliation for his one tragic moment of weakness. In him we find a person of tremendous potential that remains unrealized as the tragic circumstances of his abandoning his post aboard the Patna continually haunt him and the associated guilt drives him to isolation.
Conrad successfully explores the concepts of bravery, cowardice,guilt and the alternative destinies that an individual may be driven to by these qualities.
The narrative can be a bit confusing at times as Marlowe relates the tale by recalling his encounters with Jim. The book reminded very much of Somerset Maugham's THE RAZOR"S EDGE" in style. However I believe that Maugham did a much better job of incorporating the narrator into the flow of the story. Overall LORD JIM is a wonderful classic novel that I highly recommend.

This is the fifth book I have read by Conrad, and through these readings I have come to deeply appreciate his literary power and the perfection of his stories. Conrad has the skill to border about several similar subjects, without repeating himself. "Lord Jim" is truly a Shakespearean tragedy, mainly because of the Shakespearean nature of the main character. Jim is a young naval officer with high hopes of heroism and moral superiority, but when he faces his first test of courage, he miserably fails. While 800 Muslim pilgrims are asleep aboard the ship "Patna", Jim discovers that the boat is about to sink. There are not sufficient lifeboats for everybody. Should he wake them up or not? He gets paralyzed with fear and then sudenly jumps into a boat being set up by the rest of the officers. He is taken to trial and disposessed of his working licence.

Ashamed and humiliated, Jim dedicates the rest of his life to two things: escape the memory of that fateful night, and redeem himself. This agonizing quest to recover his dignity in front of his own eyes leads him to hide in a very remote point in the Malayan peninsula, where he will become the hero, the strong man, the wise protector of underdeveloped, humble and ignorant people. Jim finds not only the love of his people, but also the love of a woman who admires him and fears the day when he might leave for good. The narrator, Captain Marlow (the same of "Heart of Darkness") talks to Jim for the last time in his remote refuge, and then Jim tells him that he has redeemed himself by becoming the people's protector. Oh, but these things are never easy and Jim will face again the specter of failure.

Conrad has achieved a great thing by transforming the "novel of adventures" into the setting for profound and interesting reflections on the moral stature of Man, on courage, guilt, responsibility, and redemption.

Just as in "Heart of Darkness" the question is what kinds of beings we are stripped of cultural, moral and religious conventions; just as in "Nostromo" the trustworthiness of a supposedly honest man is tested by temptation, in "Lord Jim" the central subject is dignity and redemption after failure.

A great book by one of the best writers.

After reading this book (along with several other of Conrad's books) I am under the impression that Joseph Conrad may very well be my favorite author. Here is another masterpiece, a deeply incisive study of character of the motivation and the ultimate failure of all high-minded ideals. Granted my own personal world view falls directly in line with this realization and therefore prejudices me towards anything the man might write, but, when considering such a lofty title as 'favorite author' one must regard other aspects of the novelist's creation. As with the others, Conrad wins by the power of his stories.

Lord Jim is my least favorite of the the four books I have read by Conrad. The story is rather scattered: a righteous young man does something wrong that he holds himself far too accountable for and the public shame the action brought him exaggerates the reality of his failure and makes him believe the rumors swirling around about his so-called cowardice. He spends the remainder of his life trying to reclaim his self-regard, mostly exaggerating his own importance in matters he hardly understands. His goal is to liberate the primitive people of the jungle paradise he inadvertantly finds himself in (due to an effort to escape every particle of the world he once inhabited) and his once high-minded ideals and regard for himself lead him to allow those people to consider him almost a God.

Jim likes being a God and considers himself a just and fair one. He treats everyone equally and gives to his people the knowledge of modern science and medicine as well as the everyday archetecture and understanding of trade that those primitive folks would otherwise be years from comprehending.

Of course everything ends in failure and misery and of course Jim's restored name will be returned to its demonic status, but the whole point of the novel seems to me that one can not escape their past. Jim, for all his courage in the line of fire has tried to avoid all memory of the once shameful act of his former life and by doing so becomes destined to repeat his mistakes.

Lord Jim is far more expansive than the story it sets out to tell, ultimately giving a warning on the nature of history and general humanity that only a writer of Conrad's statue could hope to help us understand.

If there is a flaw it is not one to be taken literally. Conrad was a master of structural experimentation and with Lord Jim he starts with a standard third person narrative to relate the background and personalities of his characters and then somehow merges this into a second person narrative of a man, years from the events he is relating, telling of the legend of Jim. It is a brilliant innovation that starts off a little awkward and might lead to confusion in spots as the story verges into its most important parts under the uncertain guidence of a narrator who, for all his insight into others, seems unwilling to relate his personal relevence to the story he is relating.

Nevertheless (with a heartfelt refrain), one of the best books I have ever read.

If you want to read about Jack Kennedy and his dad, with a little more information about Joe Jr., then this is a book for you. Mr. Leamer never delivers the promise his title suggests. This is not to say the book fails to be interesting, but it paints a rather incomplete picture of the Kennedy history. He spends a great deal of time on Joe Sr, and goes through a fairly deep analysis of the relationship between Joe Jr. and John, but we se only fleeting glimpses of Ted as he runs for senate. We only see detail on Bobby when he becomes his brothers AG. We never see the depth of information on Bobby, who played such a significant part in JFK's life.

The book also fails to give a complete picture of any of the men by failing to explaing the relationship that occurred with Rose. We are shown that she tolerated her husband's indiscretions, but we see hardly any interplay with her sons at all. Any decent psychologist will tell you that you can't understand a man without understanding his relationship with his mother. We never see it at all.

Although I found the information delivered to be interesting, I also found it to be quite one-sided, as though it had been written by a strong fan. It gave a good amount of information into the events the Kennedy men lived (and died) through, yet left out much of the day to day information that would have filled out the image. Bottom line; interesting read, but not a detailed analysis...not by a long shot.

I read The Kennedy Women a few years ago and found it to be one of the most impressive biographical works that I had ever encountered. I was most impressed with Leamer's ability to fully chart the lives of so many diverdse characters.

I eagerly awaited the Kennedy Men. If I had not read his previous work, this probably would have seemed better. I felt that the Kennedy Women had a broader scope dealing with a longer (and earlier!) time frame and more individuals. This started, really with Joe Kennedy and didn't focus on too many others. A very minor complaint, is that the Kennedy women had a comrehensive time line in the beginning. It would have been useful to include one here as well.

Otherwise, this is an extaordinarily well rearched volume. What I enjoyed most was the conversational approach taken by Leamer. It is a pleasure to read. I wish that the final chapter "Requiem for a President" was slightly more detailed, but this was a chance to learn not about invididuals, but about complex family relationships and bonds.

I am glad that I read it and look forward to volume 2!

The Kennedy Men: 1901-1963 By Laurence Leamer has been an appendage of mine since its release in mid-October. I literally could not put it down and when I finished, I lamented its ending. It was personal, like a friend, a wonderful place to go when I read it. I wanted more -- yes, even after reading 700-something pages.

Leamer put this family into context with grit and courage. The book does not mince words. He did not just give us the bad and the ugly; he also gave us the good. And even the bad and the ugly are in a context where the actions are understandable, unlike the Seymour Hirsch book, "The Dark Side of Camelot," where it was all seamy and skewed.

When Joe Kennedy had the lobotomy done on his daughter, Rosemary, one could understand his motives, even the hubris that made him do it. In his own way, he was being protective of her, but his suffering after the disastrous results that left her a mere shadow of her former self -- was some of Leamer's finest writing.

It was as if the author were inside Joe Kennedy's head and had become omnipotent. That is the part of the book that was the most tragic and deeply sorrowful. The fact that he never spoke of her again, and the rest of the family followed suit -- all parched by their unspeakable grief at her loss -- gave more insight into the human condition than I have ever seen in a book, bar none. I believe the lamentation today is still borne by the Kennedy family and that is the demon that drove Eunice to work so hard for the handicapped; she was doing penance for the entire family. This one section could be pulled out alone and made into a morality play; Albert Camus and the existentialists have nothing on Leamer here.

The dossier of facts in this book will stay with the reader, who will not be the same after reading the book. Your heart breaks for this family, what they suffered through -- even if much of the catastrophic consequences they endured were their fault. One can clearly see the motives.

Leamer is sans judgmental hostility. He doesn't lean on the Kennedys for their faults -- rather he puts them into this a historical frame of reference without blue-sky illusions.

Who knew how much John F. Kennedy suffered his entire life? His transition to adulthood was inevitably painful emotionally but also physically. He bore upon his frail shoulders the burden of his older brother's death. His drug habit, scary as it appeared, could also be understood in this book's context. Leamer neither softens nor sentimentalizes it. Kennedy's lifetime of pain makes the reader wince with a lump in their throat. One leaves the book admiring what he accomplished rather than judging him harshly. He was trying to find an even keel for himself. He was looking for an even playing field. One must remember, he was taking the injections wearing 1960s glasses. No one knew the dangers of amphetamines back then. They were the "smart" drug of the day.

I was rather surprised that Rose was as cavalier as she was toward the end, after Joe's stroke -- with cruel indulgence, showing him gowns she would wear to parties she attended without him. She appeared to enjoy her "last-laugh" status her continued health gave her.

Even more surprisingly, Rose was rather cruel to the children as they grew. She wrote letters to their schools but she never visited. She expected the children to be "little men" and "little women" from the time they were babies, another fragment in the mosaic of their shattered lives. To justify this shoddy behavior, she opined that she thought it was best if the children were not dependent on her.

This was one of the big surprises for me of the book: Rose's distance from the children. You were either with her or you were gone. Witness what happened to eldest daughter Kathleen, who died in a plane crash in Europe. She wasn't even brought back for burial, rather, she was buried in England. That fact will stick in one's craw. "Kick," as she was called, was divorced and having an affair, so she was banished, even in death.

Of course, affairs were de rigueur for the Kennedy men. I'm looking forward to Leamer's next volume and hope he explores the relationship of Bobby Kennedy with Jackie after Jack's death when both were .

Would I recommend this book? Absolutely. It's one of the truly great books I have ever read. Henry Kissinger once said of an argument, "It had the added advantage of being true." That is The Kennedy Men.

Joseph Conrad's 1907 novel, "The Secret Agent," is a difficult little book. It's story is difficult and its characters are largely unpleasant. By difficult and unpleasant, I don't mean to say the novel isn't any good. Far from it. These terms I mean to denote the impenetrability of motive, of sense. The story of a group of anarchists, police, and a family caught in the middle in late Victorian England, "The Secret Agent" is far from Conrad's subtitle, "A Simple Tale". The novel, for me, is about hatred, mistrust, and breakdowns in communication.

"The Secret Agent" begins early one morning in 1886. Mr. Verloc, a secret agent for a foreign embassy, who lives in a small apartment with his wife Winnie, her mentally ill brother, Stevie, and their mother. Keeping an eye on a particularly ineffectual anarchist community in London, Verloc pretends to be an anarchist revolutionary himself. As the novel opens, Verloc is called in by his new employer Mr. Vladimir. Vladimir, discontented with the apparent lack of production out of his secret agent, and even further with the lackadaisical English police, wants Verloc to act as an agent provocateur, and arrange for a bomb to spur the English government to crack down on the legal system. As religion and royalty are, according to Vladimir, no longer strong enough emotional ties to the people, an attack must be made upon "Science," and he selects the Greenwich Observatory as the appropriate site for action.

The novel introduces us to a range of wholly unsympathetic characters. The anarchist collective roughly consists of "Doctor" Ossipan, who lives off his romantic attachments to women barely able to take care of themselves; "The Professor," explosives expert, who is so insecure, he is perpetually wired with a detonator in case he is threatened by police capture; and Michaelis, the corpulent writer, engaged upon his autobiography after a mitigated sentence in prison. Conrad's portrayal of this cabal is wholly ludicrous - a band of anarchists that are better at talking than doing anything to achieve their undeveloped goals. No better than these are their nemeses, the London police, here represented by Inspector Heat, who identifies so much with the common criminal element, you'd think he was one himself; and the Assistant Commissioner, who is so dissatisfied with his desk job, that he would do anything to get out on the streets - but not so ambitious as to upset his nagging wife and her social circle.

At the diffuse center, if it has one, of Conrad's novel, is the Verloc family, held together by ties no less tenuous and flimsy than any other community in the work. Verloc and his wife communicate and interact by monosyllables and the broken bell of their front door. Winnie Verloc knows nothing of her husband's secret life, and tries desperately to prevent him from taking offence at having to support her infirmed mother and practically useless brother by forming a society of admiration amongst them for her "good" husband. Lack of real communication and sympathy amongst the Verloc household is at the heart of Conrad's satire against late Victorian England.

As the Greenwich Bomb Outrage is an early, but central moment in the novel, it would not be spoiling anything to tell you that this is where Conrad really earns his paycheck. His mode of bringing all the disparate characters and subplots of the novel together throughout the rest of the book is both reminiscent of and radically undercutting the influence of Charles Dickens in Conrad's social critique. "The Secret Agent" is a clever novel, but exceptionally bleak. Thinking about other early 1900's British novels like Samuel Butler's "The Way of All Flesh" or Virginia Woolf's "To the Lighthouse," Conrad's "The Secret Agent" is another of these works where a British writer tries to assess the state of the Empire in the aftermath of Victoria's demise - examining past follies to be overcome, and peering without optimism at what lies ahead.

One thing that I find interesting with this novel is that it is set in London. All of the other Conrad novels I have read so far have dealt with the sea or foreign lands. The exotic quality found in his other novels is still present, as the London Conrad describes is as mysterious as the jungles of Africa and the tropics of the East Indies.

This novel also focused on a broad range of characters, unlike some of his novels that set out to tell the story of a particular character (e.g., Chance, Heart of Darkness, Lord Jim).

The story involves espionage and deception, as secret agent Adolph Verloc executes a mission to bomb a place of science (supposedly the Unabomber's inspiration). Adolph the spy/family man, Stevie the slow brother in law and unknowing pawn, the Professor with his suicide bomb, and the deceived wife Winnie are just among the unusual characters Conrad creates.

I especially liked the character Winnie, as her mounting suspicion and eventual realization of her husband's profession and his horrible act provided a moral viewpoint from within the novel (more or less in the form of revulsion and outrage).

Conrad's style of writing can be difficult at times, as he often provides lengthy narrative that can be overwhelming at times. However, acclimation to his style mitigates this, and the results are rewarding.

I really enjoyed this book, and highly recommend this and Conrad's other works.

Conrad's The Secret Agent (Don't get excited, I can't underline from my browser...) is the brilliantly written story of the life of an anarchist in England at the turn of the century. Mr. Verlock is an agent for the French embassy in London, yet, at the same time, an activist for an anarchist revolution. Verlock lives with his young wife Winnie and her slightly disabled kid brother Stevie, atop a store on a run down street in London. The plot takes place around 1895, a time when anarchists in England carried out terrorist acts for their cause. Around 1895, Britain considered Anarchists common terrorists. Though most believe that Conrad portrays Verlock as a terrible person, one finds that by following both Verlock, and the investigation into a failed plot to destroy a London observatory, Conrad really displays the ease with which one's beliefs can change into terrorist plots. Thus, Verlock is not really portrayed as such a bad person. This book, especially relevant in today's age of terrorism, a wonderful read, and full of symbolism, will make you think.

While the quality of the book seems good, the organization is unusual for a history book. It should be emphasized that this is a reference book set up like an encyclopedia on people, battles, and wars (listed alphabetically). It is NOT set up chronologically!

This book is NOT a chronological book of American military history, but rather an encyclopedic reference with thousands of entries. No pictures- ... It covers topics including: all the major wars, battles, bios on military leaders, warfare methods, a survey of combat weapons and military hardware, political acts by Congress and treaties, overviews of the military structure and services. It features contributions by notaries like Stephen E. Ambrose and John Keegan... its coverage priorities are odd. The political-correctness bent comes out every now and then in this book...

The Oxford Companion to American Military History has been awarded the Distinguished Reference Book Award by the Society for Military History in 2001. It has been the subject of several long and highly favorable reviews including those by Russell Weigley in the January 2001 issue of the "Journal of Military History," by Hew Strachan in the February 16, 2001 issue of "TLS, the London Times Literary Supplement," and by Vince Rinehart in April 9, 2000 issue of "The Washington Post's Book World."

To a certain degree I can enjoy zany antics just as much as the next guy. And I am glad that Wambaugh at least tries to put some humor into his novels. But sometimes one has to wonder if he is trying to model his humor on (or is it after?) the Three Stooges. I enjoyed reading this novel, but I am not about to take it seriously. I wonder what would happen if Wambaugh ever co-authored a mystery novel with Patricia Cornwell in which one of his versions of a cop worked closely with Kate Scarpetta (in her current paranoid, very near nervious, and very mental, breakdown condition) in trying to solve an intriguing and highly invoved case.

Wambaugh has a flair for scriptwriting equal to Quinton Tarantino at his best. He's brutal, sly, topical, sharp, intense and outrageous all at the same time. This novel can be a bit silly at times, but never does it become stale. "Finnegan's Week" should appeal to readers of a wide variety of tastes, and I'm surprised that Wambaugh doesn't have a larger following than he has. His plots weave in and out, and he always finds a unique way to bring it all together at the end. His razor-sharp wit sets him apart from the rest of the thriller writers out there. A great, fun read with a superior style.

Wambaugh delivers as usual in this funny, exciting tale of an cop who's an aspiring actor (and who's facing midlife crises as only an actor wannabe can) while in the middle of investigating a truck theft that turns out to also involve a theft from a Naval warehouse as well as a load of missing toxic waste. His case brings him into contact with two tough and sexy Policewomen, each with her own private and professional agenda. Will Fin Finnegan (the cop-actor-hopeful) get the part he's trying out for? Will he survive a week filled with too much booze, a murderous sociopath business owner, a druggy biker turned trucker, and two beautiful women who both seem as interested in him as they are in the case at hand? This is typical Wambaugh in that the horrors and sadness of the crimes and victims are not treated lightly, yet (like the good cops who frequent his novels) our only salvation from evil is to laugh at his sometimes mordant humor and wit. One of Wambaugh's strengths is his ability to gradually make his characters sympathetic and likeable, sometimes even when they're not the good guys. I rate this as one of Wambaugh's best novels, and that's saying something, since in my opinion he's never written a bad one. I wish he would recover his muse and write some more fiction in the vein of this novel and FUGITIVE NIGHTS. It's been a while since he's come out with any novels. A shame, because no one else writes about police life in quite the same way.

A five star rating for the humor, characters, and the suspense.