I just got finished using this book for a course in Children's Literature, and it was extremely informative.

Since I am interested in children's literature (to read, and possibly to write), it was great to find out about all the different facets of literature for children, from historical children's lit, to multicultural lit, to award-winning literature.

If you are a teacher and haven't taken a course on children's literature, this book is a must-read (it even includes helps for the classroom at the end of each chapter). If you want to write for children, check this out -- it's a veritable goldmine of information to get your book noticed & published.

This book covers a wide range of genres of children's literature. It is written in an easy to read style, and covers everything a teacher or media specialist would need to begin working with children's literature. It was outstanding! The addition of the CD-ROM gives even more resources. I think it is a wonderful book.

Norton has once again done the impossible-- making her best-selling text on children's literature even better. The newest edition provides concise yet helpful summaries of the finest in children's books, and offers an updated CD-ROM tool to help teachers search and discover just right books. I heartily recommend it to all elementary teachers!

Don't be fooled by the title- although it focuses on the dark side of every Wraith, this outstanding book contains tons of important information on all sorts of subjects- from exactly what your Eidolon IS, and when it comes into play, to roleplaying romance and love.

Other important topics covered include exactly how Castigation affects your Shadow- and while your Shadow is by definition your adversary, the isn't always your enemy. There is a lot more to Psyche/Shadow interaction than just "I'm the Good Guy, he's the Bad Guy."

Every Circle of Wraiths should have this one- you owe it to yourselves... and to your Shadows. :)

I would in fact prefer to award this 3.5 stars, but the Amazon system seems to compel one to choose between 3 and 4, and I think 4 is too generous. To begin with the text, there is no doubt that this is not the best Shakespeare to buy. It is to a large extent based on the Oxford Shakespeare, which - quite rightly, in my view - has attracted a lot of criticism for some of its peculiarities. Thus, for example, Oxford prints TWO versions of *King Lear*, the quarto text and that of the folio. Norton rightly takes issue with this, and produces the kind of conflated text that most readers would want, but adds the other two AS WELL (so we are offered THREE versions!). This kind of thing is, in truth, academic self-indulgence - it shows an undue respect for academic concerns which to most readers are not of the slightest interest. There is a similar tendency to pay scant regard to what most readers really want and need in the Introduction: that tells us a good deal about Shakespeare's time, and the material is interesting, but it is not often shown to be relevant, or necessary, to an understanding of what Shakespeare writes. The explanatory annotation accompanying the texts is not bad, but often inferior to that of comparable editions, notably Bevington's. The introductions to individual plays are usually stimulating, but not necessarily convincing. Thus Greenblatt on the one hand says about Macbeth's murder of Duncan, "That he does so without adequate motivation, that he murders a man toward whom he should be grateful and protective, deepens the mystery ..." (p. 2558), yet adds a few lines later: "Macbeth and Lady Macbeth act on ambition ...". Precisely, that IS Macbeth's motivation for the murder, as Macbeth himself points out unequivocally in 1.7.25-7 - there is, therefore, absolutely nothing mysterious about his motivation. The edition does, however, offer a number of good references to other writings about Shakespeare. All in all, I do consider 3.5 stars is a fair "grade", in seeking to assess this for the benefit of the majority of readers looking for a complete Shakespeare to buy; but I consider David Bevington's by far the best edition of the complete works, then the Riverside, and only then this one - though, with its annotations, it is certainly more useful than the Oxford edition on which it is based. - Joost Daalder, Professor of English, Flinders University, South Australia

I confess that after examining 5-6 of the top-selling complete Shakespeares I tried not to like the Norton. There are less expensive editions, there are editions with glossy pages and colored photographs, there are editions that are half the weight and bulk of this leviathan, which is far more Shakespeare than the average reader--perhaps, even scholar, for that matter--would ever require. But despite its bulk and unwieldyness, its 3500 (!) thin, flimsy pages, its sheer excess, I couldn't ignore its advantages. The small print enables the publishers to squeeze in contextual materials--in the introduction and appendixes--that in themselves amount to an encyclopedic companion to Shakespeare's works; the introductions to the plays are written not in "textbook prose" but in an engaging style worthy of their subject; and perhaps, best of all, this is the only edition that places the glosses right alongside the "strange" Elizabethan word instead of in the footnotes. You can read the plays without experiencing vertigo of the eye. So this is the edition, though you may wish to go with the smaller, bound portions that Norton publishes of the same edition--especially if you can't afford the cost of a personal valet to carry this tome from home to office. On the other hand, the complete edition is excellent for doing crunches and other aerobic exercises--activities many of us who read the Bard are abt to ignore.

As a fervent admirer of Shakespeare, this complete collection, comprising excellent introductions to each play and helpful textual notes as well as informative writings on the history of both England and the art of acting that shaped Shakespeare's writing, was like a dream come true. While before I had to walk around trying to find a good edition of the play I wanted to read, now I can open the Norton Shakespeare and read without being afraid of not understanding words or missing the point of the play. This book's obvious drawbacks are its heft and, as mentioned, its delicate pages, but these are easily outweighed by the abovementioned advantages! Buy it and read!

While there are tons of anthologies on Postmodernism in many socio-political-philosophical and critical forms, few seem to focus on the actual literature. This anthology is a step towards fixing this problem. It contains almost every major author and is organized as well as can be expected given the lack of form that postmodernism seems to engender. However, there is a major flaw to this work. It contains mostly excerts from larger works. This makes reading the thing uninspiring. It gives one a good idea about what books one should read to understand postmodernism but I do not think it really contributes much in itself. Having said that, I should say that the Introduction and organizing chapters are much stronger than what one normally finds in an anthology. Also the section on Postmodern theory is much stronger than the fiction sections.

as a novice to postmodern fiction, i was impressed by the scope of the anthology. though there are only short excerpts, it's possible to come away with a greater understanding of this innovative and broad field of literature.

This book with it's lucid chapter introductions offers an anthology which could be useful as a textbook for a class on arts and culture in America in the second half of the 20th Century.

Also, it is a good read, a nice collection of literature.

Not quite a page turner, but factually correct throughout. Now I've finished reading it, I'm using it to prop up that wobbly filing cabinet in the corner.

This has to be one of the most boring books I have ever read in my life, therefore making it a waste of my time to read it. I would not have bought the book unless if I wouldn't have had to write an essay on it for my History 1050 class. I do not recommend this book for casual reading, in fact, I do not recommend this book at all. However, if you are involved in History as a profession, or if you are excited by History, then this is a book for you. It provides tons of information, but to me it is all irrelevant. If you are a college student with many other things to do like myself, I will personally tell you right now to leave this book on the shelf.

Remini's book, Andrew Jackson and the Bank War, is a very good book in the way of information. Although it is not a "page turner," it satisfies in giving the information. I would not have purchased this book except it is needed for my American History course.

After reading Bray Hammond's "Banks and Politics in America" and his trenchant critique of the Jacksonian assault on the Second Bank of the United States (BUS), I was interested to learn how Robert Remini, a historian known for his pro-Jackson tilt, responded to that attack on the Old Hero.

The answer is: he responded with a crisp, cogent and remarkably fair and insightful history of the struggle over the BUS.

The BUS had a profound political, economic, and social impact on American life during its short life (1816-1836). In his book, however, Remini seeks to address just one side of the controversy: the political. He concedes that there was much good in the BUS from a strictly economic perspective and destroying it without a concrete plan to replace the monetary institution undoubtedly did harm to the American economy as a whole. But, Remini argues, it was the political implications of the War - not the Panic of 1837 or the subsequent failure to adopt central banking in the US for nearly a century - that had the more far-reaching consequences.

It has been argued that Jackson was the first modern president. It is undeniable that the power of the presidency took a giant leap forward during Jackson's two-terms and Remini shows that those monumental gains in power came mostly during and because of the Bank War.

In particular, Remini argues that the Bank War is directly responsible for three areas of enhanced presidential power: 1) the use of the veto to reject legislation for purely political rather than constitutional reasons, thus inserting the president into the legislative process and, in effect, making his opinion count for two-thirds of both Houses of Congress; 2) even though Remini believes that the majority of Americans didn't support the president's stance on the BUS, Jackson made the election of 1832 a referendum on the bank issue and claimed henceforth that he represented the will of the people and was there one representative; and 3) Jackson's sacking of Secretary of the Treasury Duane for his refusal to remove the government deposits from the BUS exerted the president's right to remove Cabinet members at will, further strengthening the executive's grip over the government.

In short, there is stunning agreement between Remini and Hammond on a number of issues. For instance, Remini concedes that Jackson's veto of the BUS re-charter in July 1832 was pure demagogic class baiting with indefensible charges against the BUS's operations. He also rejects the notion that Jackson's re-election was a popular show of support for his attack on the BUS and he credits Nicolas Biddle with running an efficient, although by no means perfect, central banking organization. Thus, on economic grounds, Remini really sides with Hammond. But, Remini maintains, the economics of the issue was a distant second to the politics of issue. The cause of the War was political - namely, Jackson's refusal to bend or even appear to bend to a political challenge - and the most significant results of the War were political. Remini's case is sound.

I read this book as a part of a class. In this class we discussed Washington's work as written from the 'trickster' perspective. In this light it was quite interesting to see how he points out hypocrasies indirectly, while apparently stating the opposite. Thus, creating a self-aware hypocrasy within the text itself. I'm not sure that I am yet convinced, however. The work often seems a little bit on the acquiescent side to me.