I LOVED the Christmas Box and bought several copies for friends. I enjoyed The Timepiece but not quite as much but it would still be in my Top 20 books. The Letter, however, was a big disappointment. I felt it didn't remain true to the characters and I especially didn't want David and Mary Anne to have problems and waste precious "Time" together. It may be a truer account of life but that's not what I was looking for. The other story line in the book was all that held this together for me.

You may call me a sap, a die hard romantic, whatever you like, but this man is something. I saw Timepiece on tv on New Years Eve, and went directly to the library to get this book and Timepiece, and I read them both in two days time. And I got to say, the book is better. But let me address this one. I loved it. Now what was the purpose of digging up Lawrence's body?? What was he going to do down below anyhow?? Upset the other occupants? Now, that was simple and disrespectful. I was sorry for the Parkin's seperation, yet rejoiced in their reunion, and saddened for David. I cannot adequately describe Mr.Evans writings, but to say it is truly beautiful. Thank you Mr.Evans for your books.

The Letter is a great conclusion to a wonderful series of books. If you read "Timepiece" and "The Christmas Box", you must read "The Letter". This book was a little slow in the middle, but keep with it. However, the ending packed a powerful punch. Again, I cried. I fell in love with David and Mary Ann Parkin all over again.

Richard Paul Evans is a gifted writer. I hope he writes more books like this one.

This book is one in Zondervan's Counterpoints Series, which presents the view of various (mostly) Evangelical writers on theological subjects. This book is sorely needed because Evangelical apologists have had a history of writing critically and polemically of one another (one thinks of the Clark/Van Til debate), with the result of the layman having a difficult time deciding among the various positions.

The problem with this book is either that the writers are too timid or are more irenic than their label would indicate. There are three authors who present variations on the traditional approach: the classical method (Craig), the evidential method (Habermas), and the cumulative case method (Feinberg). These approaches are quite similar, although some differences do arise. When the reader gets to John Frame's presuppositional method, he expects to get a starkly different approach. After all, Van Til was notorious for attacking "traditional" apologetics as "Roman Catholic" or "Arminian." Well, Frame tells us that he agrees with most of what Craig writes. The final writer, Kelly James Clark (who represents the "Reformed epistemological method"), says the same thing.

Perhaps the editor could have selected a follower of Gordon Clark (a rationalist who denied the proofs of God's existence) or a fideist to present a contrasting apologetic method.

Few books have seriously tackled apologetic method, or how Christianity should be defended rationally. The last book I know of that surveyed options in this regard was Gordon Lewis, "Testing Christianity's Truth Claims" (Moody Press, 1976; republished by University Press of America).

This book presents five different approaches, each represented by one of its exponents: Classical Apologetics (William Lane Craig), Evidentialism (Gary Habermas), Culumulative Case Method (Paul Feinberg), Presuppositionalism (John Frame), and Reformed Epistemology (Kelly James Clark).

Much ground is covered concerning the Bible's approach to apologetics, where apologetic arguments should begin, how certain arguments for Christianity are, and so on. I will simply make a few comments.

The presentations by Craig and Habermas are the most worthwhile because they are the most intellectual rigorous and well-documented. They also tend to agree with each on most things and reinforce each others views. While I tend to favor a cumulative case method (influenced by E.J. Carnell and Francis Schaeffer, but with more appreciation for natural theology), Feinberg's comments are the weakest by far. He never mentions the leading exponent of this view in our generation (Carnell) nor Carnell's apt and well-published student (and my esteemed colleague), Dr. Gordon Lewis. Not one word about either one! His comments are brief, his documentation is thin, and he fails to advance anything very creative or helpful, I'm afraid. A better person should have been chosen, such as Gordon Lewis. Frame gives his "kinder, gentler" version of Cornelius Van Til, which still suffers from the same kinds of problems--most notably the fallacy of begging the question in favor of Christianity. Nevertheless, the notion of a "transcendental argument" for theism is a good one, but it should not carry all the weight of apologetics. Clark's material is philosophically well-informed (one would expect this of a student of Alvin Plantinga!), but apologetically timid. Clark almost sounds like a skeptic at times.

A few bones more bones to pick. The editor refers to Francis Schaeffer as a presuppositionalist. This is false; he was a verificationist with more in common with Carnell than with Van Til. Gordon Lewis's fine essay on Schaeffer's apologetic method in "Reflections on Francis Schaeffer" makes this very clear. None of the writers address the great apologetic resources found in Blaise Pascal. I also found at least two grammatical errors.

Nevertheless, as a professor of philosophy at a theological seminary who teaches apologetics, I found this volume very helpful and useful. But let's not get so involved in methodological concerns that we fail to go out in the world and defend our Christian faith as objectively true, existentially vital, and rationally compelling (Jude 3)!

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy Denver Seminary

Before I write anything, I would like to suggest that the reader of "Five Views on Apologetics" first read "Faith Has Its Reasons" by Kenneth Bow and Robert Bowman, Jr. (NavPress). Doing so will give you a good overview of the methodology taken by the different positions; it would be akin to reading a preview of this afternoon's football game, with a summary of the players and the strategy that will be used fully explained.

Overall "Five Views on Apologetics" is worthwhile for the serious-minded Christian. I do like these "View" books because they allow all sides to take part in a dialogue that certainly has more potential to get things accomplished rather than a free-for-all live debate. All sides get to give their side with succeeding rebuttals. This book certainly had some lively discussion as all of the participants had their own ideas of how apologetics should be handled. The five positions were: William Lane Craig (classical); Gary Habermas (evidential); Paul Feinberg (cumulative); John Frame (presuppositional); Kelly James Clark (Reformed Epistemological).

However, there were three weak points that I need to point out. First, I'm not sure the debaters were the best representatives of the positions they defended. For instance, Craig could be described as a combination classicist/evidentialist. Much of what he said could have been written by Habermas, as even Habermas admitted. Feinberg had, I believe, the weakest argumentation, as I just never did track with his thoughs. Meanwhile, Frame certainly has his own twist on Van Til's ideas, yet these twists make his position a "kinder, gentler" version of Reformed apologetics and thus is not truly representative of Van Tillians--and there are plenty of these thinkers out there. And Clark might as well let Alvin Plantinga write his section since Clark seemed to mention Plantinga in practically every paragraph.

Second, it is apparent that much of the differences quickly became similarities by the end of the book. In fact, Craig even mentioned how he appreciated the similarities the debaters had. If this is so, then why write the book in the first place? In fact, more than once a respondent to another's position declared, in essence, "Why, that could have been me writing! I think--fill in the name--really is a--fill in the position--like I am." This attitude prevailed through much of the book, especially in the concluding comments. (At the same time, perhaps we should rejoice that in a book of Christian division, so many similarities could be found!)

Finally, I think the book got a little too technical in some areas, especially by several of the writers. I think Craig is a master philosopher, and I've seen Bayes' Theorem before, but I'm still scratching my head trying to understand several pages of formulas he put together to support one of his points. Perhaps with some personal explanation I could better understand, but I'm thinking many reading this book would have been totally lost (as I humbly admit I was). Although I didn't agree with his stance, I thought John Frame did the best in explaining his philosophy in the simplist, most logical way possible.

Despite what I feel are its shortcomings, I do recommend this book for the serious student who is interested in apologetics. I enjoyed it very much and was certainly enlightened about the role apologetics takes in the Christian's life.

While only a fifth of this book involves the actual debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann, it was the highlight of a book that also includes articles from others commenting on the points made in the debate. Unfortunately, I didn't feel Lundemann was on the same page as Craig, who laid out a clear and concise plan of why the historical resurrection is true. At the time of the debate, Ludemann apparently considered himself to be a Christian, though he has apparently changed his mind since this debate and now declares himself a nonbeliever. Ludemann has a theory (hallucination) that I just don't see how everything matches up. Ludemann does not seem to give an adequate explanation to many important points made by Craig. Except for a disconnect on the actual debate, though, the book is worth a read for those wanting two sides to the issue of Christianity's most important claim.

Established Fact #5: On the day this book was published, the Resurrection theories of Gerd Ludemann, Michael Goulder, and Roy Hoover were laid to rest by William Lane Craig.

Ludemann, Goulder and Hoover tried their best to attack Dr. Craig's argument, but they failed miserably. Dr. CRAIG ANSWERED EVERY SINGLE CRITICISM THAT THEY HAD. After reading Dr. Craig's final response, there is no question who had the better theory.

This was an excellent debate. Read it. (All of it!)

Comparing "Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment" with the similar book "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up", I found that the former was a much better read. Both debaters in "Jesus' Resurrection" give a clear and concise outline of their main points and the essays provided are representative of both sides. In evaluating the debate and essays, being as objective as one can be, I believe that a better case was given for the "Resurrection Hypothesis" compared to the "Hallucination Hypothesis". Ludemann and company rely on unfounded presuppositions. Namely, a late dating of Mark's Gospel, improper exegesis of 1 Cor. 15, and a dogmatic denial of miracles. Obviously this topic is founded on the beliefs in God and miracles. It would probably have been more appropriate to have a debate on the existence of God and the plausibility of miracles since liberal theologians seem to deny their existence. Nonetheless, the reader profits from reading the book through gaining an understanding of two major systems of belief.

This volume is an interesting summary of differing views of the historical Jesus, from evangelical scholar William Lane Craig and liberal John Dominic Crossan, moderated by William Buckley Jr (who's hardly a neutral party.)The different approaches the two take could hardly be made more explicit in the opening remarks, where Lane plunges directly into his arguments about the resurrection (assuming the entire NT can be trusted verbatim to be true), while Crossan expounds his theory of where the NT comes from (thereby suggesting that it's simplistic to argue from the premise that the NT is literally true.)Since the two never address these fundamental differences, the remainder of the debate, while interesting, is really the case of two sides not even speaking the same language. More helpful are the accompanying essays, especially Craig Blomberg's. Both sides make the claim that their views represent the majority of scholarly opinion,and both sides accuse the other of avoiding the issues.A much better debate book on these issues is the Marcus Borg/NT Wright, Jesus:2 Views. Craig also debates liberal scholar Gerd Ludemann ( who denies the resurrection occured) in Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment, edited by Paul Copan and Ronald Tacelli.

This book is a written transcript of a debate between Christian theologian William Lane Craig, and a member of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan. Also contributing with comments are Marcus Borg, Robert Miller, and Ben Witherington. As for the "debate" itself, Crossan's embarrassing lack of any ability to reason or provide any evidence for his views, and those of the Jesus Seminar, simply display how weak the position of the Jesus Seminar is.

The subject of the debate is Jesus Christ, the message of the Gospel, and specifically the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Crossan's main point is of course that the message of the Gospel and the words attributed to Jesus are symbolic, and do not reflect a real person or events. While this position is pretty typical of those who attempt to undermine the Gospel, Crossan demonstrates that he has no basis for these beliefs. Craig on the other hand provides excellent logic, reasoning, and evidence which verifies that in fact Jesus was a real person, and that the events of the New Testament were not only factual, but also meaningful to our lives today.

The book is written well, with a variety of styles. Both Craig and Crossan submit essays, and rebuttals, and the transcript of a debate between them, facilitated by William Buckley, is a fascinating exchange, and really defines the basic premises of Christians and those who oppose Christianity: the Jesus Seminar.

Also of note are the essays submitted by others on the subject. This book is a must read for anyone who is interested in what the true meaning of the Gospel is, and how far from it the new age, liberal, rubbish of the Jesus Seminar is. A great read highly recommended.

This was a great book and I agree with the general observations of the vast majority of the reviewers. That is, Craig won hands down. Crossan didn't really even enter the debate which surprised and disappointed some reviewers. But it's really not surprising at all. Crossan's arguments (or lack there of) come directly from the work of the Jesus Seminar. And Crossan's utter defeat illustrates that the Seminar's work is of little value in disproving the Gospels and the mainstream Christian interpetation of them as largely accurate, HISTORICAL accounts of Jesus' life.
Rather, the Jesus Seminar must be looked upon as an experiment in liberal theological thought. It was a chance for liberal scholars to come together and develop a consensus unburdened by critical peer review from their more conservative, and for the most part more mainstream, more distinguished peers.
The result was a new pardigm for interperting the NT. Briefly, the consensus was that it is all symbolism and metaphor. This new paradigm is a logical outcome based on the assumptions, membership, and methods of the seminar. But when brought out into the light of day, it is very awkward and even ridiculous.
The seminar serves a worthwhile purpose as an experiment and "anchor" at the extreme liberal end of the spectrum. But not much else.

I am often leery of memoirs published by University presses as they tend to be filled with stoic facts, are often boring, display little emotion, and reveal very little of the real person being showcased. This book is certainly an exception in every way, as it reads like a novel, and is filled with fascinating, intimate details of Ricardo's life. Ricardo J. Brown's memoir offers us an exciting look into gay life of the late 1940's. Brown was discharged from the navy for being a homosexual, and returned to his working-class life in St. Paul, Minnesota. Most of this memoir centers around a bar called Kirmser's that catered to working class men during the day, and at night became a hang-out or underground club for gay men. It's Brown's own personal observations, feelings, and experiences he shares with us of the friends he made during these nightly visits to Kirmser's that are so enlightening, fascinating and fun to read. Some of the stories are sad and tragic, too. It's the honestly in the telling of these stories that will captivate you. A few personal photos have been included in this memoir.

If you want a glimpse into what gay life was life in the time before Stonewall, then this book is an excellent choice. It's a small book that's filled with the life of a time most of us know little about, but would like to know more about. Gay life in the 1940's was quite different than today and certainly very closeted. What will always remain the same whether it is 1945 or today is the love, emotions, and personal intimacy that people share and have in common. A remarkable memoir!!

Joe Hanssen

I couldn't help but feel empathy for the author in facing the difficulty of his life, but at the same time the stories seem somewhat disjointed. There is no compelling narrative- only snapshots that illuminate various characters and traditions- like taking a figurine from the shelf, inspecting it, and putting it back. Each segment underlines the reality of gay existence before stonewall, but I also felt a certain lack of emotion in the writing- more of a filtered look at the past, than an open examination of what constructed the being. But perhaps the detachment I felt in the author's telling was what makes the book poignent- even after so many years, he still couldn't face the emotions he kept so dutifully bottled thanks to society's conventions. I can only imagine the pain, the loneliness, the heartbreak that was excised and lies obscured under the text.

One of the best books, I've ever read. This book deals with working class gays,who are not int the closet, nor are they self hating stereotypes. This book should be given to every young gay male, starting out in the world.

Having read a few of Theroux's books, this one starts very slow...almost plodding along. It's very hard to read until he makes it through Central America. The characters (people) he meets from the time he leaves Boston until he reaches South America don't seem to add to the story. In fact, the author treats them in a seemingly condescending way. Once he reaches South America, however, the book becomes eminently more readable. I didn't enjoy this one nearly as much as "Riding the Iron Rooster", but interesting in it's own way.

As a venezuelan I thank god that there is no train to my country and that Paul Theroux didn't stop in Venezuela because almost everywhere that he went , including part of the U.S.A, he had the ability, the gift to find only the negative things. So you should ask me, then why did I give this book 4 stars, because its fun to read. Paul Theroux, a young writer in the seventies, one day decides to leave his wife and kids in their home in London, go back to his parents house in Massachussets and from there take a train to the Patagonia: the farthest south that he could go. Sounds fun for an adventurous man, but all the time, all the places he keeps bitching about everything: The people on the trains, the people in the cities, how he misses his family, what is he doing there, about the food, about the hotels. Well you name it, but in the middle of all this bitching you can almost find yourself in the forest, in the middle of a civil war, in the top of the mountain, meeting Borges, every day completely different from the other.Paul Theroux can be real obnoxious, but he sure can write.

I very much like Theroux's writing. To me his sometimes acerbic observations get towards the truth of a place AS HE PERCEIVES IT. When I read travel books I likt to hear the author's point of view. That may or may not accord with my own or others'. I like also to compare them to other writers' experiences of the same place, whether it somewhere I will travel to by aircraft or mind's eye via the armchair only.

How does Theroux strike up conversations with such odd collections of people? Partly because he travels alone, and partly because he is open to hearing the stories of others. Either he hits on the most interesting people in every place, or he endures more mundane conversations than anyone in order to cull the best! He must keep assiduous notes - really WORK at travelling to be able to relate in such detail.

I know he gives us glimpses of his working modus operandi -references to the books he is reading, and the note-taking. A few times on the train I wished he had looked up longer i9n order to be able to tell us a little more about what was a bit further away from the track.

Paul Theroux has been travelling across the face of this earth for decades. His acid wit has disparaged dozens of cultures. Those treks seemed to seek out low roads and those who kept to them. With this new book I am happy to report Mr. Theroux is in his element-taking a literary hadj about the Mediterranean coastline .So that one doesn't get bored with the likes of Robert Graves and Carlo Levi-he visits war ravaged Croatia and paranoic Albania.He pays a clandestine visit to Syria and both sides of a divided Cyprus.His prose is masterful. His mood is almost benevolent. It seems that the air on this particular path has lightened his spirits. One reluctantly finishes the book wishing the journey to continue a while longer. Thank you Mr Theroux for a road well taken

Paul Theroux has produced a stunning book here, his recounting of an ambitious tour along the Mediterranean coastline, starting at Gibraltar and ending in Morocco across from "the Rock," along the way visiting just about every place in between, including Spain, France, Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, mainland Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, Greece, Turkey, Cyprus (both sides), Israel, Malta, Syria, Egypt, and Tunisia. He tried to visit Lebanon but was unable to, and was warned off from visiting Algeria. He never seriously attempted to visit Libya. Vowing never to take a plane, he travels along the coast and to the various islands by train, bus, taxi, ferry and cruise ship (both luxurious such as the $1000 a day Seabourne to the more decrepit, workaday Turkish vessel Akdeniz).

Though Paul seems at time a romantic, quotting descriptions of places from epic poetry, the Illiad, or modern works of fiction, time and again he finds something different, and often that is a great deal more gritty, spent, or to use some of his massive vocabulary, enervated, melancholy, moribund, or lugubrious (I had to use a dictionary several times in reading it, but hey, I learned something). Though some of it comes off as depressing, some quite depressing, I wouldn't have it any other way; he tells it like it is, describing the places he really saw and the people he really met. Avoiding the tourist's Mediterranean, not wanting to just see ruins, castles, and pretty beaches, Paul shows us in this work how the people live, work, and play in the countries of this great "Inner Sea." Expressing "traveller's guilt" at times for being a "voyeur," Paul observed often times the sorrows, tragedies, and miseries, but also the joys and the friendliness, of the inhabitants of this part of the world.

Paul does not romantize any of the countries he sees. He describes in detail the desolate look of the Spanish seacoast in winter (Paul deliberately traveled in the toursit off season), of all the English-language signs, cheap hotels, billboards, shops selling cheap souvenirs, trailer parks, all waiting forlornly for the summer hordes of tourists, a vacation mecca that was more English than Spanish. He goes into considerable detail his efforts to understand the bloody spectacle that is the bullfight in Spain, talking to Spaniards everywhere and even attending a few (and watching some in smoky bars in Spain), but never develop a true comprehension (or liking) for it. He visits war-torn Slovenia and Croatia, sharing dirty hotels with desperate refugees, worried about snipers, harrassed by police at border checkpoints, looking at bullet and mortar holes in ancient structures. His time in Albania is surreal, a land of screaming and whining beggars, virtual starvation, a land that just recovered from one of the most xenophobic dicators in history, one that mandated everyone has his own bunker and not even own his own car - his description of Albania alone was worth the price of the book. Northern Cyprus he spent some time in, a ghost-town, a phantom nation, one that doesn't exist except in a legal limbo, cut-off from the rest of the island by the Green Line, forever a truncated failure of a country, in reality an expensive Turkish colony. He referred to Greece as "the ragged edge of Europe," a poor country that was basically a slightly better Albania as it were, a nation that was not really modern and an EC welfar state, and despite its rich cultural history, the people of that nation today - he writes - are not really truly aware of or part of the heritage of Aristotle, Pericles, and Archimedes. I could go on at length here, but suffice it to say his portraits of each country are fascinating. Some are a bit brief; he doesn't spend that much time in Slovenia for instance (not as much as he did in Croatia for example), and I got the impression in Morocco he was just glad his trip was finally ended.

The book is not perfect though. Some of the locations I thought he would spend more time on, specifically Jerusalem, Istanbul, and Venice, but perhaps if he did the book would be massive. At the very least in Istanbul there were political and terrorist problems, thus complicating his stay. All in all though I found this book quite worthwhile.

Nobody ever accused Paul Theroux of looking at the world through rose colored glasses. His critically acclaimed travel books are replete with smelly natives, loud tourists, and scheming vendors. The Pillars of Hercules is no exception. From the ape-teasing tourists on Gibralter to the rude and heavily-armed Israelis, Theroux seems to have met every disagreeable character the Mediterranean has to offer. It is almost enough to make one swear off visiting the region forever.

Almost. For while Theroux liberally sprinkles his account of his year-long Mediterranean tour with all sorts of unsavory characters, he captures the region's terrific beauty and breathtaking history. He visits the old haunts of such literary giants as Hemingway, Gaddis, Greene, Joyce, Burroughs, and many others; these palces have as much significance for him as the Parthenon and the Pyramids have for the gawking tourists he detests so much. The book's final scene, in which Paul enjoys a conversation and marijuana cigarette with an aging Paul Bowles is particularly priceless. The Pillars of Hercules is a fantastic read- but if you're planning on making a trip to the area, stick with a travel guide.

Paul W. Roberts has written a thoroughly engaging book about the Magi's quest for the infant Jesus. The ill tempered Iranian guide was all too real. Having actually traveled this route myself, I have to say Roberts has captured the mood and atmosphere very accurately. The other book that I recently read which also captured the accuracy of this time and place is the wonderful and controversial "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years" by Richard G. Patton. Both these books evoke a forgotten and magical route. If your taste is present commentary on historic times, your choice should be "In the search of Jesus". If you want a riveting and original account of the man, choose "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years". For the best of all worlds, buy both these remarkable books.

Paul W. Roberts has written a thoroughly engaging book about the Magi's quest for the infant Jesus. The ill tempered Iranian guide was all too real. Having actually traveled this route myself, I have to say Roberts has captured the mood and atmosphere very accurately. The other book that I recently read which also captured the accuracy of this time and place is the wonderful and controversial "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years" by Richard G. Patton. Both these books evoke a forgotten and magical route. If your taste is present commentary on historic times, your choice should be "In the search of Jesus". If you want a riveting and original account of the man, choose "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years". For the best of all worlds, buy both these remarkable books.

Just finished "In Search of the Birth of Jesus". I'm a layman with a casual interest in the subject, and I was intrigued by the book. Paul is an excellent writer, but boy oh boy, his editor didn't help any. Major shortcomings: the book desperately needs a map, or maps, showing Paul's route (deduct 1 mark); also, how about a bibliography or list of references, 'cause Paul quotes numerous sources (deduct 1/2 mark); and pictures-you know, a picture's worth a thousand words, and in spite of Paul's admirable descriptive passages, hey, it's the 20th century, soon to be the 21st (deduct 1/2 mark); and finally, a glossary would have been useful, e.g., some background on Zoroaster, and the myriad of other historical figures mentioned throughout the book. So much for constructive criticism. So what's good about the book? Paul's a good story teller, and has done his research. For the amateur religious historian there is lots of new perspective provided on old questions. As a travelogue there are many amusing passages, as well as interesting revelations, particularly about Iran. A good read in spite of the book's shortcomings.

Most of those amazing Flash films share have the very same secret: mathematics, especially geometry. Many basic and advanced techniques in this area need to be taught. A review of some basic concepts would also be helpful. It's true that a lot is done by trial and error, but those who grasp the basics are the ones who know what can be done with what is available.
This book has beautiful, colorful pages and many contributors, some with great ideas - learned from some imagination and from some trial and error.
Yet this one book fails considerably. Great opportunity, great idea. But no math is really taught, no basic technique is really given. What can be found is only a mixed bag of ad-hoc math solutions to produce some nice effects and little meat.
What is wonderful about this book is its potential. What is tragic about this book is its end result.

This is honestly one of the best books that I've picked up in a long time. There are so many books lately, that appear to be nothing more than a ploy at being the first book on the latest release of such and such software application. Flash Math Creativity avoids using interface clips from the Flash authoring environment, in order to concentrate on the content and not on something that has a much more limited shelf life. This book has so much to offer beyond getting acquainted with Flash 5 or MX or whatever. Becuase of the choice of displaying only raw code, it's probably not the best choice for a beginning Flash user. The examples, although excellent, aren't always well annotated, and often leaves you scratching your head -- but that's part of the fun.

I really appreciate the fluid examples, and the challenge of using the provided content for further investigation. These experiments should keep me busy for some time.

The graphics are quite beautiful and it would be hard to look at them and ignore the value of these creations on the basis that it doesn't have a practical application in the area of web design, as one reviewer stated. Plus, when did I start reading books and enjoying Flash only to do corporate stuff.

After having had this book a year now and well into Flash MX, I still find this one of the best resources for moving Flash MX (or Flash 5) into a level of creativity not available by mere hacking through script or twiddling with tweens. Even now I keep finding new little gems in this book. However, as some reviewers have found, this is not for those saddled with sluggish imaginations or sense of exploration.

This book is one of the few that assumes some background in or appreciation of math as a tool for developing algorithms. It's not a book for everyone, and one reader rightly pointed out that it's not a primer in math. So if you don't have math savvy, this book may not be your cup of tea. However, from what I saw, one need not be a math whiz to work through the different kinds of interesting algorithms contained in this book, and you will learning something about both Flash and math.

One of the best lessons this book can offer (besides the sheer joy of experimentation even though you're not sure what you'll create) is how to use different elements of geometry and a little algebra with Flash to do some very interesting things. After beginning by following instructions to make a snail spiral, I quickly found myself doing my own experiments by changing different vectors, values, colors and whatnot just to see what would happen. I was surprised by my own results, and then I took elements from different chapters, mixed them together for even more new discoveries.

This book is not a paint-by-the-numbers book, and unless you like to explore for the sheer joy of the exploration and learn something for no particular reason other than it's sort of cool, the book is not for you. It is not a "practical" book in the sense that if you learn how to create a Flash site for some suit, but it is very practical if you'd like an invitation to discover concepts in their own right.

Finally, I found it ironic that such a book using Flash 5 would be published almost exactly at the time Flash MX was unveiled. Well, the algorithms are even more appropriate for Flash MX because you can do so much with movie clip drawing methods with MX that were not available in Flash 5. It's probably not even going to have to be revised for Flash MX because the kinds of people who would buy this book would have little problem in taking its wisdom and doing even more with it in the new Flash.

Neither the absolute and utter despondency of sheer and impending defeat nor the the deposition of his honor and place in Roman society can deter the once-revered Marc Antony from his insatiable, yet ill-fated longing to be with the sultry and divine demigodess that is Cleopatra.

Having just read the incomparable Julius Caesar and longing for more of the same after Antony & Octavius Caesar's sound defeat of the "noble" Brutus and Cassius at Philippi, I ordered Antony & Cleopatra. Although in some respects it is similar to its predecessor, Antony & Cleopatra, having been written by Shakespeare much later in life after the tragic death of his lone son Hamnet and a turbulent relationship with his wife, brings forth a much more cynical and wily Bard than the young and idealistic one who wrote Caesar. This disillusionment can be witnessed not only in the tragic deaths of Antony and Cleopatra, but moreso subvertly in the incongruity and disingenuousness of their supposed driving impetus - their love for one another. Both Antony & Cleopatra continuously and almost purposefully betray each other throughout the play - undermining their ability to lead and therefore leading to their tragic and untimely demise.

I recommend this to those who adored Julius Caesar as well as those Shakespeare aficionados who simply cannot get enough of The Bard. Antony & Cleopatra proves a lucid, enjoyable, and easy read, although somewhat longer, but with less substance than Julius Caesar. Enjoyable nonetheless.

"Make not your thoughts your prisons." - Octavius Caesar

'Antony and Cleopatra' is a great tragedy about two personalities who were larger than life, and therefore shared a love fitting to their stature. Anthony is torn between the high seriousness & order of the Roman Empire (embodied in Caesar) and the sensuality & licentiousness of Ancient Egypt (embodied in Cleopatra)- worlds which are perfectly evoked by Shakespeare as he chronicles the political wheeling & dealing of the time, which ultimately led to the suicides of the two lovers. I don't think Shakespeare favours one world view over the other, and to read the play moralistically and say Rome = virtue = good and Egypt = vices = bad is to to do it a disservice.

The language in this play is often romantic and lush, a grand language suited to rulers of the world. Cleopatra's "O, my oblivion is a very Anthony,/ And I am all forgotten" has to be some of the most erotic stuff that the Bard ever wrote.

Cleopatra is a very passionate woman and a great role-player, but she is always herself, never inauthentic. What she feels may change from moment to moment, but while she's feeling it, it's REAL. I find her to be the more mature one in her and Anthony's relationship. Notice how she never yells at him for marrying Octavia, which is certainly a terrible betrayal. She accepts that he did what he had to do and is only glad that Anthony is again united with her. Her love for him is beyond judgement.

The relationship between Anthony and Caesar is a very complicated one, and one that fascinated me almost as much as that of Cleopatra and Anthony. Caesar admires Anthony, but he betrays himself as having contempt for him in the way he expresses that admiration. Dodgy man, that little Caesar.

Anthony and Cleopatra is one of Shakespeare's difficult plays, and so I suspect the ratings on the play are low because it's a more mature play than Romeo and Juliet. Here we have two middle age lovers who part of the time are foolish with lust/love and the rest of the time are tough minded heads of state. The "tragedy" is that they can't be both and survive. This is not a play for the young folks, I'm afraid. But if you want some heavy drama where the characters are spared nothing and given no slack, read Anthony and Cleopatra (hint: Cleopatra's suicide is more political statement than a crazy wish to die with Antony). Better yet see it performed by some real actors some time.