I read Vanity Fair a few months ago and loved it, so I thought I'd give something else of Thackeray's a try (even though I had never heard of The History of Henry Esmond) and I'm so glad I did. It's slightly slow going at first, but once the second Viscount Castlewood and his family take possession of the estate and provide Henry with his first real home, it becomes deeply involving. With every page, the Castlewood family becomes more and more complex. Some relationships are strengthened and some are slowly destroyed in such subtle ways that when catastrophe comes, it seems inevitable, and at the same time, surprising. Through it all, we have Henry's narration (although he speaks of himself in the third person), which casts a melancholy and lonely tone over all the events. A beautiful book.

I believe that penchant for the moralistic (and add here more than a snipett of post-modern political corectness)from English-speaking readers has slighted judgements about this novel, which is a novel about people with sloppy morals in a time of sloppy political intrigue and sloppy moral standards offering a contrast with the philistine ambience of Thackeray's own age. I found the novel simply _lush_, and think that Hollywood has in it a treat in store for any filmmaker of genius who wants to emulate Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. Get ahold of a copy and enjoy!

Although for some reason forgotten by the US public, "The History of Henry Esmond" is one of the finest books ever written in English language. May be it has lost its luster because it offers no excess of blood-spilling and sexual adventures, but instead finds its way to describe the deepest and most vulnerable chambers of the human heart. I have read a handful of books, be it in English, French, German or Russian, that described the human strengths and weaknesses while tying them to a character one can relate to with such skill. People who do not like it, it seems, are just shamed by the morals offered in such a book, and are quick to forget it. I read "Henry Esmond" when I was a young boy, and now, half a century later, it hasn't lost a beat.

This book manages to make a funny, sexy and irreverent movie sound like a bout of trench mouth. The author is obviously yet another victim of gender studies who keeps weaving and unweaving his text to distract us from the fact the he's writing about a pop movie without having anything like a pop sensibility that might make his opinions mean something. He weighs down a movie that is lighter than air by imposing cultural "significance" where none is needed. There are the usual genuflections to Sirk and Hitchcock ("Rear Window" is mentioned but the more appropriate "Rope" is not) but no mention of Oscar Wilde, which seems like a huge oversight given that the movie is essentially a drawing room comedy (complete with servants and young lovers) unfolding instead in a penthouse. The BFI Modern Classics series can usually be counted on to be informative and entertaining but this is the worst one I've read. It skirts by the actual production of the movie with very few anecdotes but offers up alot of tired theorizing on gender and family romance. His derogatory comments on the physical makeup of most of the actresses is my idea of poor taste; he is judgmental about them but Almodovar's camera never is. The book is a perfect example of film criticism as taxidermy.

A short, but informative critique on one of the classic gems of Spanish cinema, the BFI essay on "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown," is an excellent, and well-researched study. Focusing mostly on the importance of the film in the context of history (e.g. the film veered away from the censorship once imposed by the Franco Regime) and its' artistic composition, author Peter William Evans does a magnificent job in discussing the film.

The part I like the most was his tribute to the greatest modern day Spanish actress, Carmen Maura, who radiates the screen as the betrayed, confused Pepa. It was Maura who carried this movie on her shoulders, and her ability to express emotion and utilize the sexuality many Latin possess was essential for the film's success.

This book makes great reading due to its' compact size. If you liked this book, please read "Almodovar on Almodovar," which features the master Spanish filmmaker talking about his works and his reasons for doing what he does when behind the camera.

The movie plays just as well as the book reads. The movie is often haphazard and makes the watcher interested to learn more about the characters. The book was a very quick read. I had to reread it again, slowly, poring over each of the words. It's a small book, but its significance is made greater by reading it over slowly.

This book is truley a beginner book. VERY beginner. Since I have had a little expirience, I am always looking for new patterns and ideas. The instructions are clear and helpful for someone who has never woven before. So if you are just interested in a very basic, in and out, got to start somewhere course, this book is for you. Basketwork is beautifully illustrated with very clear instructions and a pretty wide range of projects. However, many of the projects would fall more into the catagory of "crafts" rather than "basketmaking"; like the fish mobile and a wreath. I feel like a better beginner book for someone who is interested in mainly making baskets, is Lynn Silers`, The Basket Book. Still, I think this book is a nice addition to a collection and is beautiful enough to put out on the coffe table.

This book has very easy to moderately complex patterns for baskets made of reed & willow. The discussion of different basketry materials is especially good.

Unfortunately this book has not been updated in over 25 years. Taxonomic changes in some groups of mammals have left this rather inadequate. The illustrations aren't bad except for sea mammals which have black and white sketches for illustrations. It may have been a decent guide when it came out, but I don't see the point in publishing a book which may not have the animal you're looking at in it! This book needs a revision.

This book was issued in 1976 not in 1998 as I was led to believe...... I just received my copy and it is a 3rd edition, clearly copyrighted in 1976. Apparently it was reprinted recently, but not updated. Who knows how much has changed on our knowledge of mammals over the past 25 years? Also, the binding on this paperback has left little space for the inside margin which will make this a little difficult to use and probably shortern its lifespan. RK

Peterson's field guide to mammals is one of my standard references as a mammology student. I constantly use the range maps,color identification plates, and animal descriptions. The book provides you with good identification characteristics indicated by arrows on the illustrations of each animal and a brief life history of every species north of the border. There are skull plates at the back of the book that are good for comparing different families but do not include every species and in some cases are poor positions to see defining attributes. The color plates for the most part have good illustrations but a few look hoaky like the Mountain Lion. Nevertheless, they all still provide good size comparisons and coloration of the animals. Consistant with other Peterson guides.

the idea for the book is excellent, a version of secret history from one who was there. I am very interested in WWII era so I looked forward to reading the book. Became bored half way through aa I thought the book would be more designed to be on the exciting side of espionage. Found it too overwhelming with the political problems and underwhelming in the telling of the work done by the agents in enemy territory. Of course, he wasn't behind the lines himself so perhaps my original thought of new stories about the OSS was out of line. From Casey's viewpoint, the book was interesting, but not compelling.

The British secret service was the best in the world, in experience, technology & contacts. When America entered the war,they had to share & they didn't like it one bit. They looked with distain & mistrust at the fledgling American intelligence efforts. They obstructed, were in flexible & fought for every inch of turf. The Yanks & the Brits both mistrusted the French. That & lots of names was the first half of the book (audiotape). Frankly a little boring.
The book picks up as Mr. Casey gets a little autobiographical with his actual involvement in 1943. What the Americans brought to the table was economic intelligence such as the cost benefit of strategic vs tactical operations, air vs ground activities etc. This type of intelligence was apparently unknown to the British. Mr. Casey discusses the opposition, even in Germany & the military to Hitler & the Nazis It was considerable. He evaluates the resistance groups in the occupied countries.
The result is an entertaining, informative & inside look at Allied espionage in World War II.

To fully appreciate this type of book the reader should be aware of the other books relating to ULTRA and MAGIC. With these three in mind the reader should see the virtually unknown aspect of major wars. Many an unsung hero is overlooked since Military Intelligence and covert activities requires that the folks involved be hiddden. Casey adds another dimension to the constantly unfolding aspects of WW II as well as possible aspects of all future conflicts. The examples of Polish and French covert activities is not well known. The final item to consider when reading these types of books is which commanders did and did not use this wealth on information while preparinbg for battle o while in battle. As an example, did MacArthur have intelligencee before he invaded Inchon in Korea??? Did he have inntelligence before he raced to the yalu River claiming that the Chinese would not get involve? or, did he chose to ignore this intelligence? What did Westmoreland know or not know about the War in Vietnam?

This is a caricature of papal history, clearly tilted to fit the author's stange view that Vatican II overturned the traditional Catholic view of papal authority. It's breezy enough, but the ideological distortion is so grave and so tiresome that many of the popes are simply not recognizable.

For an excellent study of the papacy, read Patrick Madrid's wonderful new book on the subject.

Tons o' fun for church history fans. Lots of stuff which was new to me, esp. regarding the period 400-800 , where Constantinople gradually gives up on the West and the Pope gives up on the East and makes his own Roman Emperor, and very solid on canon law (author is a Doctor Canonis Juris) in the middle ages, growth of Lateran/Vatican bureaucracy etc. I'm still reading this book and thoroughly enjoying it. As far as the author's politics, he clearly favors the conciliarists in the 1400s, so you can guess where he'll come down on the next 600 years. Unless you're a great fan of popes like Boniface VIII, you should find this book interesting, i think. But I'm a pagan, this is just a hobby; ymmv.

William La Due's history of the papacy is an enlightening read. Because it deals honestly with both the good and the bad in that history it will not appeal to those who have a particular axe to grind. It will not appeal to fundamentalist Protestants who want to demonize the Pope, nor will it appeal to modern obscurantist Roman Catholics who tend to gloss over significant historical details in their ongoing historical revisionism. La Due has done the Roman Catholic Church a favor by being honest with the historical evidence.

In an irenic and scholarly manner, La Due examines the development of the papacy from the first century up to today. He places the Popes in their historical context and reveals how quite often the development of the papacy was more the result of political and economic factors than any theological or ecclesiastical concerns.

An excellent piece of historical research.

You get what you pay for here. I was using it and a friend of mine told me that you pretty much have to spend around $200 for a real home study course. He used the American Investment Training course that was supplied by his firm but you can get it directly. I saw it and it was huge and put together really well and it came with 5 books. They had Computer programs for it too. .... It was much better from what I saw and his firm has been using them for years. Good luck

This book will give you a basic understanding of the type of material you will need to know in order to pass the series 7. However, the keyword is basic. It is in no way in depth enough. Do yourself a favor and get the real thing. I have used two other study programs and they are MUCH, MUCH better(American Investment Training and Securities Training Inc). They do cost a pretty penny (about $200) but are well worth it. As far as the CD is concerned, don't waste your time with it. Many of the answers are wrong and it does not provide explanations.

I purchased this book with the intent of studying it in preparation of taking my Series 7 license exam. With my degree in Finance and reading through the book once and taking the practice exams, I am averaging about 50% pass rate, 70% is passing on the actual exam. I am continuing to study this book until I get hired by a firm that will sponser me to take the exam, this book keeps it fresh in my mind. The practice questions are good, I think a few are incorrect, since I go back and check my answers afterwords. This a a good basic book, I would recommend it to anyone in the same situation that I am in.

Garth Ennis' work on Hellblazer is some of the best in the medium, but this trade horribly dissapoints. Any no name writer could spin this tale of John Constantine, it's suprising to see the Ennis name on it. Constantine himself loses most of what made him so cool in other Ennis works... He becomes an everyman in this book, a nobody with nothing so cool about him that someone would want to write a book about. But sadly enough, Ennis has done it, and it's a stinker.

I am sad to say that I didn't enjoy this as much as other Hellblazer TPBs that I have read. The art was OK, but the storytelling was jumpy. I love the character of John Constantine, though. They shouldn't 'Americanize' him with Nic Cage in the movie.

I have to believe that whoever didn't like this collection either doesn't get it or refuses to accept it. To be fair, the opening story is a little out of the ordinary for the usually London-based Constantine. Whereas Garth's other spectacular book PREACHER embraces the American Myth, "Damnation's Flame" thouroughly reveals it for what it is...a myth. Caught in a sliver of Hell, John encounters slaughtered Indians, soldiers who died for nothing, streets covered in crack, and a positively wanker of a president.

The other stories aren't earth-shattering, but they are enjoyable. John visits his old friend Brendan and meets Kit in a flashback to his days at Ravenscar (the mental hospital he was in and out of for three years). John also meets Brendan, now a hard-drinking ghost, in the present. And back in London, Chas tells his mates about one of the many times Constantine was apparently killed, and how this time there was even a funeral for him. The entire Ennis cast was present (Header, Kit, Brendan, Rick the Vic) as well as the Delano cast (Ray, Chas, Ritchie, Cheryl), and Moore's little-seen Emma.

By the way, if the sight of John F. Kennedy walking around with his hand pressed against the hole in his head to keep his brains from falling out isn't enough incentive to buy this book, check out his best line from the story:

"To be seen in a historical context as the conscience of the United States is not the honor one might think. It is, in fact, a burden, and one that I was...at the time...loath to shoulder. My chief concerns were, to set the record straight, immediate political survival, and regular extramarital sex with as many women as possible.

This book is disappointing. The title IS misleading.
This is NOT a COMPLETE GUIDE to improving eyesight.
The author is a Bates practicioner and gives you alot of theory and opinion until page 104. In Chapter 8 first paragraph the author even agrees with me by saying " This is not a 'how to' book. A book can explain an idea, but practical skills need to be learned in practice. A book will tell you what, and to some extent why, but only a teacher can show you how."

Any descriptions of "the Bates Method" are just an outline. This book DOES NOT teach you how to properly use the method and should not have been called a COMPLETE GUIDE.
The outline of the Bates exercises are in Chapter 8 and only 27 pages long in the 164 page book.
BE WARNED, DO NOT BUY THIS ONE. Get it from the library like I did if you really want to look but he pushes being TAUGHT by a Bates teacher more than anything else.

Garbage!

This book purports to be a complete guide to improving your eyesight, but turns out to be little more than a commercial for practicioners of the Bates method. The author is one of these, and gives some cases where he was successful, but there is little info of practical use in improving your eyesight by exercises and whatever mental shenanigans the author discusses. If you are looking for the actual methods to apply yourself to improve your own eyesight, look elsewhere.

This is an excellent introductory text to the Bates Method. The author, Peter Mansfield, goes over the behavior of the eye and various visual problems (a pretty standard practice in Bates books), then he goes over what the Bates Method is and isn't.
The previous reviewer said that this book does not offer practical "exercises" and "mental shananigans". But that reviewer may need to read the text more thoughtfully, for I think the author makes a good attempt at dispelling wrong ideas the reader is likely to have about what to expect from this book, a Bates teacher, or the Bates Method in general. I recommend this book to people new to the Bates Method, as people too often approach it completely wrong.

A couple quotes from the book:

"This is not a 'how to' book. A book can explain an idea, but practical skills need to be learned in practice."

"We have to learn a different way of thinking, a process that may take a little time, for the simple reason that if our thinking were right we would have nothing to learn."

My only complaint about this play is that Shakespeare should have had some dialogues where the characters discussed crucial history before the play opens. Gloucester (murdered or dead before the play but mentioned several times) had tried to usurp Richard's crown too many times. History itself is not sure if Gloucester died or was murdered. Bolingbroke for a while conspired with Gloucester and now sees another oppurtunity to usurp the crown.The virtuous John of Gaunt served Richard with honor and integrity and eventually moved parliament into arresting Gloucester for treason. This would of made John of Gaunt's rages all the more valid. Otherwise this play is outstanding! Richard shows himself to be capable of ruling at times, but gains our contempt when he seizes his the honorable John of Gaunt's wealth. John of Gaunt's final rage in 2.1 is a passage of immense rageful beauty. Also, Shakespeare moves us into strongly suspecting that Richard had Gloucester murdered. However, despite Richard's crime, Shakespeare masterfully reverses our feelings and moves us into having deep pity for Richard when he is deposed. The Bishop of Carlisle (Richard's true friend) provides some powerful passages of his own. I can not overestimate the grace in which Shakespeare increases our new won pity for Richard when Bolingbroke (Gaunt's rightful heir) regains his wealth and the death of Gloucester is left ambiguous. 5.1, when Richard sadly leaves his queen and can see that Henry IV and his followers will eventually divide is a scene of sorrowful beauty. 5.4 is chilling when Exton plots Richard's murder. 5.5 is chilling and captivating when Richard dies but manages to take two of the thugs down with him. The icing on the cake is that Bolingbroke (Henry IV) can only regret his actions and realize that he has gotten himself into a troublesome situation. But that will be covered in "1 Henry IV" and "2 Henry IV." We can easily argue that it is in "Richard II" where we see Shakespeare's mastery of the language at its finest.

Richard II was incompetent, wastefully extravagant, overtaxed his nobles and peasants, ignored his senior advisors, and lavished dukedoms on his favorites. His rival, Henry of Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), was popular with the common man and undeservingly suffered banishment and loss of all his property. And yet two centuries later Elizabethans viewed the overthrow of Richard II as fundamentally wrong and ultimately responsible for 100 years of crisis and civil war. Queen Elizabeth's government even censored Shakespeare's play.

Shakespeare masterfully manipulates our feelings and attitude toward Richard II and Bolingbroke. We initially watch Richard II try to reconcile differences between two apparently loyal subjects each challenging the other's loyalty to the king. He seemingly reluctantly approves a trial by combat. But a month later, only minutes before combat begins, he banishes both form England. We begin to question Richard's motivation.

Richard's subsequent behavior, especially his illegal seizure of Bolingbroke's land and title, persuades us that his overthrow is justified. But as King Richard's position declines, a more kingly, more contemplative ruler emerges. He faces overthrow and eventual death with dignity and courage. Meanwhile we see Bolingbroke, now Henry IV, beset with unease, uncertainty, and eventually guilt for his action.

Shakespeare also leaves us in in a state of uncertainty. What is the role of a subject? What are the limits of passive obedience? How do we reconcile the overthrow of an incompetent ruler with the divine right of kings? Will Henry IV, his children, or England itself suffer retribution?

Richard II has elements of a tragedy, but is fundamentally a historical play. I was late coming to Shakespeare's English histories and despite my familiarity with many of his works I found myself somewhat disoriented. I did not appreciate the complex relationships between the aristocratic families, nor what had happened before. Fortunately I was rescued by Peter Saccio, the author of "Shakespeare's English Kings". Saccio's delightful book explores how Shakespeare's imagination and actual history are intertwined.

I hope you enjoy Richard II as much as I have. It is the gateway to Henry IV (Parts 1 and 2) and Henry V, all exceptional plays.

The thing with Shakespeare histories is that almost no one reads them, as opposed to his tragedies and comedies. I don't know why that is. The histories that are read are either Henry V (largely due to Branagh's movie), Richard III (because the hunchback king is so over-the-top evil), or the gargantuan trilogy of Henry VI, with the nearly saintly king (at least by Part III) who much prefers contemplating religion and ethics to ruling and dealing with the cabals among his nobles.

So why read a relatively obscure history about a relatively obscure king? Aside from the obvious (it's Shakespeare, stupid), it is a wonderful piece of writing - intense, lyrical, and subtle. Richard II is morally ambiguous, initially an arrogant, callous figure who heeds no warnings against his behavior. Of course, his behavior, which includes seizing the property of nobles without regard for their heirs, leads to his downfall. Nothing in his character or behavior inspires his subjects so he has no passionate defenders when one of the wronged heirs leads a rebellion to depose Richard II. But Richard now becomes a much more sympathetic figure -especially in the scene where he confronts the usurper, Richard acknowledges his mistakes, but eloquently wonders what happens when the wronged subjects can depose the leader when they are wronged. What then of the monarchy, what then of England?

On top of the profound political musings, you get some extraordinarily lyrical Shakespeare (and that is truly extraordinary). Most well known may be the description of England that was used in the airline commercial a few years back... "This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, ..."

If you like Shakespeare and haven't read this play, you've missed a gem.