I finished reading this book only a few weeks ago for a college class I'm in. It certainly wasn't the kind of book I'd pick up just on my own, but I wouldn't say I didn't like it.

The story is set primarily in Boston and somewhat in New York during the 1880's. At the request of his cousin Olive Chancellor, southern lawyer Basil Ransom comes to visit. He accompanies her to a meeting where the young Verena Tarrant speaks wonderfully on women's rights. Olive is so impressed with Verena, she starts what's debatably a lesbian relationship with her, but Ransom is taken with Verena as well and so a struggle begins between the two for Verena's affections.

I think Henry James does an excellent job of giving complete descriptions of each character and you really get a sense of who they are. Olive comes across as rigid and passionate, Verena as young, full of life and curious and Basil as sexist and determined. Basil uses all his ability to wrench Verena from Olive. As I mentioned, the relationship between Verena and Olive is debatable. There are no sex scenes in this novel, but the implication is there. Additionally, I've learned in the class for which I read this novel that many women during this time period engaged in very intense romantic relationships which may or may not be described as sexual.

There are of course other characters such as Verena's parents and other women's rights activists, but the whole focus of the novel is on this struggle for Verena. It wouldn't be completely unfair to say that in some ways nothing much happens in this novel. It's truly a character driven story. There aren't really antagonists and protagonists in the story, but more just people whom all have faults and are just trying to make the right decisions. Although my description of Basil above may sound like a bad guy and although he's unapologetically sexist, he perhaps is no worse than Olive who sometimes seems to be using Verena, a young woman whose thoughts and feelings are maleable. At its heart, the novel is still a love story. Overall, I'd say this is probably worth reading if you like novels about this time period, about love or if you like this author. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'd read another novel by James, but I don't regret reading this.

Though James is certainly not known for his sense of humor, he displays a keen sense of satire in this novel. The two senses are not identical--many readers expect satire to make them laugh out loud, and those readers will be disappointed in this book. James' satire is more likely to make readers feel uncomfortable. He repeatedly mocks the two main characters and their struggle to control a young woman who hardly seems worth the effort that these two egoists put into her pursuit. James allows Olive Chancellor and Basil Ransom (whose names evoke the satiricomic tradition in which he is writing) to take themselves seriously while allowing the readers to see them as stereotypes. While satire depends on such stereotypes, James' fiction typically delves into the psychological. At times, he is able to keep this balance, but often the tension is too great and the characters seem to fall flat. Verena Tarrant--the object of Olive and Basil's affection--is virtually absent psychologically (as others have noted), but her lack of character is built into the novel. She begins as her father's possession, and the novel hinges on whether Olive or Basil get to own her next. While the novel is certainly not without faults, it is interesting to watch a novelist as self-conscious as James attempt to write a novel of this type. While he wasn't destined to become a comic genius, this novel is a step toward the psychological, satirical and comic success he was to have in a novel such as "The Ambassadors."

When he says the "Bostonians" he means "the lesbians." I was pretty interested in the story of a Boston marriage, but it got increasingly mean-spirited toward the end, when the dashing right-wing Mississippian convinces the young woman to leave the older one and a full suffrage lecture-hall and run away with him-- she finds it seductive to be told she must have no will of her own.

I went looking for criticism of this book and found little in Gale, but two essays from 1990s by Wendy Lesser and Alison Lurie. Lesser argues against the feminist line that the book is a misogynist polemic; she responds that Olive (the lesbian) and Basil (the Mississippian) are both complex characters, sometimes weak, sometimes strong and sympathetic. (She quotes Hardwick that James is our best female novelist because his women are powerful and interesting.) Lurie looks at the novel as more about politics than gender: James came home from Europe and found he hated America; showed the South re-conquering the North in Basil's conquest of Verena.

I disagree with Lesser: Basil is shown as naive and occasionally weak but dashing and full-hearted -- I'm sure he is an idealized self-portrait of James. Olive is honest and principled but so bleak and unhappy that her love is purely destructive. Her strength lies less in her principles (Mrs. Birdseye after all is equally principled but utterly weak) than in her vaulting ambition. She reminds me of Dixon's Thaddeus Stevens in The Klansman -- passionate, scheming, perversely principled, but essentially evil. Both come from Milton's Satan, seen as a Yankee.

Which brings me to Lurie's version. I agree with her that the novel is about politics, but disagree that he was writing against America -- I think he was just writing against Boston. The hostility the novel met at the time stemmed from his nasty portrait of the old transcendalist Elizabeth Peabody (his minor character Mrs. Birdseye); this is a less irrelevant reaction than critics portray it, since she's a stand-in for everything he despises about his own Boston roots, a hatred which drives the novel. An equally weak but even more despicable character is Verena's father, a mystical fraud whose nomadic career has certain resemblances to James's father's -- resemblances strengthened if Verena is modeled on Alice James. The Boston reform tradition is alternately weak-minded and hard-edged, and basically loveless -- a spirit of drafty wet lecturehalls. Where Basil is hot-blooded -- he feels about Mississippi a tragic love he can't bear to speak of in conversation -- Olive's New England feeling is only cold philosophy.

How real is the political alternative which Basil represents? We see much less of him than of Olive; James knew Boston but not Mississippi. But I think James like some of his peers yearned for a certain reactionary romanticism which northern intellectuals associated with the South -- a Burkean spirit of cavaliers and kings. (Basil's name means "king," and his emerging career is writing political essays said to be hundreds of years out of date.) Basil's defeat of Olive to marry Verena -- he imagines his own seizure of her from the podium of Fanuiel Hall as a political assassination, with shades of John Wilkes Booth -- is clearly a re-conquest of the North by the old South. What he offers for an American future is less Enlightenment, more Middle Ages -- less rights, more responsiblities -- less cold charity, more warm friendship.

James/ Basil reminds me of Henry Adams in the "Education." On the one hand, Adams saw the warm (mildly homoerotic) friendship of exceptional men (modeled on himself and John Hay) as a strategy for national progress. On the other, Adams developed a similarly St. Gaudensian aesthetic of the medieval -- the cathedral against the dynamo. This was the first, aesteticist reaction of the northern elite to the soullessness of postbellum America, which we forget because it was replaced by Teddy Roosevelt's more muscular alternative.

Yes, it's a great novel. Yes the language is rich, the story is subtle, and the psychology is complex. And yet, I didn't like it.

Of course, who am I to review Henry James? Granted, I read more books and watch less television than most of my peers, but still I think I might be too "late Twentieth Century" for this book. Maybe despite my strict avoidance of video games I just can't help detesting the millipede pace of this book. I've never had much affinity for drawing room conversations to begin with, and unlike my father I don't believe that wit must be meted out in tortuous sentences.

But it isn't my background or personal prejudices that make me recoil from "Wings of the Dove". There is something about the deliberate quality of Henry James that bothers me. He knows perfectly well what he's doing with his fat succulent sentences. He won't feed you a meal of lean pork and vegetables. He'll serve you tons of tiny truffles and oil-oozing, crispy skinned duck.

To read "Wings of the Dove" is like encountering a cookbook that decided to include as much of the delicious fatty foods as possible. Of course its a rare meal and quite wonderful in its way. But some how, it made me a little nauseous at the end.

First things first, it is a very nice novel, but very hard to follow. Personally speaking, sometimes I couldn't get very exactly what Henry James was trying to say, but I could understand the situation as a whole and be able to move on.

As everybody knows, Hery James is not an easy writer. His appeal is very difficult and complex although it doesn't read very old-fashioned. The story is very interesting and timeless, because it deals with passion, money and betrayal. The books follows Kate Croy and her beloved Merton Densher when then both get involved - in different degrees and with different interests- with the beautiful rich and sick American heiress Milly Theale.

Most of the time, the book kept me wondering what would come next and its result and the grand finale. But, that doesn't mean I was fully understand its words. As I said, I was just feeling what was going on. As a result, i don't think I was able to get all the complexity of Henry James. Maybe, if I read this book again in the futures, it will be clearer.

There is a film version of this novel made in 1997, and starring Helena Bonham Carter, Allison Elliot and Linus Roach, directed by Iain Softley. Carter is amazing as always! Kate is a bit different from the book, she is not only a manipulative soul, but, actually, she is a woman trying to find happiness. One character says of Kate, "There's something going on behind those beautiful lashes", and that's true for most female leads created by James. Watching this movie helped me a lot, after finishing reading the novel.

I've carried on a love-hate affair with The Wings of the Dove for more than 20 years. In that period of time, I started the novel (the same beautiful little Signet paperback edition) at LEAST 15 times and could never get past page 30 or so. But it kept nagging at me to read it. Last summer, I plowed through its dense prose thicket, and I felt as though I were peering through a glass darkly. Several times I felt like tossing it aside. I've studied Enlish and literature all my life and yet I had one heckuva time with those daunting banks of prose. But I'm glad I read it. It's masterful. Worth all the effort. Those scintillating scenes in Venice. Nothing like them! I just read The Golden Bowl, another difficult but rewarding book. There are astonishing scenes in it, like when the husband of the busy-body watches her in a pensive mood as if she were in the middle of a lake, coming closer. It's just an extraordinary scene! I love early James too, like that perfect jewel of a book, Washington Square. Sometimes, great as the late books are, I really do think they lose something of the wonderful clarity James achieved earlier. There are still a few scenes in Wings and Bowl, for instance, in which I have NO IDEA what James was trying to express. Talk about super subtle! But do make the effort, folks, they're incredible books.

I am now speaking to you as an anatomist and as a professor of human gross anatomy -- Student Beware. This is not the book that you think it is.

Look carefully. Gray's Anatomy currently comes in two english editions. The British Version (now in its 39th edition) retails for about... The American Version (now in its 30th edition) retails for about ... If the edition you are looking at costs considerably less than those prices ASK YOURSELF WHY!. You are probably considering the "classic collectors edition" which is a reprint of the 1901 American Edition. There is nothing wrong with that edition, if you are interested in the history of science. However, much of the terminology has changed and in 100 years we have developed a much deeper understanding of human anatomy.

Know what you are buying. If you are a serious student of anatomy, you probably do not want this to be your first (or only) edition of Gray's Anatomy.

This book is a seminal, comprehensive body of work on the human anatomy. It contains seven hundred and eighty illustrations, of which one hundred and seventy two are in color. While this is, no doubt, a book that every physician should have, lawyers with a personal injury practice or prosecutors who try assault or homicide cases should have more than a passing acquaintance with this book. It is a wonderful resource, explaining the human anatomy clearly, and is, with good reason, the premier text on this subject.

Gray's Anatomy is a "classic" book on Anatomy. Unusual for a classic, it is everything you have heard. The drawings are beautiful, accurate, and interesting. At the same time, this book was a standard text for Anatomy since 1901. As such, the drawing are only part of this book. The book's main effort is to explanation human anatomy. It does so wonderfully and clearly, with words. The drawings are only there to help with the text's explanations.

A quick warning. Since this book has been around since before 1901, there are many, many different versions. Make sure you check the printing date of the one you buy. The human body has not changed since this first editions, but our access to it has. As such, while some of the earlier books are beautiful to look at, the later editions are more valuable as a reference tool.

When I was browsing on Amazon, I was surprised to see that this book (In Europe it is called 'The Pimlico History of Western Philosophy, edited by Richard H. Popkin and effectively written by -indeed- a 'small army of connaisseurs') had an average rating of 4.5 stars. To me the largest part of the book is utterly unreadable. Many sections seem like an endless row of quotations connected by lines of interpretative thought from each expert. No doubt that these people are experts in their field, but their capacity to transmit the basic ideas as intended by the philosophers discussed (or at least the interpretations of those ideas), is very poor. Nor do the discussions stimulate philosophical thought in the reader himself. Probably this might not be the purpose of this book, but in my personal opinion every history of philosophy should encourage the interested layman to contemplate on the big questions concerning metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and ethics. Or as Storig formulates it very well in his excellent 'Kleine Weltgeschichte der Philospie':

What can we do? What should we do? What may we believe?

If you are looking for the answers to these questions, do not read this book. The remark Popkin makes in the introduction of this book concerning 'History of Western Philosophy' by Bertrand Russell is really cheap: "Russell wrote his book hastily out of financial desperation while jobless in N.Y.C. at the beginning of WW II. Since Russell was a scholar of very few topics he covered, and uninterested or hostile to others, his opus is most engaging as Russelliana but hardly as history of philosophy". And further: "This work (Popkin's) is not intended to compete with this classic (Russell's)". Well, I read both and the conclusion is easily made. Pimlico doesn't come even close to Russell's. Indeed Bertrand Russell treats the history of philosophy in a very personal style and frankly ventilates his opinion on the great minds of western philosophy. But he does this in such a way, that it is still possible to get a clear picture of the original ideas unbiased by Russell's opinions. Also Russell's book does stimulate the educated reader to think and judge for himself. And, frankly, - but this is my personal opinion - although I do not agree with Russell's judgement in a number of cases, his statement that the philosophic ideas of some great men like Berkeley - who denied the existence of matter; material objects exist only through being perceived - are to be classified as insanity, despite the sometimes ingenuous arguments Berkeley made to support this view.

I would like to spare one section from Pimlico's from my harsh criticism. That is the one written by Avrum Stroll on 'Twentieth Century Analytic Philosphy'. The eleven chapters he wrote give a very accessible introduction to this difficult subject, although I feel he could have spent more words on the Tractatus in the Wittgenstein chapter. Stroll's contribution prevents the rating from dropping to one star.

The Columbia History of Western Philosophy narrates western philosophy in a more collective way than traditional histories of philosophy, and, for related reasons, its editor, Richard H Popkin, has called upon a diverse group of specialists to edit the chapters.

This is both Politically Correct and academically conventional, but it means that the Columbia history is not a good introduction to philosophy for the general reader: instead it is an excellent reference book for someone already versed in philosophy.

In former days, the history of philosophy was biographical, and focused on the thought of the major dead white males. .... Throughout his book, Popkin's authors provide this Politically Correct equal time and the general reader already well-versed in philosophy can learn much. But Popkin, in the selfsame interests of Political Correctness, fails to have his team judge, and for that matter, the judgements of a team are almost guaranteed to be a least common denominator. The sophisticated and academic reader can be left with more questions than answers, but the general reader is, I think, ultimately confused: did Plato mean what Plato said or was Plato messing with our minds? Should Spinoza have gotten married and settled down? Was Theodore Adorno a schnook or a good guy? ....

The Columbia History is destined to become a classic. Richard Popkin assembled a small army of experts to write this history. The result is a text that is useful not only to the scholar, but to the general reader and student as well. Although a book like this suffers the danger that it will be simply a collection of unrelated essays on each philosopher or school of philosophy, Popkin provides notes that connect the separate articles. The thorough bibliography and index make this book particularly useful. Every student of philosophy should own a copy. Highly recommended.

This is the second such book I have bought on the subject of Face Reading. The illustrations were difficult to follow and it's tough for the reader to develop a "user friendly" guide after completion. Rather, I suggest that you try "The Naked Face" by Young, which was far easier to interpret. Sure, if one were a practioner for 2 decades, then they could decipher the illustrations, but the learning curve was rather steep. Give the other book a glance, that's my opinion.

This is a very good book if you are interested in face reading. It holds a lot of interesting information and detail about the face, eyes, nose, eyebrows, lips, etc. The reason why I didn't rate it as 5 stars is because the illustrations look the same to me and its really hard to tell the difference between certain shapes. More realistic pictures instead of drawings would do the trick.

I read and collect books on this subject. This book is one of my favorites. I find many facets of Chinese culture interesting and thought provoking. Inside this book I have found other subjects that I have enjoyed reading up on and exploring. It is well written and very interesting and laid out well. And I have learned much more about myself than I would have guessed when I started reading this book.

This book is a mixture of biography and collected works of Richard Bruce Nugent, the most openly gay writer of the Harlem Renaissance. His 1920s story, "Smoke, Lillies and Jade" has been called the first African-American fictional account regarding homosexuality. The book also includes many photos of Nugent and his gay peers as well as Nugent's artwork.

The book is divided into five sections, emphasizing Nugent's fictional and non-fictional work. However, the best part of the book is the historical introduction; it should have been highlighted somehow. This book is a veritable "Who's Who?" of the Gay Harlem Renaissance. Unfortunately, this excellent documentation of the numerous gay Black authors writing in the early 20th century leaves the impression that little is known about Nugent or little is worth saying. Still, I found myself wanting to read every footnote because they show how much material is out there that has yet to be reviewed scholastically. Heads up, gay studies graduate students!

Though the excerpts of Nugent's writings span a fifty-year period, the grand majority of it comes from the 1930s. Nugent, in "Smoke" and most other writings, was a blatant cheerleader for the Renaissance. I found his work challenging, though at times incredibly boring. It's admitted that his artwork is faux Erte, but it's implied homoeroticism must truly be relished. Be warned that it's very campy. I applaud Nugent in his continual inclusion of women in his artwork, non-fiction, and fiction. You would never have to worry about him saying some foolishness like "Hated it!" Besides, if I read this correctly, Nugent never went to college, yet his writing is quite sophisticated.

Surprisingly, this book reminds me of Little Richard's biography, even though that was written during one of Richard's homophobic stages. Both Richard and Nugent were/are frequently X-rated in order to get laughs and push the envelope on societal norms. Like Dennis Rodman, Nugent swears that because Blacks rejected him, he only pursued "Latins." This fetishization may really disturb gay Latino and Italian-American readers. But remember: gay whites of the era like E.M. Forster also celebrated "difference" in ways that we would now deem politically incorrect.

Skip Gates' forward is scant, but it does reprove his commitment to an anti-homophobic, African-American scholarship. The biographer is a white gay man "interested" in Black culture. Shockingly, he never cites Eric Garber, the non-Black scholar who was the first in gay studies to report on the gay underpinnings of the Harlem Renaissance. It's a shame too, because many of Garber's insights are still useful, yet they go unacknowledged. Wirth includes a section in which Nugent remembers Carl Van Vecten, the gay white celebrity-maker who promoted the Renaissance. This section is confusing and says little. It somewhat re-centers Van Vechten and feels slightly Eurocentric. Still, the biographer has a Ph.D. in chemistry from CalTech yet he writes like the most sophisticated gay studies Ph.D. I give him much credit.

Finally, this book has been categorized under "racially mixed persons." Though it is mentioned that Nugent had some Native American ancestors, interracial romantic liaisons and passing come up much more often than multiracial identity matters in this text.

All people who want to challenge the idea that gayness is a "white thing" or "recent phenomenon" need to read this book.

Exciting, thorough, and amazingly generous, Wirth brings to life a most beguiling participant in the Harlem Renaissance.

It is a wonderful idea to make available recordings of great speeches. I hope we have more of this in the future.
In the case of older speeches, the selection is very good, considering the restraints of time, and the readers are uniformly excellent.
As for the modern speeches, it is a marvel of technology that we can hear these speeches as delivered. It is incredible that we can hear the voice of William Jennings Bryan. I can listen to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" a thousand times and never tire of it! How I wish I could listen to the voice of Patrick Henry! But this selection is too heavily weighted to the modern, and many of those do not deserve billing as the GREATEST speeches of ALL TIME. Also, some of the modern speeches which are included are abridged, e.g. Reagan is cut off in the middle of a sentence, while lengthy and undeserving speeches are played out in their entirety.
Also, with only a few exceptions, the selection is almost entirely American. It is hard to understand why Jimmy Carter's lengthy speech on energy policy is included, while Pericles' funeral oration is not; or why only a small portion of a single Winston Churchill speech is included; why while Bill Clinton's complete 1993 pulpit address, in excess of 20 minutes, is included.
It would be helpful if the complete list of speeches were available to online buyers, as it would be to shoppers in a brick and mortar store.

I have listened to this collection twice now, both times with pleasure. Hearing the acutal voices of Amelia Earhart, Rev. Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill and Neil Armstrong made a deeper connection than simply reading their words. The collection showcases different subjects and many times contrasts opposing viewpoints of the ideas. This volume is a fantastic introduction to the moving ideals and sometimes sad truths that have influenced Western Civilization.

Van Til's classic is finally back in print. Anyone who has an interest in the relationship between Christianity and culture must read this book. Step by step, Van Til leads us through the various aspects of culture. Dealing with the Christian's relationship to the world and how biblical themes interweave with our understanding of society, Van Til did a great service to the evangelical world when this book was written several decades ago. The book is not designed for the casual reader, but is perfect for the Christian who wants to learn more about what Scripture has to say on culture.

I studied Russian in some capacity for almost 5 years now. As a russophile one runs into many text that offer little explanation to make this complex language more easily understood. This book is certainly not one of them! The Grammar review sections are perfect whether you are advancing your study by yourself, or you are reviewing for a test in a class. The vocablary sections are complete and well organized. This the second Golosa book focuses even more on authentic texts than the first volume. My only complaints include: the glossary--it is not a complete enough to serve as a useful tool; the cultural sections--on rare occasion are not complete enough to avoid broad generalizations; and the illustrations are childlike and not always clear. Nonetheless, this is a text that must be included in every Russian language student's reference library!

My synopsis on what I read so far was the one that brought me to the conclusion that this book is boring starting of with we would appreciate to read more about that's person's life as a child, where there people who did not want him to succeed? Was there any defects that may have enabled him to not become famous? you know things, but, the book did have it's interesting thoughts and it was a good book, just that when you write one next time try to let us know as much as you can.