As is often the case with Western scholars writing on things Russian, one simply cannot properly understand Russia -- culturally or politically -- without first understanding Byzantium and Eastern Orthodoxy. Russia is a heir to Byzantium, and Orthodoxy determined and shaped its culture. Mr. Wortman tends to treat his subject as if he were part anthropologist, part literary theorist, part psychologist -- all premised on the assumption that the idea of Monarchy itself was and is simply a "forest of symbols", as arbitrary in its connection to any sort of transcedental meaning as any other "system. This betrays the disease of modern academia: political systems are mere ideologies, constructions that mask power. To ignore the theology of the Orthodox Church and the various writings both in Greek and Russian on Monarchy is an oversight to say the least. To try and psychologize or play with semiotics as a way to unmask the Russian Monarchy is bad history. The Czar and the Church represented the two heads of the double eagle inheritted from Byzantium. One head -- the Czar -- protected the Kingdom and the Faith from foreign invaders and preserved a Christian Kingdom in rule and law; the Church -- the other head of the eagle -- tended to man's salvation and his soul. These two heads worked synergistically. This is the essence of the Russian Monarchy: the Czar's role cannot be separated from his duty to God and the Church. To understand how this works and why, turn to Byzantium or Pebodenostev.

Wortman seems to be one of those deeply conservative "leftists" who think that narratives of a ruling class or body are academic narratives - that is, that the history of the Russian monarchy is full of symbols that an upper middle class college prof with *way* too little interest in the suffering of the serfs and *way* too much interest in trying to be taken for a clever reader of historical artifact (academics of this bent mutually praise one another, but readers genuinely interested in the subject matter feel differently, and don't have as much time to waste as the "theorists" do, alas.)

There are many good books on this period, and on this subject. Don't let yourself get cheated.

How to summarize the history of the Romanov dynasty? Well, Peter "the Great" murdered his son, Catherine "the great" murdered her husband, and Alexander "the Blessed" was complicit in the murder of his father. After that the dynasty went into a bit of a decline. For the past two decades historians have been increasingly interested in the world of monarchist ritual. They have looked at how during the nineteenth century these rituals became more, not less, elaborate and they have pondered on the use of these rituals as examples of aristocratic hegemony. Wortman's well written and well documented second volume looks at the Russian version from the ascension of Alexander II in 1855 to the abdication of Nicholas II. We certainly get a lot of information on the elaborate ceremonies of the monarchy. We learn of the elaborate rituals and liturgies of the coronation ceremonies, along with fulsome and increasingly sycophantic paeans from the ranks of Orthodoxy. We are in a world of great popular feasts for the people, "entertained by acrobats, jugglers, stunt riders, and carousel rides," which comes to its horrible climax when at least 1,500 people are trampled to death on the feast festivals of Khodynka at the coronation of Nicholas II, the direct result of tsarist incompetence. We enter the world of elaborate balls, and the exquisite detail of faberge eggs (one designed to look like Assumption Cathedral). We see new strains in royalist propaganda as Alexander III presents a nationalist and orthodox message, while Nicholas II presents a Victorian and domestic picture of his family. Rather revealingly Wortman quotes Tchaikovsky's contempt for the 1812 Overture that he composed for Alexander III's coronation.

But there is a larger point in Wortman's account. Much of the literature on royal power deals with its ability to dazzle the larger population. Increasingly, however, royal ritual only dazzled its monarchs. Alexander II starts off with the "scenario of love." After the (partial) emancipation of the peasantry, Alexander II increasingly emphasized his "loving" and "benevolent" nature, as if his self-professed amiability automatically deserved to be reciprocated. As it happened Alexander II's marriage was visibly crumbling as he carried on with a much younger woman. At the same time Alexander moved away from a western path of development, he also sought to ignore what laws and regulations existed to force the rest of the nobility to accept his paramour as his second empress.

Alexander III's reign saw an emphasis on an increasingly chauvinist vision of Russia and Russian orthodoxy, with a new emphasis on monarchies and cathedrals. There was a weird, increasingly unreal and almost necrophiliac admiration for 17th century Moscow, before the liberal rot had set in under Peter I. There was a new emphasis on miracle as the country moved towards a military dictatorship. Nicholas II believed in all these ideas and more, but whereas Alexander III relied on the army and the dictatorship, Nicholas increasingly deluded himself into believing that he had a direct relationship with the Russian people. In this increasingly mystic view in which the "real" Russian people gave him their complete and unequivocal support, Nicholas II viewed the bureaucracies, the army, the episcopacy, other politicians simply as barriers to the implementation of his own will.

As a result during his rituals Nicholas II never missed an opportunity to demean the Duma, the parliament he had reluctantly allowed after the 1905 revolution and which he was planning to emasculate before war broke out in 1914. Nicholas became obsessed with "holy men" who supposedly represented the Russian people, and he and his wife shamelessly bullied the Orthodox hierarchy in order to declare one of them a saint. Reading reports from his bribed press, easily impressed by the crowds who flocked to the anniversaries and royal tours, Nicholas had deluded himself into believing that he was one with the Russian people. Becoming commander in chief of the army against the advice of almost all his ministers, by the end of his reign Nicholas could no longer count on the army, or the church, or the conservatives in his rigged parliament, or most of his family, indeed on anyone other than his wife and children. And yet he was outraged after his abdication that his brother Michael might speak hesitatingly of a constitutional monarchy. The emphasis on Victorian domestic harmony was an illusion; Wortman clearly shows that any chance Russia had of moving on towards a non-revolutionary modernity was fatally hampered by its monarch with a seventeenth century soul.

The argument advanced in this book completely lacks any trace of evidence or logic. The authors muddle and confuse many disciplines without ever pursuing a single perspective to its conclusion. They speak about topics they clearly have not researched and attempt to build credibility with the reader by inserting familiar quotations conveniently removed from context. In summation, reading this book will only prove a detriment to your intellectual and emotional faculties.

This is the most untextbook-like textbook I've ever seen,and I mean that as a high compliment. First, it looks at its subject--love, sex, and intimacy--from a huge variety of perspectives: psychology, poetry, philosophy, biology, primatology, anthropology, literature, and history. Second, it is written personally, vividly, and enjoyably. Third, the illustrations, charts, and cartoons are not only helpful, but great fun. And, finally, the authors show themselves as distinct personalities, lending this authoritative synthesis of what is known about love a real humanity. Hats off!

Mostly short quips about news items which indicate that our society is doomed, or at least is several bricks shy of a load. The 101 puzzling statistics, interesting facts, and irrational actions are listed after a cutesy headline incorporating the word "doom." A quick and easy read which should appeal most to those over 20.

Stoutenberg competently retells the familiar stories of Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, Stormalong, Mike Fink, Davy Crockett, Johnny Applessed, John Henry, and Joe Magarac in a way that stresses the common tall tale elements and should be appealing to upper-elementary school readers. Useful in schools when balanced with some of the more recent and sprightlier stories featuring heroines.

then you should read this book, because all the dirty tricks that IBM used in doing business are laid out and followed by Microsoft. The reading is a bit tedious but once you get by that you find interesting tidbits like the printer that IBM would install for one price, if you needed more speed from it they'd send out a tech who would futz around for a while, throw a switch which would increase capacity and you'd then be charged double. Microsoft follows this strategy in software with Windows XP Home and Professional, throw a switch and double the price, very neat!

There are loads of other fun tricks that IBM pulled, can't remember them all because I read the book 5 or 6 years ago.

i want to know for accesing dos versio

I find this book clear and easy to read on machining topics. The photographs and illustrations fit well with the text. Generally a worthwhile beginners to intermediate book for pre apprentice to 3rd year. However in future editions I would like to see ISO metric information on topics such as threads and tapers along with limits and fits. I would also like to see a change to more up to date toolposts and tool holders for the lathes.

Robert Maheu gives a one-sided view of his reign under Howard Hughes downplaying his "sins" in my opinion and never really coming to grips with his abuse of power and lack of character. I suspect that what he did reveal is mostly because he was caught with his pants down. Nevertheless, I still found it interesting in helping to piece together the Howard Hughes enigma. I learned much more from reading "Citizen Hughes".

I have read Richard Rhodes other books "The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun; both of them are excellent books and should be read by anyone who wants to understand the history of the 20th century. This book was good but I would have like to have known more of the new types of reactors they are making that are inherently safe. He did not even mention TRIGA which is used all over the world. Why can't that be made on a power plant scale.

I thought it was good in the way that it described breeding and why it is necessary so that we don't have to bury wastes for thousands of years. Breeding should be a requirement of the NRC to reduce waste. I would have like to have heard about other fuels that could be used besides uranium.

The book is good in the fact that it teaches you that nuclear power is safe but is also technologically advanced. I would like to see what advances have been made in the last 10 years since this book was written. I think it would be good for the country for the kids in school to see these plants and how they dispose of waste and compare it to other types of fuel processing so that people could know the truth.

I wish it was more specific on how much nuclear fuel we have available and how long it will last like they do with the coal and oil reserves we have. I was glad that the book mention Rickover not many people know what he did for this industry as well as for the Navy. I would recommend reading the latest book on him by Frances Duncan.

Okay, we'll take it for granted that the Media Age has accelerated & magnified all of these problems, but here are some of the familiar themes we find in Jaworski's memoir of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office: questions about the constitutionality of the Office itself, expansive jurisdiction, convictions for perjury instead of for underlying crimes, leaks, grand jury report to Congress, specious privilege claims, etc. All of the supposedly unprecedented events of recent years are all here.

Jaworski is a pretty pedestrian writer & his focus is very specific to issues that concerned the Special Prosecutor's Office; one longs for a little greater perspective. However, he leaves little doubt that Richard Nixon and his aides engaged in a conspiracy to cover up White House involvement in the Watergate & Ellsberg breakins and, in doing so, obstructed justice.

Ultimately, the most important impression that the book leaves is that America is a better place because we forced from office a man who was not fit to be President. Once upon a time in America, we cared about such matters.

GRADE: C