I am a Richard Adams fan - so of course had to own at least one of this 'out of print' book. The entire book is written in verse that it is not acheived without creativity!
A great story of adventure and excitment but unfortunately, I don't feel that I can give this book to my 5 year old nephew like I had hoped. My guess is that most children that age won't be able to understand the story very well at first read because an explaination is required at almost every verse. Words like 'gaol' 'bilge' and 'halbert' 'dons' oh and many more. Of course this book is very Bristish, so some words are spelled with extra e's and p's for fancy (this might confuse kids). The artwork is detailed and incredible. I am considering giving a copy to my nephew just so he could see the artwork and perhaps one day learn the story. This is a fun one to read aloud.

This is an incredible 'childrens' book. The artwork is incredible, detailed and unbelievably imaginative. I was amazed to discover that it had gone out of print, as I was certain that in the time that had lapsed between my childhood and now it would have surely become a classic. I highly recommend it for anyone who enjoys very artistic, creative and amazingly detailed picture books, not to mention a swashbuckling adventure story.

The title of the book suggests no bias or agenda for the work. It simply adopts the title of a very broad and complex area of commerce as it's own name; The Stock Market. The book offers a basic understanding of many aspects of the 'Market'in a way that the un-initiated can understand. Anyone looking for help in selecting a sure path to riches will be dissapointed. Anyone seeking an understanding of the basics, and how various aspects of the 'Market' relate to each other will be rewarded.

This book deliveres knowledge and understanding without bias. It can serve as general reading material or as a reference. It prepares the reader to select and understand other material.

New editions appear when the 'market' changes enough to warrant new material. The content is up to date without being padded by trendy but useless material.

Cliff Critchett
end of review comments

Although this book is an introduction as well as a reference, some knowledge of stock market is assumed. The author often uses technical terms without defining them in the chapter(although there is a small dictionary in the back). If you have traded once or twice before, you should know at least some of those terms.

I just read the book called "James and the Giant Peach ".It is about a boy named James. Jameses parents died when James was little, so James had to move in with his aunts that he hates very much. Their names are Aunt Spiker and Aunt Sponge. James longs to go to the beach and have friends. James and his new friends Grasshopper, Ladybug, Centipede, Earthworm, Silkworm and Miss Spider will go on an adventure they will neaver forget. On their adventure they have to go through alot of terrible frights that they will have to face, like "Centipde falling off the giant Peach" What will they do and how? This book is written by Roald Dahl I have read other books by him and I think he could have added some funnier things to this book but it is still a very good book.If you want to find out what happens read this book.

Not the best but certainly one of Roald Dahl's better books it is an interesting and an addicting to read kind of book.it's certainly not and every day kind of book but is very enjoyable. I give it a 4 because of it's strange content.

This is the first novel I ever read. I still remember way back in second grade when I started reading this book. Oh boy, what a rush! All these images in my head. It's like getting high! This book is extremely interesting and fun to read. This is the perfect book to give to your child as his/her first book.

As this posthumous collection of essays suggests, Weaver felt most at home writing about the old South, which was his birthplace, the topic of his dissertation, and the subject for which he reserved his highest praise.

To Weaver the evils of the world were rooted in modernism, industrialism, materialism, and nationalism, all of which he blamed on Union victory. At one point Weaver even asserted that total war -- war unrestrained by chivalry or other ethical restraints -- was a northern custom which had led to the rise of National Socialism in Germany.

The stark line Weaver drew between South and North, with divergent and logical worldviews ascribed to each, was for him the line between good and evil. In reducing every issue to either-or, Weaver oversimplified his subjects, so that his essays resemble legal arguments: Haynes v. Webster, Thoreau v. Randolph, Lee v. Sherman, Emerson v. Warren. In each case, Weaver's preference is obvious.

I found the strongest essays to be in section one, about southern literature and the Agrarian writers. Here are many useful and profound insights that time has not diminished. When Weaver leaves his specialty, however, his comments are less persuasive, amounting to sweeping sociological observations and cheerleading for the old South.

The converse of Weaver's feeling at home in an imagined South is feeling alienated in an imagined North. Although he spent most of his career teaching literature at the University of Chicago, he isolated himself from the city both physically and intellectually. Perhaps if Weaver had made more effort to adapt, he would have left us a richer legacy, one less marked by decline and defeat.

I admire Weaver's work a great deal. He should be praised for showing, from a conservative perspective, the limitations of capitalism, industrialism, and modernism, limitations which are more often the outcry of the radical left and dismissed as anti American. He would have been wise to consider also the limitations of the old South. I am less willing to blame today's discontents on Union victory. In Weaver's rigid arguments, moreover, there is little to be learned about the vital American principles of acceptance, pluralism, and compromise.

Sometimes it is difficult to sort out the contradictions in Weaver's work, but I prefer to keep in mind his comments from Ideas Have Consequences: Piety accepts the right of others to exist, and it affirms an objective order, not created by man, that is independent of the human ego.

In short, if you are a friend of the South, or would like to read the words of a man who can explain the conservative axiology, this book is for you. The contents are essential for anyone seeking a neoclassical education. For me, reading Richard Weaver's Southern Essays brings together the final sentences of Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily."

"Then we noticed that in the second pillow was the indentation of a head. One of us lifted something from it, and leaning forward, that faint and invisible dust dry and acrid in the nostrils, we saw a long strand of iron-gray hair."

The book is a monument to Lee and Jackson. Anyone who wants to understand Picket's charge needs to read this excellent book.

This is a marvelous book, and a marvelous collection of essays, written by a clear and conscientious southern conservative. Richard Weaver was heir to the Southern Agrarian tradition of protest and opposition to the directions modern American society and politics was taking, particularly in the New Deal and post WW II eras. Writers like John Crowe Ransom, Donald Davidson, Allan Tate, Caroline Gordon and Robert Penn Warren, were caustic critics of modernity, of the decline in community, and a sense of the common good. Weaver, an english professor who might better be described as an intellectual, lived, learned, and worked in this tradition. Of all the essays in this collection, all of which are well written and thoughtful, two stand out in my mind. His essay on 'Lee the Philosopher' captures the pragmatic and common-sense spirit of southern political and social thought. Southerners felt little need for abstract theorizing, or great theoretical and philosophical models. Simple, everyday ideas, the ideals of common sense and everyday life, were more than enough for the down-to-earth farmers and planters of the American South. Weaver does a brilliant job of portraying Genl Lee as the epitome of the southern ideal of both gentlemanly duty and social thought. The second wonderful piece is 'The Two Types of American Individualism'. Weaver contrasts the individualism of a character like John Randolph of Roanoke, a fixture on the Virginia political scene in the early 1800's, with the individualism of Thoreau (and by implication the North). Randolph was a supreme example of an eccentric indivdual. He had bouts of insanity throughout his like, fought duels, appeared on the floor of Congress with his hunting dogs, jug of hard cider and his slave attendant, and refused to toe the party line. Yet, when the needs of his community demanded, or the society in which he lived was threatened, he was willing- even eager- to rally to the cause and defend it, despite his personal believes and misgivings. Weaver felt that Thoreau, on the other hand, with is notions of civil disobedience and voluntary taxation, put the individual ahead of the community, and would refuse to defend anything that was not justified according to his principles and beliefs. This was recipe for chaos and disorder, and disintegration. Weaver leaves no doubt as to which he preferes. The division between community and tradition, and individual liberty is a fault line that continues to run through American political and social ideas. Weaver, in powerfully defending tradition and community, has been one of the men shaping current political discourse, particularly among the social conservatives and in the religious right. He deserves to be read.

Upon mention of George Orwell, "A Clergyman's Daugter" isn't usually the book that jumps into reader's minds, and compared to his polished masterpieces -- Animal Farm and 1984 -- the reason is understandable. Yet for fans of Orwell lies an undiscovered gem, a less understated yet deliciously piercing satire of early 20th Century England, flavored abundatly with the author's trademark social criticism and wicked humor. It's a book that leaves no stone unturned, challenging religion, gender, education, social class, and both the timely and timeless inadequacies and hypocrasies of which Orwell bore witness.

The book's title refers, fittingly enough, to the chief protagonist, Dorothy Hare. A girl in her late twenties, she begins the book as a militant religious devotee, shown best in a pin she always keeps with her, used for pricking herself in penance for committing the slightest misdeed -- sometimes drawing blood for thinking no more than an unholy thought. She is one daughter among "ten thousand others" who lives a grueling life under the stern command of her father, the pastor, a hardened man of stern disposition and resolute aloofness, whose awkening greeting to his daugter as the novel begins is a question of when breakfast will arrive.

With a misadventure that begins here and ends in a place both similar and entirely different, Dorothy meets affrronts to her life, her stature, her class, even the very faith upon which the whole of her existence resides. And as Dorothy is challenged to think of the world differently, so are we; a defining moment comes when she says, "it is not what we do that matters, it is how our thinking changes because of it." As a theme to the novel and a thesis which he brilliantly defends, Orwell succeeds without hesitation. (As a note, the above quote is paraphrased, and I appologize -- I've already returned the book to the library.)

Where he falters -- and indeed he does -- is in the structure of the novel and, occasionally, the consistency of his language. The myriad of poetic prose almost seems to contradict his otherwise honed and scathing wit, and while often pleasing to the ear, his effors seem at best superfluous, essentially inconcequential to his underlying message. Other reviewers speak with further clarity on this topic, and I'm particularly inclined with one's opinion that only "Joyce can write like Joyce," in other words, that Orwell's language in "A Clergyman's Daughter" could at the least be called affected.

But these gripes on language aside, Orwell succeeds in painting a stark, grim, yet gripping picture of a society gone awry, and beckons us to look within.

There is a not very active Orwell newsgroup, and from timeto time newbies wander in and ask what Orwell's best booksare. Well, everyone knows about "1984" and "Animal Farm," so I usually mention that I like "A Clergyman's Daughter." I sometimes get flamed for this. But who cares? I like it! It is a kind of picaresque novel. I think my favorite part is poor Dorothy trying to be a good teacher in a very bad school, and having the parents object, saying saying things like "We don't want her taught decimals, we want her taught ARITHMETIC." Her struggles with her monster of a father is memorable, and the ending, where she cheerfully resigns herself to her fate, seems to foreshadow the ending of "1984."

Knowing what was finally going to come of Dorothy kept me until 2:30 AM this morning...and I wasn't disappointed.

Orwell cheats right out of the chute: In realizing that he may not know enough about women to write about our protagonist, he immediatedly removes her sexuality by telling us she is disgusted by the thought of "that." Nuff said. Our hero(ine) is now pretty much asexual.

What a story though. Plumbing the depths of faith and predestiny, Orwell weaves a fairly heavy tale of the motherless daugther of a grim and dispassionate minister obsessed only with his investments and petty theological particulars.

The minister's daughter loyally fills in the gaps, acting as the heart and soul of a failling church, praying her way against impossible odds while visiting the sick, recruiting new church goers, seeing to the buildings and her father's meals...and eventually completely wigging out.

Now the fun begins.

This is a warm and rewarding book, full of human insight and only a little bit of Orwell's patented socialist soap-boxing.

This book is really well written and focuses on Washington's presidency. It is incredibly interesting to learn how Washington dealt with the supposed greats of his day like Hamilton, Jefferson, and Adams. We should all realize that GW was a much better politician and thinker than he gets credit for. ENJOY!

Smith has written a good book that rightly focuses on Washington's building of our national government through careful consideration of precedent and the ability to balance factions through the force of his dignity and integrity.

Our new American government need not have stuck by its Constitutional structure. Indeed, that document was a plan on paper that could arguably have been observed more in the breech had Washington had anything like Napolean's thirst for personal power.

Yet that marvelous document was strengthened by Washington's desire to observe its structure and strictures. Smith details how our first president was keenly aware that his organization of the government and almost every action were setting the precedents that would determine whether his successors would be preside in his spirit or in a vein more threatening to the liberties he had helped purchase during the Revolution.

He also had the help of very intelligent men in his cabinet -- principally Hamilton and Jefferson -- who had opposing views as to the nature of the federal government and its goals and desired relationship to the individual, states and the economy. That Washington was able to keep them both in his employ during the critical period of his first term reveals him to be a very good politician who was adept at balancing interests, using his prestige, and satisfying the egos of men who thought they were destined to design the nation in this first presidency.

I would have liked a little more detail on the actual organization of the government and it's establishment. Smith focuses more on the personal and relationships of Washington and his key subordinates -- somewhat of a style over substance analysis of his two terms. Yet at this period, style and nuance were critical to setting a positive tone for the presidency and Smith's focus is certainly a good lense through which to shed more light on this important historical era.

Because this book focuses exclusively on Washington's presidency, it avoids the trappings of postmodernist social history and instead gives us a portrait of power. More than a mere dupe of Hamilton, Washington is presented instead as a symbol of dignity; firm, intelligent, and focused. While the author makes it clear that Washington was far from the man of marble so often portrayed in grade school history books, he was nonetheless a man of true principle -- especially in terms of Federalist philosophy. Modern readers should take note of Washington's belief in a strong central government and a distrust of states' rights and factions. Also, the author rightly places his Farewell Address in the pantheon of great American documents -- a collection of remarkably prescient prose arguably as influential as anything ever written by Jefferson or Lincoln.

The Avengers debuted at the same time as the original X-Men and until the New X-men came along, they were Marvel's Superteam Supreme. The earliest stories feature powerhouses Thor, Iron Man and Hulk, along with Giant/ant Man and the Wasp. After a few issues the Hulk left and was replaced by Captain America in a classic must read story. The early team fought time spanning menaces like Kang and Immortus, villainous conglomerates like the Masters of Evil, and Wonder Man. (Although Zemo never seemed very menacing, an ex-Nazi with a hood permanently glued to his head by accident?) After a dozen or so issues, this team was replaced by Cap, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and Hawkeye. Can you say "power shortage"? And we're treated to a team that had a hard time defeating a fat robot and the Swordsman. SO they find themselves thoroughly outmatched when they meet Kang in the last 2 stories in this collection. But that was the charm of the Avengers. Their roster changed every dozen or so issues. While the Justice League would add a member here and there, you never saw anybody leave the roster. Imagine a JLA where Superman or Batman decided to call it quits for a few years. This is where we see the genius of Stan Lee. After forming a superteam of awesome strength, he allowed a change to bring in a team of also rans. Watch as Cap molds his group into a team that has to use wits instead of brute strength to stop their foes. At the time, it was a major change in team books. And as always, watch for the dated female characterizations, especially of the Wasp, who spends most of her time mooning over Thor and fantasizing what Iron Man looks like under the armor.

The Avengers were initially an obvious recipe for success - take a number of characters already supporting their own comics and bring them together as a group, an idea as old as the Justice Society of America. So, in the debut issue, we have Thor, Iron Man, the Hulk, Ant-man and the Wasp joining forces as an unexpected consequence of a plot by Loki against his half-brother, Thor.

However, the ideas changed quickly as the Hulk left and teamed-up with the Sub-mariner to fight his former allies and was replaced by Captain America, a World War 2 hero frozen between then and the 60s. And then again, to suddenly have all the original members depart, leaving Cap with Hawkeye, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, three super-villains seeking to reform, as his teammates.

The stories in this volume represent a fairly diverse bunch, showing both the best and worst aspects of Stan Lee's writing at the time. Interesting team dynamics, where the characters are not always each others' friends, villains with motives beyond the banal, references to events in other titles, secrets and subplots that aren't resolved in a single story all show the hallmarks of a writer seeking to develop a loyal following. At the same time, we have blatant sexism and racism, villains with banal motives and some very hokey dialogue.

The art is OK, the early Jack Kirby issues not his best work, and I've never been fond of Don Heck's art. It seems a little odd to be reading these stories in black and white, although this obviously keeps the price down.

If you want to see how one of the best super-hero team series started out, get this.

As good as the early Fantastic Four issues were, the Avengers took the superteam concept to a whole new level. Here was a team formed for the noblest of goals, thrown together by the machinations of an evil immortal only to turn the tables and begin the legendary association which would have teenagers all over the world shouting "Avengers Assemble!" in their backyards.

"Essential Avengers vol. 1" captures the first 24 issues of the classic series, scripted by Stan Lee and illustrated by Jack Kirby and Don Heck. If the first appearances of Kang the Conqueror, Immortus, and the Masters of Evil aren't enough for you, pick this collection up for Avengers # 4, the return of Captain America. This alone is enough to mark a substantial return on your investment for this book.

Highly recommended to all comics fans and X-Men fanatics who need a primer in how team books used to be written.

First book was good. well.....Now they (or Mayne himself) is/are not moving foward. repetitious schemes with minimal ideas. Graphics drowned in mindless Form-z models and renderings. Mighty Thom Mayne has lost his creativity.

One of the few architecture books at the brick and mortor bookstore that isn't sealed shut with shrink wrap. After I flipped through it I immediately bought it through amazon. It is designed by Cranbrook design superstar Lorraine Wild, the design perfectly represents what Morphosis is about. I take it from the other reviewers that they only looked at the images and did not read anything at all because they did not "get it". Their work is delivered as a cyberpunk novel outtake, the setting an industrial dance club with torture devices. There is a wonderful surreal short story that acts as a sort of guide to viewing the work as well. I am not an architect but this is inspirational enough for me to spend half a decade in school to become one. Reminds me of the Jean Tinguely book published in the early 70's (with sketch overlays) and a similar design philosophy as Low/Tek

Being an architecture student, I constantly refer to many books, and Morphosis is one of my favourite contemporary architecture firm. This is really a thick and quite a heavy book. Its a compilation of many of Morphosis' work. Their "Best Of.." volume. This marvelous edition is divided into 2 parts. The first part consist of many colourful computer generated views, elevations, plans and 3D computer models etc of their buildings. The 3D models give a good visual understanding of their complicated but exciting buildings. The second part consist of essays by Thom Mayne. The thing about Morphosis is Mayne's writing is clear. He states his intention and theories clearly without getting out of the subject of architecture much. He talks about the difference between a project and a building which is a very good way of looking at architecture today. The graphics and writing provide a very clear understanding of their buildings. The bottom line is, if you like Morphosis, you'll love this book among your collection.

I am an officer in the United States Army, Special Operations Command. I am a 4 time NCAA All American in Track & Field (3000m steeplechase). I have competed in the 3000m Steeplechase at the Olympic Trials. I also practice Aikido. I mention these things to tell you my point of view.

This book was loaned to me by a friend at my dojo who knew that I was in the military and was preparing to head overseas. The book touches on aspects of everything I have ever done. The mental training needed to be a good runner, the discipline required to be a soldier and the compassion necessary for Aikido. I read this book and immediatly felt that I was Richard Heckler, or that he was me. It is a thought provoking book that shows the better face of the modern warrior. Not a "Kill-bot", but a human being.

It is important to note what is implied here, which is that we must see with better eyes. To understand someone, to know why they do what they do. This is to see with their eyes. This book is simply a chronology of events that took place, but between the lines it is a revelation about being a warrior for everyone involved....even the reader.

First, let me counter a couple of criticisms by some of the other reviewers.

To the person who said the work was too self absorbed - I have no idea what you are thinking. The book is this mans journal - of course it is very personal. It is supposed to give us insight into his own inner conflicts. Personally I do not trust people for whom everything is so simple that they have no inner conflicts. That is fundamentalism and a distorted and shallow way to view the complexity of experience.

Second to the right wing nut who went off calling this guy a fruitloop for his work with the Marines etc. I have no idea what you are all about - or if you even read this book.

I will say that this book confirms for me the difference between a soldier and a warrior. A warrior is a pioneer of thought and last to pick up the sword. A soldier is essentially an automoton trained to take orders without question or thought. Both are necessary cogs in the US Military, despite their contradictory nature.

Green Berets in particular have missions that go beyond mindlessly fulfilling orders. As with many special operators they are required to think creatively, communicate with lead and inspire natives, and overcome obstacles. It's not just about what you see in Rambo movies.

This book is important for soldiers, and martial artists of all types. It gives us the sense that peace and conflict are like yin and yang- and cannot ever be totally separated. For hundreds of years the samurai (Japan's professional warriors) were expected to participate in writing poetry and flower arranging.

In rubuttal to this writer, his information is false. I was one of the Marines in the platoon involved in this training. His comment that the Marines called Dr. Heckler a "fruitloop" is absolutely false. In fact, many of the Marines involved labelled the 6 weeks of training some of the most influential and most "warrior-like" that they had received since they joined the Corps. Also, the writer makes another false statement when he says that hardly any of this training made it into the current program. Many aspects of the training are in MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program). The types of strikes, body hardening excercises, visualization, were all part of the pilot program and are in the current MCMAP program. I am not here to plug the book (though I do feel it has it merits). I am here, as a member of the Marine platoon who participated in this training, to offer a rebuttal to this writer who clearly offers false information.