Susan Richards Shreve's The Visiting Physician is an interesting, entertaining read. Her descriptions of the small town and it's small minded inhabitants are spot on, if not stereotypical. What makes this book enjoyable are the details, the gaily colored Victorian houses lining Main St., the river and its surrounding landscape, snippets from her character's lives, both past and present. Still we want to know more. Too many unanswered questions make the actual story less than satisfying.

Why can't Helen Fielding, the "Visiting Physician" of the title, connect on more than a surface level with any of her lovers? Why did Sophie, the voluptuous town "vixen", leave Meridian without taking her daughter with her? What secrets drive Prudential, the health clinic "nurse" to be so prickly and harsh at times? What are the circumstances of sherriff David Jasperson's past that caused him to divorce, get custody of his son, change occupations and move back to his hometown?

For light reading on a summer day, The Visiting Physician is perfect. Just don't look for a neatly wrapped up ending. It seems there may be more to this story than even the author is telling us.

After reading her Daughters of the New World, I had to get my hands on another of her works. Like Daughters, this book has strong female characters, and deals with the ever-popular "mother-daughter" delimma of finding oneself. The storyline develops around missing children in a small town which this visiting Physician is drawn to. Unlike her earlier work in Daughters, the supporting characters are underdeveloped,but Ms. Shreve keeps your interest with her unique twist on the main character's connection with the town.

The history is told from the viewpoint of the adminbistration, not the student. This absence of the students'viewpoint is the major weakness. The first part deals with Colonial History up to the early 20th century when W&M became a public institution. As W&M has an extraordinary history, filled with war at the doorstep, constant struggle just to survive, the story is essentially interesting. The most informative part of the second section when the college is public is the insight into funding of a public university and the stupidity of some government officials, as the state auditor who recommended in the 1940s as I recall that all donated money be credited to the state. The contrary argument, which won, was that that would simply kill all donations to the college. This is a good book for libraries and may be used by students of American history to benefit.

"The Language Teaching Matrix" was a required text for the methodology component of my masters course in education that I took in 1994. It is scholarly, thorough, easy to read, and a worthy choice for any TESOL graduate program, but I'll have to admit that I didn't really enjoy using it. In Nunan's Second Language Teaching and Learning, which was published in 1999, we get to meet real students and hear humorous and occasionally humbling anecdotes. The Language Teaching Matrix, however, only talks of "the teacher" and "the learner", and the materials that Richards develops and uses are invariably generic and lifeless to be beyond belief. But then again, if you are one of the world's most successful EFL textbook writers, why change anything? Buy this book only if you love Jack Richards' textbooks and want to emulate his undeniable professionalism. Otherwise, go for Nunan's SLTL, which I think is far more useful and interesting to read.

I have a grandson with ADD, so I'm pretty familiar with the subject. I thought susan shreve did an excellent job in portraying the nuances of the character in an ADD child.Most of the story was very authentic and honest, especially the poignant portrayal of the effects of "being different' and being labeled as such. The author's best scenes are the ones that take place inside the head of the protagonist. We really feel Ben's pain and isolation.
My big concern with the book is that the parents lie to the principal about Ben's taking ritalin. When the principal urges them to put him on it because of the difficulties he's having, the parents, who are intelligent educated people (the mother is a pharmacist) inform the principal that Ben is using the drug, while in fact, they won't allow him to take it.
I know Ritalin isn't for everyone, but why set an example of parents who tell their son to lie about taking the medication to a person of authority who seems to want to help him?
This aspect of an otherwise very good book make me uncomfortable. Therefore, I have concerns about recommending this book to others.

I bought this book because it seemed the only large, comprehensive history of Utah available. Perhaps it was, but "comprehensive" is a bit misleading. It does indeed dabble in most every aspect of Utah's history: cultural, religious, political, economic. But the good professor does get, suffice it to say, tiresome...Instead of actually delving into the history of Utah he seems to mostly be engaged in personal commentary, with thorough history left as an afterthought. If only he could lay off the adjectives. History is supposed to be filled with more verbs and nouns. ....

In his summation of the 1945-69 era he writes: "Any state blessed with the artistic talents...encases itself in a solid armor against the blows of those Philistines who belittle the arts and humanities as of little consequence." This said referring to people who oppose not art but taxpayer funding of it. See? Commentary, not history.

Perhaps it's being too optimistic to assume that a good, comprehensive history can be written in a 459 page book with large print. But at least the Utah State Historical Society, which commissioned this [book], could have found a better author to attempt it.

Take my advice: Search for a better book on Utah history. Wait around, if you have to.

One of the other reviewers here suggests that Alexander is the wrong man to write a comprehensive history of Utah. This statement is patently absurd! Alexander is one of the most important historians of Mormonism and Utah since Leonard Arrington. Unfortunately, this book is commissioned history, and as such, Alexander's heart doesn't really seem in it. The book is overly verbose at times, and at other times it seems as if the introductions and conclusions to chapters are tacked on. Also, the book is almost entirely narrative with very little interpretation. (Another misstatement of this same reviewer.) In short, this is a workman-like narrative history, but it is not edited or written with the excellence and care that Alexander's other works exhibit. I know that this book was expanded and updated in 2003, so if you are inclined to purchase this book, get the newer edition. If you are looking for a tightly written, superb one volume history of Utah, try Dean L. May's, Utah: A People's History.

Alexander's "official" centennial Utah history is a strong overview of the history of Utah. Their are many pictures to make the work interesting, and the narrative is flowing and enjoyable. It's only flaw its that it does focus on Mormons, but that is the majority religious group in the state so he can be forgiven. The book celebrates the people of Utah past and present and glosses over some not so pretty events. A must read for anyone interested in Utah history.

It is published by the press syndicate of the University of Cambridge

I have read this book and I want to review it

If you're an English language teacher stuck in classrooms with 20 plus students for 30-40 hours a week and your text is a disaster your whole life can be hell. You hate your work and your students hate you. What do you do? Teach something else ? But in the end you always have to come back to the text... This has been the dilemma for teachers at my school over the last few years. While Interchange 1 was pretty good and Interchange 2 OK Interchange 3 was a nightmare-the more so as we realized the weakness was in the book and not in our teaching. So New Interchange 3 is something of a revelation- the changes in this book are not merely cosmetic,they are extensive. The layout and presentation of the grammar is sometimes so good I am in awe of how good this is and how bad the original book was. You realize there is real art to writing an English language teaching book- an art only really appreciated by the hands-on teacher. The other stunning improvement in this book is the content. It's so much more interesting, more contemporary, relevant and personal. So on 2 counts; grammar presentation and content this book is a winner. It's only on the third pillar of communicative language teaching- activities- that there is a weakness. The "Teacher's" book is lazy, unimaginative and unhelpful most of the time. A teacher needs to look elsewhere or in his or her own head for activities. Nonetheless, the improvements in NEW INTERCHANGE 3 are such that I can walk into a classroom with enthusiasm rather than dread.

I found the book to be inadequate to the task. There are lots of lists of what to consider, and what should be done, but very little in the way of practical case studies. Much of it is the sort of blinding obvious stuff that isn't worth the time. A random example--page 272: "For example, if you wanted to present the status of all operational areas as to schedule, you could simply list them on the slide in various colors such as: Green--ahead of schedule Yellow--on schedule Red--behind schedule." Much of the book is repetitive. The same information is presented, and even referenced as such! At least it fills up the pages!

My advice: keep looking. I paid the 96 bucks, but shouldn't have.

Who would deny "how very central music is to our understanding of ourselves"? Must we therefore also accept the conclusions drawn from this premise in [this book]: "Music passes from the separate sphere of the marginal-if-beautiful into the realities of the social world. If music thereby loses its aura, it is granted both the powers and responsibilities of a genuinely political medium." But if music is a "genuinely political medium," it must have a political message. What is that message? Can music that exploits folk elements in a way that led Bartok "to a new conception of the chromatic scale" properly fulfill its political "responsibilities"? Or is this only possible where an affiliation with folk song has the opposite implication, where it acts as an immunizing agent against the tendencies proscribed in the 1948 Resolution of the CCCP, "atonality, dissonances and disharmony"? Can "the powers and responsibilities of a genuinely political medium" as manifested in the music of the past have any relevance for our time? Whatever political meaning the Eroica Symphony may have had for Beethoven and may have for us stands utterly opposed to that which the Nazis were able to find in this same work and which enabled them to exploit it for their own political purposes. It has been suggested that "without words or strong folk elements, it is doubtful if music can convey a clear epic meaning." Die Meistersinger has both, but this did not prevent the Nazis from politically exploiting the work in ways that were totally at odds with what the American critic, Paul Rosenfeld, saw as its inherent content. He was revolted by "the image of an audience of Nazi porkers self-righteously taking in the concluding scene of the music drama, identifying their sinister Fascist state with the bright democratic order figured there, adopting the composer as their prophet and justifying their ways to men with his vision." How can a single work impart such totally different political messages and serve such totally different political purposes? There is, however, no ambiguity at all about what it means to "grant" to music "the powers and responsibilities of a genuinely political medium." To deprive music of its private and personal meaning for us would be to deprive us of privacy and personality, and there is no ambiguity about the political meaning of this--there is no ambiguity about the spiritual deprivation that permits a composer to say, in response to the Central Committee's Resolution, "How could it have happened that I failed to introduce a single folk song in the score of my opera? It seems strange and almost incredible to me, and can be explained only as a manifestation of my inherent snobbishness" (Muradeli). Or, "the absence, in my works, of the interpretation of folk art, that great spirit by which our people lives, has been with utmost clarity and definiteness pointed out by the Central Committee....I am deeply grateful for it" (Shostakovich). Or "I must admit that I, too, have indulged in atonality....In the future I hope to get rid of this mannerism" (Prokofiev).

George Perle, "The Listening Composer"