This is a very good biography of an overlooked great American thinker. Mr. Brent does a good job of recounting the life of Peirce without getting bogged down in the details of Peirce's philosophy which is well documented in several other books. The book also attempts to analyze Peirce's behavoir and why he failed as an academic, something that desperately needed to be done. As Peirce's reputation inevitatably increases, this biography will become a classic reference to this very interesting American.

This book contains a great deal of information on the life of a sadly-neglected philosopher; one of the most brilliant Americans of the 19th century. Dr. Brent has a wonderful, at times even poetic, writing style, and he has "lived" with Peirce so long that he has excellent insight into the man behind the philosophy. Struggling through Peirce in a class? This book may not make his philosophy "easy"--but it will make him more human.

A decent read, but not something I would spend a lot of time trying to get a hold of.

Brings a different "light" to the Manson Family, though I suspect that it's not exactly 100% true.

If you're building a true crime library, add this to your Manson collection. If you're just looking for the Manson story stick with Helter Skelter.

I enjoyed this book much better than Helter Skelter because this book explained how the murders actually happened. Who died first etc. I felt Helter Skelter was left wanting in this area. I also liked the information about the family. I highly encourage others to read this book.

I'VE ALWAYS LIKED THIS BETTER THAN THE MORE POPULAR MANSON TOME,''HELTER SKELTER'' BECAUSE,FOR ONE THING,UNLIKE THAT BOOK,THE STORY HERE UNFOLDS CHRONOLOGICALLY.TRUTH IS INDEED STRANGER THAN FICTION,AND THIS BOOK PROVES IT.ED SANDERS ADEQUATELY CONVEYS THE HORROR OF THE MURDERS[OO-EE-OO],INVENTS A NEW WORD[''ACIDASSIN'',WHEN DESCRIBING SUSAN ATKINS KILLING SHARON TATE],PROVIDES POSSIBLE INFLUENCES ON MANSONS PHILOSOPHY,AND COVERS THE GARY HINMAN MURDER BY BOBBY BEAUSOLEIL BETTER THAN BUGLIOSI DID.READERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THIS BOOK ENDS WITH THE TRIAL PHASE.........THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST TRUE CRIME BOOKS,AND THE ONLY REASON FOR IT BEING OUT OF PRINT WAS ITS BEING ECLIPSED BY THE OTHER BOOK MENTIONED ABOVE........DEFINITELY DESERVES A REPRINT.

After tackling the subject of greed and selfishness in "Martin Chuzzlewit",Charles Dickens turned his critical eye on pride and selfishness to achieve another masterwork in "Dombey and Son"."Dombey and Son" presents a vivid "criticism of life" teeming with unforgettable characters and scenes,written with an almost surreal intensity.The novel,like most of Dickens' others,is hauntingly lyrical and is embued with a quiet melancholy."Dombey and Son" tells the story of the destructiveness of a rich merchant's deadening pride on those around him.It details his own "comeuppance",when after ruining much of the lives of those who love him,Dombey is nearly destoyed by the villains and fools surrounding him,who have used his wife-a tragic and desperate golddigger more proud than he-to strike at him."Dombey and Son" illustrates the old message that nothing but love and kindness matter,that we and everything we have will ultimately perish and pride and selfishness are the frailest goods to be bought in this vanity fair.Yet the book's many original characters gives the conception fresh life and its comedy both genial and satiric lightens the sad gloom of such a moral tale.There are(as typical of Dickens)many grotesques in the novel-some good(the affectionate and good-natured Captain Cuttle,the saucy and defensive Susan Nipper),some bad(the sour martinet Mrs. Pipchin,the apoplectic and sycophantic Major) and some just plain evil(that emblem of consummate hypocrisy-Mr. Carker)."Dombey and Son" is like a grand feast where there is so much being served,that you don't know where to begin-and this for some readers may not be a good thing.The book is very long and Dickens' long sentences dwell lovingly on every detail(you will probably never see so many semicolons on one page);they who prefer something that gets to the point quicker or someting lighter may not have the patience for Dickens.However for me this was not a problem-Dickens' use of sentimentality,though, was.It is unfortunate that he chose as with Little Nell,to "angelize" Florence Dombey.She is fatally marred by being made to not only meekly love a father who neglects and despises her but to wander forlornly around their house,kissing the furniture he has touched and spending half the book in tears.This is a shame since Florence is at times charming and some of the book's more powerful scenes make effective use of her.The character of the precocious and doomed Paul Dombey,however is of a different achievement.The chapter entitled(I think)"What the waves were always saying" details with hallucinatory intensity the world to the eyes of a dying child and was one of the most famous scenes with the Victorians;it remains one of the most powerful in all of literature."Dombey and Son" despite its length and flaws will always remain for the true lover of literature-immortal.

this novel, sitting as it does between dickens' early and late novels, captures the best of both dickens. it has the humor, grotesque characters, and melodrama that characterized the early novels, but it isn't without the unified structure, mature style, and psychological depth that were the hallmarks of his later books. it's one of my favorite dickens books (i've read 11 of them), and if it weren't for the length i'd recommend dombey as the place to start for someone looking to read chas. if 900 pages doesn't faze you then by all means dive in. if it does, then start with 'great expecations' instead. but be sure to come back to dombey. you won't be disappointed.

The inexplicably neglected 'Dombey and Son' is a stunning masterpiece of 19th century fiction. The invention and bravura of Dickens' use of language is astounding. Coupled with that is a wonderful insight into the introduction of the railways in Victorian England and the often oppressive, alienating powers of a rampant Capitalist system that forces itself above the values of family and personal relationships. In 'Dombey and Son', the dangers of equating business partnerships with social ones are vividly revealed. Coupled with all of this is the presentation of one of Dickens' most compellingly vile villans: Carker. You could call this book, and the ones that come after it, "Dickens' with Teeth" and it is 'Dombey and Son' that inaugurates this development in Dickens' writing. Read it. It's wonderful.

A Tale of Two Cities is set in the two cities of London and Paris, in the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century. A Doctor Manette is brought from France, where he has been wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years, to England where his daughter has been raised. They testify in a trial against Charles Darnay, who is eventually aquitted and later marries Miss Manette. Darnay is really a French nobleman, the Marquis Evremonde, who has left his estate in France to work for a living in humble circumstances in England. During the French Revolution, his representative in the old country is arrested, and the idealistic Darnay goes home to defend this man only to get himself arrested. This occurs during the Terror, and Darnay must expect to be executed as a treacherous emigrant. The final chapters of the book revolve around the effort to save Darnay and his family from the guillotine. The book seems to have two distinct parts. In the beginning, Dickens mainly describes settings and characters, while the plot is mostly invisible. Then, as the end of the book approaches, focus moves to a chain of more or less surprising events, which bind together other seemingly disconnected events in the first chapters. Towards the end, the Tale is almost a Thriller. Dickens reveals himself as a master of the English language, a genius of style and a great wit early in the book. His descriptions rival those of Turgenev, although his descriptions of misery are in a moralizing tone that is never heard from the more subtle Russian. One problem I found with this book is that the characters seem a little too black and white, there is little of the psychological complexity found in, say, the writings of Dostoevski or Ibsen. Two interesting exceptions are Sydney Carton, a family friend with great ability and potential but a life-long lack of self-control, and Dr. Manette, who we find struggling to repress the memory of his imprisonment. A Tale of Two Cities is certainly great literature from a writer who even in the most gloomy circumstances finds something to amuse us. But I find it hard to suffer with his poor virtuous Ms. Manette/Mrs. Darnay with her blonde hair, blue eyes, unlimited loyalty, and talented interior design. She is simply too much, too perfect, too unreal. As for Dickens' description of the Great Revolution, vivid and engaging as it is, it is plagued by the same hyperbolic tendency. A Tale of Two Cities, then, is a highly enjoyable and fascinating read, but it doesn't have the complexity and insight characteristic of the very best novels (in my humble and subjective opinion).

This book is incredible. I read it last year (in eighth grade), and I love it. I love Charles Dickens' language and style. Whoever is reading this may have little or no respect for my opinions, thinking that I am to young to comprehend the greatness of the plot and language, and I admit that I probably do not completely appreciate this classic piece of literature. I do read above a 12th grade level, although that doesn't count for a whole lot. It took me a while to get into this book. In fact, I dreaded reading it for a long time. But nearer to the end, I was drawn in by the poignant figure of a jackal, Sydney Carton. In his story I became enthralled with this book, especially his pitiful life. After I read and cried at Carton's transformation from an ignoble jackal to the noblest of persons, I was able to look back over the parts of the book that I had not appreciated, and realize how truly awesome they are. I learned to appreciate all of the characters, from Lucy Manette to Madame Defarge. I also was affected by all of the symbolism involved with both the French Revolution, and the nature of sinful man, no matter what the time or place. My pitiful review could never do justice to this great book, please don't be discouraged by my inability.

Charles Dickens deserves two thumbs up for his magnificent creation, A Tale of Two Cities. This novel does an explicit job of foreshadowing and portraying the French Revolution in the eyes of many different people. Dickens' attention to details also helps the novel flow well and at the same time, create irony and suspense. For example, when Mrs. Defarge remained almost invisible, her stitching revealed a lot about who she was and what her plans were. This brought irony to the plot. I also enjoyed the symbolism throughout the story. It was thought provoking. When I read the story for the first time, I thought some situations were unnecessary and were dragged on, but as I furthered into the book, every detail that previously occurred started to make sense. It is amazing that an author could make all of these details have parallels and with so much precision. I also liked how he formed the characters. Many of the characters within the novel were clearly described for a good reason. Most of them had one other character that they paralleled with. It is not easy to develop characters that are similar to one another, yet also opposite. There were also many twists to the story that made me want to keep reading so I could find out what was really going to happen, but I do not want to reveal any twists as to spoil the story for those who have not read it. I would highly recommend reading A Tale of Two Cities to any person who enjoys reading a wonderful story. Just remember to pay attention to the details and the book will make sense in the end.

I have always had an affinity for post-apocalypse novels. This genre has become much less popular since the end of the cold war. But, Dust was really a pleasure to read. It is a story about the fall of civilization due to an ecological breakdown (as opposed to the standard nuclear holocaust). I am not a scientist, nor do I have much interest in that subject - until I read this book.

The author sets forth a compelling thesis that mass extinction on earth is cyclical. Dust is written in a style so that even someone like myself who has little scientific background, can understand the scientific concepts that are put forth.

My only real complaint about Dust is that the author does not fully explain some of the characters and events. For example, I wanted to know more about the worm affliction that one scientists suffered from. I also wanted to know more about society after the fall (perhaps that will be the next book). I do think that the author put in at least one gratuitous scene of attacking bats. I believe that this was done as an homage to Stephen King, since the author also describes a house in Main surrounded by a wrought iron fence that is festooned with bat icons (I read this description of King's house years ago in a magazine). I guess if you're going to write this genre and pay homage to someone, King's the person to do it to.

All in all, Dust is a good book with a few shortcomings, but certainly worth reading. I hope to see more from this author (hopefully, a part 2 to Dust).

What a terrific book. Pellgrinoo is a scientist, and, like Jurassic Park, there's a lot of scientific fact mixed in with thiis excellent fiction. It COULD happen, and it was very frightening! From all insects dying to vsampire bats and swarms of killer dust mites behaving llike piranha, this book is a chilling and easily pictured view of the future. Jakob-Creutzfeld Disease (Mad Cow in humans) plays a big part. People just can't win. Humbling and inspiring I can't recommend this enough! Think Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, with Darwin thrown in for good measure. Extraordinary!

This novel just chilled me to the bare bones. The characters, even those who appeared for just a short while before entering the book's rather extensive obituary, were so fleshed-out that I was sometimes tricked into believing that they were about to become main characters. The evangelistic Jerry Sigmond seemed so real to me that I was certain that Pellegrino was describing something terrible that had really happened to him in life. His co-author on "Chariots for Apollo" (another 5 star book) has told me that an evangelical radio personality, and other anti-Darwin types did indeed send mobs to destroy his two New Zealand laboratories and bring him before "ad hoc committees" during the early 1980's, whereupon he was forced to renounce his theories about oceans under the ice of Jupiter's and Saturn's moons, ancient bacteria reaching Earth from Mars, and what everyone now knows as the "Jurassic Park" theory. Like Galileo, Pellegrino's ideas have turned out to be correct, but that did not stop New Zealand from putting him on trial as some sort of heretic, and passing sentence (Luckilly, he was able to get out of the country in 1982). Commenting on the New Zealand Jerry Sigmonds vs Pellegrino, Sir. Arthur C. Clarke ("2001: A Space Odyssey") has written, "Evidently, some New Zealanders are dumber than the sheep - which outnumber them!" So, this is certainly a scientist who has paid his dues, and it shows in his fiction. He reads like the B.B. King of the eco-thriller. Stephen King's "The Stand," to which this book has been compared, is bright and cheery by comparison. One cannot sing the blues so well if his life has been easy. Perhaps some truths can only be sung as Blues, or written as fiction. Also true to life is the story's failure to select one answer from the many theories about the scientific (and in some cases even theological) causes given for the insect extinction at the root of the Dust crisis. This is exactly how science works - differing from religion in that it is based far more on questions than on answers. In real science, most of the time we just never know. For more than two thousand years of using asprin, no one really knows how it works, and though we now know how to clone people like carrots, we've barely a clue as to how the first diploid cell really becomes a human being. Which brings me to another truth: Dr Charles Drew. The man who developed blood typing but bled to death was, as Pellegrino writes, driven away from a "whites only" hospital after a severe accident. The current "urban myth" seems to arise from recent revisionist historians who (these past two years) have insisted that driving Dr. Drew away from a "Whites only" hospital had something to do with "lack of proper medical facilities" and nothing at all to do with his being a black man in the deep south in 1950. None other than NASA's Jesco von Puttkamer happened to be in the neighborhood when it happened, and the incident became one more reason, on the heels of the still fresh lessons of Auschwitz, that America simply had to wake up, and change its ways. That's just the two cents I have to add, but I'm just an aerospace engineer. What do I know?

Have you ever wondered what makes America? What is patriotism? What is right and wrong within YOUR society? Peirce helps in your discovery of who you are among your people. He preaches, but as any good philosopher, expects his readers to think hard. Not for beginners, but entertaining.

The Two Pragmatisms is for and about Mounce. The four pragmatists covered (Pierce, James, Dewey, Rorty) get a few pages of summary at the begginning of each chapter, the remaining bulk of the book is about the authors personal ideas. Mounce is a religous man, and strongly attacks both Dewey and Rorty. If you are interested in Mounce and his ideas, then read this book, otherwise take a pass. I found it disappointing, poorly written, and really only suitable for Mouncian scholars.

I do commend this illuminating study to anyone interested inthe meaning and implications of pragmatism. I find itdifficult,however, to subscribe to the author's thesis when he claims that William James and John Dewey drove Pierce's pragmatism on a wrong path at the turn of the century. This may sound self-evident, but pragmatism and radical empiricism were clearly distinct from one another to begin with. There is little - if any - doubt that William James was perfectly aware that the particular kind of philosophy he was developing was steering away from Pierce's pragmatism. Hence, probably, his preference for the formulation 'radical empiricism". Howard Mounce himself writes(p.231)that the pragmatism of James, Dewey and later Rorty "is not a new philosophy but is a variation on Positivism, a form of extreme Empiricism. It is in conflict with the first Prgmatism, not at incidental points, but in its essentials". Should this be regarded as a wrong turn ? Readers may turn to the works of people like James Wesley Robbins (University of Indiana - South Bend) for a slightly different approach to better understand the difference between metaphysical and non-metaphysical pragmatism / radical empiricism, the latter having favored reform and religious freedom at the turn of the century. It could, and should therefore be argued that William James and John Dewey's contribution is to have adapted pragmatism to the 20th century. This cannot be conceived as a wrong turn, James and Dewey made sure pragmatism would never become a dead end.

I did not care for this book. It contained more speculation than fact, and it contained many discrepencies. There are better books written about the Tate-LaBianca murders. The only good thing that I can say is that it has some good pictures, but thanks to the internet, these can be found anywhere.

I'm not sure how anyone could ever dismiss Ed Sanders' "The Family," a detailed account of Charles Manson and the murders his Family committed during the summer of Woodstock, 1969. A superb companion book to Vincent Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter," Sanders' "The Family" is an alternative trip through the madness that defines one of the most infamous and horrifying crimes in American history.

While "Helter Skelter" is a factual, by-the-numbers recount, "The Family" is an attempt to get beneath the surface of these unimaginable crimes. Sanders, a pseudo hippie himself, well-versed in the howling of beatnik eras and the twang of Bob Dylan travels, had unparalleled leeway into the lives of Manson's followers before and during the criminal trials of 1970. He hung with the waifs at Spahn ranch before it burned to the ground. He camped with these very weird kids in Death Valley. And he caught wind of the numerous crazy rumors that floated around like so much LA smog while writing alongside the army of TV/print reporters covering the trial. His work is valid, and his opinions cut through much of the myth and legend of this case. It is also the first true book ever released on this case, having been published in 1971.

Sanders' flippant disregard for Manson's con, and the con of his worshipers, is refreshing. His style reminds me of the extraordinary ruminations of Evan S. Connell in "Son of the Morning Star" - a fantastic work dealing with another rather bloody historical event (Custer and Little Big Horn). Sanders refuses to accept the myth or the legend, and reveals the dirty, flea-bitten truth. His is an unconventional, creative approach, told from the eyes of a most intelligent mind.

But I still find much of Sanders' work to be extremely irresponsible. He recounts many of the urban myths surrounding this crime, including Manson's supposed alliances with Satanic cults, weird mysterious videotapes existing (yet disappearing) that reportedly show eventual victims with the Family, filmed sacrifices, CIA involvement, political connections stretching all the way to Washington D.C., and so on add nausea give me a break.

The Manson trial was a circus, and the conspiracy theories that spewed forth rivaled the theories surrounding yet another 1960s crime known as the JFK assassination. These were horrible times in American history, California Dreaming or not, and the simple fact of the matter is that Charles Manson and his family lived a counterculture lifestyle that was hip with middle class and upper-middle class culture during this era. They hung, ever-so-briefly, with the young in-crowd of Hollywood. But when the constant use of psychedelic drugs, combined with the unique isolation of Spahn ranch, began to take hold, Manson and his family entered a deadly alternative world having no touch with reality. The in-crowd slams the door in their face, the hope for rock and roll superstardom disappears, Manson becomes God, it's time to strike back at the rich and powerful piggies. It's such a sad and ugly story.

Sanders perhaps gets closer to the truth than any writer ever truly has with these crimes. It's all here, urban myths, unsolved crimes in the same neighborhood, animal bones, dirty laundry, uneducated white trash motivation spawned by years of institutionalization. It's Group Think at its worst formed by the hangover of one endless lost summer weekend.

"The Family" is my third book to read on Manson's pathetic crimes. I find it telling that after reading Sanders' influential work, I realize I now know all I ever really want to know.

If you can get past Sanders' incredibly annoying writing style, his obvious biases and his wild speculations, this is the most complete narrative ever written about the Manson family. It's certainly far better than that self-glorifying novel Helter Skelter.

A Dickens Christmas story is meant to be read in front of the fire with children gathered 'round. As configured in this particular ebook format you cannot do anything but sit in front of your screen and read ninety pages of nineteenth century prose. Not useful at all! This ebook would be far more usefull if, for example, you could copy or print it onto holiday paper. Since this story is in the public domain, blocking those options in this ebook is silly.

When Dickens was good, he was very very good. When he was bad, he was wordy and sappy and boring. Did you ever wonder why you never heard of the three stories in this book? Because they're so unremarkable! The title story is the best; i.e. it's the only one that's even readable. Do yourself a favor, don't read this book