The style of writing and the stories themselves are different from anything I have ever read. Imagery is strong...to a fault for my taste...in The Catherine Trilogy. In the others, I sometimes felt burdened by it. Different is not all bad, however, and actually offers much needed contrast to what is available in lesbian fiction.

Nine year old Raydeen Grimley's grandfather moves into her house after the death of Raydeen's grandmother. Grandpa Grimley is depressed over the death of his wife and mostly stays in his room. Little Raydeen makes it her mission in life to "fix Grandpa's broken heart." As the story unfolds, the reader comes to realize that Grandpa stays away from Raydeen because she looks and acts so much like Grandma Grimley. This book is an easy read and Ingrid Tomey carefully examines the topics of death and depression. Through the eyes of a nine year old child, the reader experiences the grieving process. Ultimately, young Raydeen succeeds in winning the heart of Grandpa Grimley and the reader.

This book wasn't bad for the age group it was intended for, but some of the concepts were repeated in an odd way. If I had to choose a book about antonyms, I would definitely explore my options further before I chose this one. The book is not terrible, I just didn't think it was one I would use in the classroom, even with young children.

I was looking for a book that would actually show me how to do some lymphatic massage. But this book is more technical. It has alot of information on the system, but it doesn't talk about how to perform lymphatic massage. That was the only down side to this book. Nicole, L.M.T.

Young Johnny Dunlap does not really have a friend until the strange Dumont family moves to the dilapidated farm near by. This undated fantasy is set in rural New England, detailing the bonds of deep friendship between two boys, one of whom just happens to be a boy only part time...You have heard of Central European tales about werewolves--humans who are forced to turn into beasts of prey at night. In this less dark version, Coatsworth imagines a less frightening, deliberate (for the sheer joy of night running) transformation from child or adult into a FOX by night. Well known to literary audiences for her penchant for small animals, Coatsworth creates an unusual situtation: can a human boy remain best friends with a boy/fox?

Eager to prove his sincere devotion to the queer French Canadian boy, Johnny risks everything to protect him from fox hunters and to reconcile him with his callous father. I leave you to figure out which one on the cover is the werefox. This is actually a cute, light read which emphasizes friendship, loyalty and good relations with parents and neighbors. Short--only 71 pages with many pen and ink illustrations. Fine for imaginative children up to age 12.

I read some of the reviews on Amazon and should have paid more attention. I knew not to expect a helpful book, but some of the reviewers said the book was humourous. NOT! There is no point or purpose to this book.

Meyer's book is funny and well-written. Sprinkled throughout with tales from the author's own experiences, it is a fast and easy read. This book is best for the grad who has never lived on his or her own before, and probably too basic for those who had their own apartments, jobs and roommates while in college. While not a comprehensive guide, it does give good ideas on where to start. Don't depend on it to tell you everything, but count on it to give you a push in the right direction.

I just made the transition from college to the "real world." And to make things even more complicated for myself, I moved across the country. Not only did I have to deal with starting new and paying off debts accrued from life as a student, I was doing so thousands of miles away from my nest. Ingrid's book came to me in the nick of time, before I packed my bags and headed back to mom's house. I found her advice reasonable, her delivery sound. I was a bit reluctant at first since I dare say my ego cannot take much talking down to from someone my own age with a book deal, but I didn't find ON YOUR OWN TWO FEET preachy or stuffy in the least bit as I have found other personal life management books. Her tone was light and funny, a quality much appreciated from a gal who spends nights with a furrowed brow glancing over credit card statements and bills.

I would recommend this book to anyone who finds themselves in the transition after graduation, when the funds from student loans have dried up and repayment looms, when apartment life away from the folks is appealing but seems out of reach, etc. I hope to see more from Ingrid, perhaps something for us approaching 30.

Two-and-a-half stars

Ingrid Winther Scobie is a history professor at Texas Women's University. For her biography of the woman whom Richard M. Nixon is supposed to have dubbed "the pink lady," Scobie got the cooperation of Douglas before the latter's death.

Helen Gahagan Douglas (1900-1980) was a successful stage performer and less successful film actress who married her leading man, Melvyn Douglas (1899-1981). The Douglases were politically engaged lefties in 1930s and '40s Hollywood. When films fizzled for Helen Gahagan Douglas, she had a successful career as one of America's first congresswomen (1944-1950). Her electoral career was abruptly ended by "tricky Dick," her opponent in California's 1950 U.S. Senate race.

I was raised to think of "Nixon's" sobriquet as Scobie does -- as merely a smear. The facts are, however, that Douglas WAS pretty darn "pink." Indeed, members of her own party (as opposed to her Republican opponents) considered her "red," and said so publicly.

Apparently, neither Library Journal reviewer J. Sara Paulk nor the anonymous writer of the book description above carefully read the book, or they'd know that it was not Nixon, but Douglas' Democratic opponent, Ralph Manchester Boddy, who coined the phrase "the pink lady." If they weren't such hardcore, leftist Democrats, they'd know that Nixon never smeared Douglas. It was Boddy who strongly suggested that Douglas was not a "liberal" or even a socialist, but a "traitorous" communist ("red hot") with a "blueprint of subversive dictatorship."

Even forty years later, neither Scobie nor the reviewers can accept that Nixon, who was a moderate Republican, was the much brighter, more capable candidate, and that California voters -- including Democrats, and indeed, much of the Democratic Party -- had soured on socialism. Hence, they must cling to the myth of the Nixon "smear."

As historian Irwin F. Gellman writes, "The U.S Senate contest in California during 1950 has become the stuff where legend has replaced fact. 'Tricky Dicky' smeared Helen Gahagan Douglas, the 'Pink Lady,' thus relying on the anti-Communist hysteria to propel the dirty trickster into the upper house...."

But in point of fact, Gellman continues, "[Douglas'] painfully inept stewardship - not Nixon - guaranteed her demise."

And so, the real smear was the one invented by leftwing Democrats as revenge against Nixon, which they and their successors in politics, academia, and the media have repeated ever since - even after Nixon's death.

Douglas' story fills Scobie's personal need to narrate the life of a strong mother/career woman role model. (She often refers, inappropriately, to her subject as "Helen," as if Douglas were her personal friend, rather than her subject.) Although my role model is gone, I'm not in the market for a new one. Besides, while writing about heroes is a worthy purpose for historians (although feminists heap contempt on that project, if the heroes are white, heterosexual males), the writing must be in service of the truth. But the truth is not Scobie's priority. She considers herself a "feminist biographer," for whom providing a usable past trumps the search for truth.

When it originally appeared, Center Stage had value for me as a chronicle of the postwar swing, in California, away from FDR's left/center, New Deal coalition, and to a center/right (though Scobie sees it as merely right-wing), Republican politics. But with the 1999 publication of Irwin F. Gellman's painstakingly researched, much more honest biography of Nixon's early career, The Contender: Richard Nixon: The Congress Years, 1946-1952, the already limited value of Scobie's highly partisan work fell even more. Read Scobie, read Gellman, and then tell me what you think.

Economic history is studied based on concepts such as Merchantilism, Physiocracy, Classism, Marxism, Keynesianism, and so on. There are important people involved in this conceptual framework, such as Petty, Quesney, Smith, Marx, Keynes, and so on. Rima manages to take this simple history and create something far more complicated than necessary, and at times, incoherently pedantic. For example, Rima tries to explain derivation of a demand curve AND Hick's optimum conditions in 13 pages. Get real! Rather than issue a prolegomenon (Rima's word, page 202), I will make a suggestion: if this book is required reading for a college course, throw it away, and purchase Stanley L. Brue's excellent, coherent, and well-edited book, 'The Evolution of Economic Thought' (sixth edition). Brue's book is pricey, but you will actually learn something useful and interesting, and you might get from Quesnay to Keynes in 10 weeks without killing yourself!

The author made several comments that were maddening to me. One was "Firearms are commonplace in the USA" when referring to William on a ranch for vacation. Firearms are not commonplace in the US. I don't own a gun, no one I know owns a gun.That is an unfair comment.

The author also explains that with her affair, Diana didn't take seriously her marriage vows, yet in the paragraph above, Charles and Camilla have arranged to spend Sunday's together. Double standard? Or is it an author kissing up to the next monarch and going after someone who can't defend herself. The author writes that she had had discussions with Diana, I am sure where ever Diana is now, she regrets ever speaking with this woman.

Don't waste your money as I did. I am done purchasing anything by this author.

Once again Ms. Seward has went out of her way to misrepresent her subjects. Much as she did in "The Queen and Di."
Her attemps to make the Spencer family look beneath contempt have backfired because her readers know otherwise. For instance she wants us to think that members of the Royal family do not have affairs with the hired help when of course it is common knowledge that they do.
In fact those incidents go back as far as King William III and an ancestor of Camilla Parker Bowles, 16 year old Arnold Van Keppel, who was the King's homosexual lover.
Seward's sources are, for the most part, non-existent.
The general public knows as much about Princes William and Harry as Seward does because just about the only accurate information in the book has to do with their birth places and dates, schools attended and what is already known about them from other sources available to all. Thus she has deliberately manufactured a load of nonsense in order to cash in on the popularity of two young men who deserve a better chronicler.

This book is good but at the being its all about di and slowly she drifts out as you read along but its good and worth geting

Even when the anecdotes were interesting, the writing style was poor (re-stating something several times won't make it more interesting). A compilation is supposed to make the anecdotes more interesting and slickly written, but I found that in the cases where I had read the source of his information, the source was better. The book was a gift, so I read the whole thing, but only out of duty.

Poorly written. Simply putting an exclamation point after a sentence doesn't make it astounding! Or Exciting! And the overuse of quotation marks gives this "book" an odd feel. Poorly written and poorly researched. Stay away...or better yet, buy my copy from me. It's too small for the birdcage.