Published in 1965, Prochain Episode was written while the author, a Quebec nationalist, was awaiting trial for possession of a stolen car. The book caused a sensation when it was published and immediately catapulted Aquin into the ranks of the literary ey elite of Quebec. A must read for anyone wanting to understand the profound forces at work in Quebec during the the 1960s.

The term "manor house" is not particularly Scottish, nor is a Scots laird a "lord of the manor," but the feudal similarities are there -- at least until the Victorian period and the pervasive influence of Sir Walter Scott. In practice, the Norman feudal pattern arrived in Scotland very shortly after it was brought to England, and Queen Margaret and her sons formalized the system in the 12th century. A few Scots buildings date to the medieval period, such as Drum Castle in Aberdeenshire, which was erected during the reign of Robert Bruce, but even those houses that are only two or three centuries old are often the seats of families of ancient pedigree. Fenwick is, naturally, an architectural historian, and the bulk of this combination history and guide is given over to discussions of French and Dutch influence, the ubiquity of "doocots" (dovecotes), and the piling of Victorian Gothic ornamentation on facades of much plainer design. However, there is also a great deal of ethnography (e.g., the "separateness" of Fife) and family history threaded throughout, including notes on the Setons, Hopes, Clerks, Forbeses, Grants, Lindsays, and the Earls of Moray, among many others. Scores of black-and-white photos and pen-and-ink drawings of architectural exteriors add to this book's usefulness to the Scottish specialist.

Mr. Freeman along with Hub Zemke detail Hub's war fromthe period he was shot down to the end of the war. Thereis good information here on the German camp at Barth, which is a camp I find to be overlooked. The story of Hub being shot down alone is worth the price of admission. Its all here. The interogation, the camp, life as a POW, and liberation by the Ruskies. Good stuff!

Selby's first proper novel was Last Exit to Brooklyn, a searing bludgeon of a book that showed that Naturalism was alive and well, and ornerier than ever. It became celebrated in certain circles, incited several obscenity trials, was banned in many places, and generally fought the good fight. His last proper novel was Requiem for a Dream, a lacerating, anguished masterpiece that is liable to haunt one long after one reads it. That was in 1978. A collection of stories entitled Song of the Silent Snow followed; then all was still. Suddenly, twenty years later, Selby reappeared - it turns out that he had been writing The Willow Tree for all that time, and finished it only around 1998. What can a reader expect from this man after twenty years of nothing? A stunning comeback? A return to realistic form? A complete flop? Last Exit to Brooklyn redux, or something new and unprecedented? The result is, actually, a bit of all of those.

Confusion abounds, and what this book actually meant to do is not entirely clear. The Kirkus reviewer's supercilious attitude is uncalled for (one great book is more than you'll ever write, dude), but I can understand his frustration. This is the story of a thirteen-year-old black kid from the ghetto, whose girlfriend is killed by a bunch of Hispanic thugs, and who swears undying revenge. He is then found by a little old man who lives underground in a luxurious apartment, and very slowly cured of his hatred. That sounds like a sentimental fantasy, and it is one, but only to a degree. It's actually quite difficult to apply A Christmas Carol analogies, as the Kirkus reviewer does, to a book that features about ten profanities per page. In fact, Selby never altogether forsakes his ultra-realism - the scenes of poverty and desperation are evoked as powerfully as ever, the scenes where Bobby sneaks about the streets are rivetingly suspenseful, and Moishe's recollection of concentration camps is genuinely frightening. Bobby's mother only appears in a few scenes, but her all-pervasive despair is chillingly real, and the bit where Bobby sends her a letter at Moishe's behest is not only the most effective scene in the book, but one of Selby's most effective scenes ever.

But on the other hand, this is certainly no exercise in realism. Consider Moishe's luxurious apartment, which contains a workshop, an exercise room, a Jacuzzi, several fine beds, a refrigerator with a seemingly endless supply of ice cream (with chocolate sauce - Selby is determined that you clearly understand that THERE IS CHOCOLATE SAUCE in this refrigerator, and to that end repeats this fact about a thousand times), and so on. But that, actually, is not as hard to accept as the fact that Moishe apparently can produce all of this out of thin air. The book doesn't show that he has a job, or that he ever had one, and it's never explained whence he procures all the money that he doubtless spends. In addition to this, Moishe's method of raising Bobby seems to be to pamper him in luxury and ask nothing of him; the contrast between this and Bobby's old life is appropriately striking, but only until the reader starts to ask questions about what happens later. Does Moishe send Bobby to school? Does he teach him a trade? Does he even ask him to do anything? No, nowhere in the book.

And what of Bobby's revenge itself? Yes, it's for the sake of contrast that Selby had Bobby sneak out under cover of night to pursue his enemies right after the most peaceful scenes with Moishe, but this contrast is so severe as to be unconvincing. Could the thirteen-year-old kid that stared slackjawed at Moishe's tales of wartime terror, genuinely affected by them, then go out to corner some fool and proceed to cut off his ear, then return in his new clothes underground and brag about his "righteous" victory to the old man? Given all the problems with the premise that I already mentioned, it only seems completely bizarre, and not in the way it was intended to.

I suspect that Selby, after writing so many books filled with sheer hopelessness, decided to write one where the underdog finally wins one for a change. No wonder it took him so long - he clearly was unused to such a strange notion. The sick despair that filled Requiem for a Dream has been blunted to a sort of quiet sadness now, and it's actually somewhat moving to see the compassion that Selby always had for people in full light. But it's undeniable that The Willow Tree is not on the level of some of its predecessors - twenty years' gestation time notwithstanding, the book still seems muddled and unrealized. I'd welcome a kinder and gentler Selby, in theory, hoping that he'd straighten things out to himself by his next book, but from what I've read about Waiting Period, I fear that he might be losing it completely. Read The Willow Tree if you like being confused.

hubert selby jnr. is far, far from a one book author, as the room, requiem for a dream and this prove. this is a deeply emotional story of a black boy severely beaten by a group of hispanics and his girlfriend left scarred when they throw lye in her face. the boy finds himself in the care of an elderly german who tends to his wounds and tries to comfort him in his grief when the boy discovers that his girlfriend has been driven to suicide because of the attack. the boy then seeks revenge on the gang, taking it in turns to track them down. the elderly german, realising that the boy is being consumed by hate tries to make him realise that love is more important by showing him the good things in life. the one downfall in this story is the repetetive use of the words crying and laughing to describe the boys relationship with the old man but as with all hubert's work, this stays with you long after you have read it and plays on your mind a lot.

The plot of this book is awesome. I love the understanding and compassion of the main characters. Some of the story is a little overly dramatic and hard to swallow, but all in all this is an enjoyable read.

Solberg offers a well-researched and fair biography of one of America's greatest Senators this century and a former Vice President. From his pharmacy days till his death we get the full view of Humphrey's life. Maybe of more interest to history buffs than the average person, this is still well worth a read if you can track down a copy.

Hubert Humphrey, who served in the US Senate for 24 years and dominated that body as few men ever have, has long been a greatly underrated figure by political biographers and historians. Far more than the Kennedy brothers or Lyndon Johnson, Humphrey was a crusader for liberal causes even when they were unpopular, and his leadership in the cause of civil rights puts virtually every other major politician to shame. Yet today Humphrey is almost forgotten by most Americans, and other, less worthy men have gained the credit for the social and economic change that should have been his. Carl Solberg, in this solidly-researched, if somewhat pedestrian biography, shows why Humphrey came to be a rather tragic figure in the history of American liberalism. Humphrey was born in 1911 in the tiny town of Doland (population, about 700) on the isolated South Dakota prairie. The dominant figure in his early life was his father, the town pharmacist and "token" Democrat, whom he adored. Humphrey's childhood was generally happy, but it came to an abrupt end when the Great Depression struck. All of Doland's banks closed and many other businesses failed as the local farmers and townsfolk couldn't afford to pay their bills. The Humphrey drugstore also suffered, and the family had to sell their handsome house and move into a much smaller one. Eventually, Humphrey's father gave up on the dying town and moved to the larger town of Huron, where the local townspeople at first gave his family the cold shoulder and the already-established pharmacists tried to run him out of business. The Humphreys had to fight to survive and young Hubert, who had dreamed of getting a college degree and leaving South Dakota behind, was forced to get a pharmacy degree and help his father run the drugstore. He hated it and after seven years finally told his father that he couldn't do it anymore. He went to college at the University of Minnesota, earned a master's degree in political science, and quickly moved into Democratic politics in the city of Minneapolis. At the age of 34 he was elected Mayor, where he rooted out crooks and helped the labor unions. In 1948 he first achieved the national spotlight with a dramatic speech to the Democratic National Convention in which he forcefully pushed the cause of civil rights for blacks, earning him friends among liberal Democrats but enraging the Southern segregationists, who vowed revenge. Elected to the US Senate in 1948, Humphrey was at first scorned by the angry Southern segregationists who ran the Senate and regarded Humphrey as a wild-eyed fanatic who wanted to give blacks the right to vote (which he did). Humphrey refused to be intimidated and stood his ground, eventually winning friends among liberal Northern Democrats and the respect and affection of even the Southerners. Yet time and again Humphrey, always a poor man in a rich man's political game, found himself passed over for Senate leadership posts and the Presidency by wealthier or less-liberal candidates. In 1960 Humphrey's underfunded presidential campaign was crushed by the Kennedys, who bought huge numbers of votes in the West Virginia primary to finish him off. In 1964 he was picked as Lyndon Johnson's running mate, but his four years as Vice-President were miserable. Johnson was consistently bullying and even backstabbing to Humphrey, despite his loyal service, and Humphrey's support of the Vietnam War (he felt obliged to support the President no matter what his own private feelings about the war) caused many of his liberal supporters to turn against him. In 1968 Humphrey finally won the Democrats' nomination for President, but the bloody riots outside the Convention between Chicago police and antiwar protestors, combined with a bitter split in the party over the Vietnam War, led to his narrow defeat by Republican Richard Nixon. Humphrey eventually made it back to the US Senate, but he was defeated in 1972 and 1976 by lesser-known (and lesser-qualified) Democrats for the presidential nomination. He died from cancer in 1978. Solberg's great insight in this biography is that Humphrey failed to become President because he was both ahead of, and then behind, his times. In the late 1940's and 1950's his fiery speeches on behalf of civil rights and other liberal causes led Democrats to complain that he was too "radical" and "extreme" to be elected President - he was too "liberal" for the country's mood. Yet by the late sixties his support of the Vietnam War led younger liberals to claim he was too "conservative" and "behind the times" to be President. Given Humphrey's achievements - Medicare, the Voting Rights Act, and the Peace Corps were just a few of his ideas which other Presidents put into place - many older liberals may regret that they didn't support him for President in 1968, and many younger liberals may wish they currently had a crusader like Humphrey to lead them. Although Solberg's writing style is rather pedestrian, overall he does a fine job of describing the life of a man who should be rated among the most creative political leaders of the last fifty years.

We know that Carl Solberg took this subject upon his own knowledge of this subject as a expert Time-Life staffer and Minnesota insider to undertake this project. It is a well written and well researched. There are not too many like this account. It fills in a dearth of Humphrey biographies

Dreyfus' understanding of distance learning is quite limited. On page 39 of this book he defines distance learning as "the correspondence-course model of anonymous information consumers." Distance learning has a lot more going for it than that, I have found that there is a lot of interactivity in online courses and a high level of communication with the professors. I took one of Dreyfus' classes at Berkeley as an undergraduate and I never got to talk to him, there was no face to face learning. If you feel that the lecture method is the only way to learn, then the internet is not for you. If you want to feel like a "disembodied presence" go take a class at Berkeley as an undergrad.

This is a very little book dealing with a very big subject: does the internet add or detract from meaning in our lives? Such a topic can be covered only in a cursory way within 107 pages, but the major issues are represented in this book, and provide valuable food for thought.

Some of the questions asked are: can the internet deliver us from our bodily selves? Can the internet be used to disseminate information more efficiently and more universally? Can the internet democratize education and produce experts? What is the effect of the internet on the real? And, lastly, what are the implications of meaning in our lives concerning the internet?

These are all good questions, and each one could fill a volume on its own. Nonetheless, this book is a survey on the topics, and each topic is dealt with in about 20-30 pages.

On the issue of disembodiment and the internet, Dreyfus goes out on a limb himself while accusing others of doing the same. Why rely on the vision of the 'Extropians' (whose website is still active as of this typing) for guidance about how people are using and conceiving the internet? The vision of the web as a disembodied non-physical realm where humans will no longer have to deal with intestinal gas is a vision shared by very, very few. Dreyfus gives this concept far too much validity, and the first section of this book creates a sort of 'phantom threat' of people wanting to release themselves from their bodies (he calls it 'Cyberia'), and warnings about the consequences of wanting to do so.

The interesting part of the first section is the discussion of the failure of AI and the failing hope that cyberbeings will one day replace human beings. Those who are freaked out by the implications of 'The Matrix' will find comfort here.

Dreyfus' best arguments concern the internet and distance learning. Anyone working in education can tell you about the dismal failure of trying to replace human teachers with computers. That's not to say a certain amount of knowledge cannot be obtained from cyber-learning, but that knowledge has its limits. Expert knowledge is even difficult if not impossible from reading books (which has a certain amount of disembodiment in its own, but different, way). Face-to-face or body-to-body interaction is important, and will likely always be important, in mastering a subject or skill. That's why those who can afford it still hire tutors.

Similar arguments are put forth concerning the internet becoming a 'virtual world' in which people can potentially get sucked into and lost. It's true that this can happen, but the internet is not necessarily to blame. People can get sucked into drugs, television, reading, fantasizing, etc., and lose themselves in much the same way they can on the internet. Addictions take many forms, and the internet is but one. Still, a word of caution is justified here: the danger in the confusion of 'telepresence' - or, just because you see someone on your screen means that you're having a 'human experience' - with actual human contact is real and needs to be noted. It is not as great a danger as Dreyfus presents, however. To some it may be, but an edpidemic of Cyberians seems unlikely at this point. Also, Dreyfus points out that using the internet does not involve risk on the human level. This is becoming less and less true. It's not too hard to find out who is behind a pseudonym these days, and identity theft and monetary threat loom more and more. Not to mention that everything you type and look up on the internet is stored somewhere, and can be retrieved for purposes of marketing or otherwise. There are risks, on a fundamental human level, with internet use.

Concerning meaning and the internet, Dreyfus' claims that the internet leads to nihilism are not wholly convincing. They're based on the Kierkegaardian notion of the aesthetic and ethical life. Where Dreyfus sees problems, he defers to Kierkegaard.

Overall, the book presents a negative view on the present and future of the internet. Today it seems almost paranoid in places.The .COM burst gave us all a dose of reality, and there will likely be others to come as far as the internet is concerned. We're not to Dreyfus' distopia yet. Time may change that, or it may not. Likely more threateninig technologies will have to surface first.

This is a good place to start for exploring the philosophical implications of the internet. You won't want to stop here if this book catches your interest.

"On the internet",written by H.L Dreyfus a professor at Berkley is one of the very few books on the market approaching the "net" from a philosophical point of view rather than a technical one.
This approach itself promises for some interesting questions and some very intriguing answers or theories.

Dreyfus touches both the obvious and the not so-obvious sides of the "information superhighway". He emphasizes the fact that while the internet is basically the biggest storage of information we've invented so far, it doesnt possess artificial intelligence (yet?) and thus it is hopelessly still relying on humans to sort this information out, divide it into "important" and "unimportnat" information, and even then, it's furthermore relying on the person looking for the information who has to know what he/she's looking for and how to get it (evaluating the information for example)...
He points out the flaws as he tackles the weaknesses of the search engines which look for key words and not meaning and predicts that we're not exactly close to solving this critical problem.

On probably the most interesting -and simoultaneously most controversial- chapter of the book, learning through online courses, Dreyfus argues that without personal involvement we might acquire the factual knowledge but not the skill since we are not physically "there" to interact with a teacher and to mimic what he/she does as far as the subject of learning is concerned, since, as he claims, this is one of the basics of learning.
He adds a rather strong argument on that, when he says that the fundamental way we "understand" reality is ba having a handle on it. He then goes on to conclude that the internet takes away exactly that: our connection to reality, and reasons that learning online compared to the traditional ways of learning is limited and inadequate, it inhibits proficiency.

With a world rapidly moving on to a digital existence, to functioning through the internet, a digital concious as it may, Dreyfus warns of the dangers. Predictably, alienation and new dimensions of loneliness are central themes of those warnings. We can talk to 10s of people online from different parts of the world without having any relationship with them. The passion is not there he claims, and that is probably the one indisputable point of his book.

Keeping in mind that the internet is still a relatively new medium, any conclusions we might hurry to make might be very flawed themselves. Dreyfus points this out himself when he reminds us of Plato (who seems to be a favorite of his) who 2.500 years ago warned the Athenians of the dangers of the written word. Yet, Dreyfus believes that the inetrnet is a more clear-czt case where we can see the dangers more clearly.
I disagree. We do not know how the internet will develop yet and to what direction. In Europe only a small fraction of the population actually uses it, other than to send or receive an email. This is far below the net's capabilities and it doesn't provide us with enough data about its influence on human societies yet. Most of Dreyfus's observations come undoubtedly from the american usage of the internet (which is pioneering in that sector) but as more and more cultures get involved with the medium we are bound to see the medium take on more changes and uses.

When it comes to online learning i would have to agree with Dreyfus's opinions with one main objection: up until recently learning the traditional way, whether in universities or schools, was going unquestioned and uncriticized. But especially in the 90s voices started abounding , especially from educators, that even that form of learning contains disembodiment. The west alone is filled with people with degrees who carry data but do not carry meaning in their data either exactly what Dreyfus is "accusing" the internet and its online courses of doing.
Learning in a school might provide with the all important human contact but how much of it is meaningful contact and to who's interest is one big open question.
Schooling (universities included) distribute dogma and the process of learning in them is basically limited on absorbing the dogma proficiently. It would be a blatant lie to claim that this type of learning is "better" than the online courses. It would also be an interesting question and discussion what type of learning is then the most proficient one? Dreyfus doesn't touch that question, indeed he seems to believe with no restrictions that the learning he's involved in (in university) is "ok"..
I beg to differ.
All this, with objections and questions included, doesn't mean that "On the internet" is not reccomendable. It's in fact filled with interesting points and at worst it's food for thought. As i said above , alone the fact that it's a philosophical approach on the issue makes it intriguing enough.

But we shouldn't be hasty. In 10-20 years time this book might seem terribly outdated and flawed. In fact, some might claim (and they might be right) that it already is...

This book is not a great value. It does not explain German grammar with the clarity found in April Wilson's "German Quickly" or even Sandburg and Wendell's "German for Reading." It is particularly weak when explaining prepositions and the extended adjective construction, and it does not give pragmatic advice about figuring out the various crucial elements in a German sentence. Moreover, the exercise sentences are dull, and not worth the effort needed to translate them. This book is a classic mainly because German teachers are too lazy to seek out substitutes.

This is a great book to use in conjunction with a course, not on your own. FIU is offering a course that goes by the same title, which makes the understanding of the grammer easier to digest. If you are serious about learning to decipher German text, or just want to become fluent in another language, I suggest you enroll in a basic German I course, so that it all comes together. With this book I have moved forward in my knowledge faster than I did when I just took German I for a full semester. If you are serious about learning, this is a great handbook.

Worth every penny of the price. Good for a strong foundation in German grammar and phrase construction.

This is a nifty booklet but hardly a book. It's only 34 pageslong and I was disappointed. I expected more for $. It contains muchof the same information in Desmond Morris's book "Men and Snakes."

The plethora of myths, beliefs and lore regarding snakes is abundant and appears in all cultures. Many impressions and oft repeated misinformation about serpents embraces all recorded history. Much of the folklore about snakes in the U.S. is derived from Old World superstitions. Passed along in oral tradition from all regions of the world, the reptile is probably the most hated, feared and misunderstood animal of all creatures. More myths and misconceptions about snakes surpass the beliefs of any other common animal. This modest, readable booklet discusses all serpents, especially those of the South. Designed for easy reading, the text provides a wealth of fact, history and folklore of this maligned creature. It is an entertaining discussion that reveals truths about reptiles that are often more fetching than the legends and fears themselves. Quoted from "Come-All-Ye", Vol. 17, No.3 Fall 1996

There are a lot of interesting food arrangements in this book. However, most of the arrangements are designs and abstract shapes vs. animal representations, trees and sculptures of real things. Each chapter is broken down into a major food group, for ex. chapter one is garnishes using fruits, chapter two is vegetables, there is a chapter for butter, etc. The whole book consists of color pictures with some line drawings to illustrate various steps. There are also some recipes in each of the chapters for spreads or fillngs used in some of the designs. They do expect you to have some "garnishing tools" on hand for many of the recipes, but there are some arrangements that can be achieved using ordinary kitchen utensils. Overall it is an interesting book if you are just looking for interesting shapes and colors to spice up your plate or table, but for more specatular "sculptures" I recommend "Garnishing - A Feast for Your Eyes" by Talyn Lynch.

I AM AN ACCOMPLISHED CHEF AND READ THIS BOOK SOME TIME AGO BEFORE I BECAME A PROFESSIONAL AND FOUND IT TO BE ONE OF THE BEST TEACHING TOOLS FOR ANYONE WISHING TO EXCEL IN ART OF PRESENTATION.

This is the worst possible book that they could be giving to teenagers to read. It simply teaches them that if things are not going there way then they can always kill themselves. This is not the sort of thing that schools should be premoting

I first read this book ten years ago and instanlty loved it. I took my time about buying a copy, and it went out of print. I'm correcting that mistake today! The book is about a boy who, from time to time, experiences what modern mainstream psychiatry would call psychotic events (not to imply that those people could ever agree upon a diagnosis). He has had contact with social services and the mental health profession...no luck. He then runs into a native shaman. One of the definitions of "shaman" in the dictionary I have here is: one who "divines the hidden." The shaman teaches the boy that his episodes are not symptoms of mental illness, but symptoms of being one of "the chosen." If you think street people are crazy, if you think crazy people should be at least fixed, and probably locked-up in the process, if you own stock in the drug company which make lithium...this book my help.

Over the last fourteen years, I have lent out each of the 8 copies of this novel that I have owned...I am still waiting to get ANY of them back. This is a simple (and short) story of a boy trying to find where he belongs and how modern day society, with its rules and regulations, keeps thwarting his efforts. This novel is an excellent expose of the frailties of a society ruled by bureaucracy and conformity, instead of common sense and compassion. It is also a superb metaphor for the alienation and suppression of self that is a result of our current society and its domination by "big businesses". This novel poignantly attests to the fact that we are not all the same and the same answer does not work for everyone. In many ways, this novel explores the same issues as Pink Floyd's classic album, "The Wall"