This is one of the better crockpot cookbooks. It has a wonderful variety of recipes in all catagories. They are quick and easy. The index is great you can find exactly what you are looking for in seconds. Contains many easy recipes that can be prepared in a short time . Best of all they do do require one to purchase a large variety of spices. The spices called for are the ones usually kept on hand.

I have purchased more expensive crockpot cookbooks that do not have the variety of recipes this one contains.

SPENCER ROAD IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE BOOKS. THE PROOF OF A TRULY FINE BOOK IS IN THE RE-READING--DOES IT HOLD UP? SPENCER ROAD DOES. THE LANGUAGE IS SHARP AND THE DICTION IS WORD-PERFECT. WITH EACH READING THE IMAGES GROW CLEARER. MORRIS SMITH HAS A DISTINCT VOICE WITHOUT AIMING FOR DISTINCTION. NONE OF THAT TRYING TO WRITE "SOUTHERN." JANICE DAUGHARTY, AUTHOR OF LIKE A SISTER

What struck me most about this book is the story of slaves during the Revoluntary War. I'm a RW buff and hardly ever, and never in school's histroy books was this subject touched upon and to me it really had an astounding effect on the war. I didn't know that people in the 13 states feared for their lives when the British offered freedom to the slaves if they joined up with them. And then after the long war, slave owners came up from the south looking for them and dragging them out of bed. The story was to the point with a lot of interesting personal stories. I think this book should be put in all schools and this side of history should not be avoided. I suspected Jefferson was a jerk long ago and this confirms it even more. All these leaders of our country spouting words of liberty and owning hundreds of slaves. How could they have thought it was part of God's plan and design? .

Simply, the research team covers everything from much needed basic history to indepth discussion in a conversational tone.

Great attention is given to documentation of facts. Written for all to enjoy, from the novice to the advanced scholar.

A literary masterpiece. MUST read!!

"Africans in America" is a great book that vitalizes the Black American's history, and paints a perspective on slavery as an economic horror, not a moral evil. I HIGHLY recommend to all.

One of the things you can assume when you write about Shakespeare--given the hundreds of thousands of pages that have already been written about him in countless books, essays, theses and term papers--is that whatever you say will have been said before, and then denounced, defended , revised and denounced again, ad infinitum. So I'm certain I'm not breaking any new ground here. King Lear, though many, including David Denby (see Orrin's review of Great Books) and Harold Bloom consider it the pinnacle of English Literature, has just never done much for me. I appreciate the power of the basic plot--an aging King divides his realm among his ungrateful children with disastrous results--which has resurfaced in works as varied as Jane Smiley's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, A Thousand Acres (see Orrin's review), and Akira Kurosawa's last great film, Ran. But I've always found the play to be too busy, the characters to be too unsympathetic, the speeches to be unmemorable and the tragedy to be too shallow. By shallow, I mean that by the time we meet Lear he is already a petulant old man, we have to accept his greatness from the word of others. Then his first action in the play, the division of the kingdom, is so boneheaded and his reaction to Cordelia so selfishly blind, that we're unwilling to credit their word.

Then there's the fact that Shakespeare essentially uses the action of the play as a springboard for an examination of madness. The play was written during the period when Shakespeare was experimenting with obscure meanings anyway; add in the demented babble of several of the central characters, including Lear, and you've got a drama whose language is just about impossible to follow. Plus you've got seemingly random occurrences like the disappearance of the Fool and Edgar's pretending to help his father commit suicide. I am as enamored of the Bard as anyone, but it's just too much work for an author to ask of his audience trying to figure out what the heck they are all saying and what their actions are supposed to convey. So I long ago gave up trying to decipher the whole thing and I simply group it with the series of non-tragic tragedies (along with MacBeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar), which I think taken together can be considered to make a unified political statement about the importance of the regular transfer of power in a state. Think about it for a moment; there's no real tragedy in what happens to Caesar, MacBeth, Hamlet or Lear; they've all proven themselves unfit for rule. Nor are the fates of those who usurp power from Caesar, Hamlet and Lear at all tragic, with the possible exception of Brutus, they pretty much get what they have coming to them. Instead, the real tragedy lies in the bloody chain of events that each illegitimate claiming of power unleashes. The implied message of these works, when considered as a unified whole, is that deviance from the orderly transfer of power leads to disaster for all concerned. (Of particular significance to this analysis in regards to King Lear is the fact that it was written in 1605, the year of the Gunpowder Plot.)

In fact, looking at Lear from this perspective offers some potential insight into several aspects of the play that have always bothered me. For instance, take the rapidity with which Lear slides into insanity. This transition has never made much sense to me. But now suppose that Lear is insane before the action of the play begins and that the clearest expression of his loss of reason is his decision to shatter his own kingdom. Seen in this light, there is no precipitous decline into madness; the very act of splitting up the central authority of his throne, of transferring power improperly, is shown to be a sign of craziness.

Next, consider the significance of Edgar's pretense of insanity and of Lear's genuine dementia. What is the possible meaning of their wanderings and their reduction to the status of common fools, stripped of luxury and station? And what does it tell us that it is after they are so reduced that Lear's reason (i.e. his fitness to rule) is restored and that Edgar ultimately takes the throne. It is probably too much to impute this meaning to Shakespeare, but the text will certainly bear the interpretation that they are made fit to rule by gaining an understanding of the lives of common folk. This is too democratic a reading for the time, but I like it, and it is emblematic of Shakespeare's genius that his plays will withstand even such idiosyncratic interpretations.

To me, the real saving grace of the play lies not in the portrayal of the fathers, Lear and Gloucester, nor of the daughters, but rather in that of the sons. First, Edmund, who ranks with Richard III and Iago in sheer joyous malevolence. Second, Edgar, whose ultimate ascent to the throne makes all that has gone before worthwhile. He strikes me as one of the truly heroic characters in all of Shakespeare, as exemplified by his loyalty to his father and to the King. I've said I don't consider the play to be particularly tragic; in good part this is because it seems the nation is better off with Edgar on the throne than with Lear or one of his vile daughters.

Even a disappointing, and often bewildering, tragedy by Shakespeare is better than the best of many other authors (though I'd not say the same of his comedies.) So of course I recommend it, but I don't think as highly of it as do many of the critics.

GRADE : B-

One of literature's classic dysfunctional families shows itself in King Lear by William Shakespeare. King Lear implicity trusts his three daughters, Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia, but when the third wishes to marry for love rather than money, he banishes her. The two elder ones never felt Lear as a father; they simply did his bidding in an attempt to win his favor to get the kingdom upon his death. Cordelia, on the other hand, always cared for him, but tried to be honest, doing what she felt was right. As Lear realizes this through one betrayal after another, he loses his kingdom -- and what's more, his sanity...

The New Folger Library edition has to be among the best representations of Shakespeare I've seen. The text is printed as it should be on the right page of each two-page set, while footnotes, translations, and explanations are on the left page. Also, many drawings and illustrations from other period books help the reader to understand exactly what is meant with each word and hidden between each line.

"Nothing will come of nothing" the fatal line Lear utters to Cordelia sums up the entire play. The wizened king believes he is urging Cordelia not to refrain from expressing her love for him when in fact he is unwittingly prompting her to use the same insincere flattery as her sisters. When Cordelia refuses to acquiesce to Lear's wishes, he banishes her from the kingdom and divides it among her nefarious sisters Goneril and Reagan. In doing this Lear accepts their empty flattery instead of Cordelia's austere profession of paternal love. Goneril and Reagan quickly betray Lear and then turn against each other. Thus Lear's preference for empty flattery (nothing) destroys his authority and embroils his kingdom in civil strife (generates nothing).

This theme runs like a thread through other parts of the play. Gloucester's blindness toward the nature of his sons results in his literal blindness later in the play. Metaphorical blindness generates physical blindness (nothing comes of nothing). Similarly, after Edgar is banished he avoids further harm by shedding his identity and disguising himself as a vagrant. In the new order of things eliminating one's status results in no harm (another version of nothing coming from nothing).

The motif of nothing coming from nothing has psychological and political ramifications for the play. From a psychological point of view Lear fails to realize that the type of adulating love he wants from Cordelia no longer exists because Cordelia is no longer a child. Her refusal to flatter Lear is, in a sense, an act of adolescent rebellion. Lear's failure to recognize the fact that Cordelia still loves him but not with the totality of a child proves to be his undoing. From a political point of view the fact that Lear divides his kingdom on the basis of protocol (who is the most flattering) instead of reality (whose words can he really trust) also proves to be his undoing. The fact that Lear sees what he wants to see instead of what he should see is the fulcrum of destruction throughout the play.

It is interesting to note that "King Lear" was staged barely one generation after England endured a bitter war of succession (The War of the Roses). The sight of Lear proclaiming his intention to divide his kingdom must have shocked contemporary audiences in the same manner that a play about appeasing fascists might disturb us today.

The Index cross references monologues by gender, age range and type of scene (i.e. comedic, dramatic, etc.). It's a great tool for locating monolgues, and it provides a brief synopsis of the material. But then you'll have to go find the play at a bookstore and read the monolgue. Sadly, many of the monologues referenced here are from one-act festivals or free-floaters and are thus quite difficult (impossible?) to locate--even in NYC theatre book shops. Bottom line, don't expect finding a monologue to be made easy. But this is a great tool for locating plays and material that aren't done in every high school and college theatre class.

The Ultimate Monologue Index is an absolutely wonderful guide to find monologues for audition or class work. Conveniently broken down into gender, style, ethnic/nationality/religious affiliation, time periods, geographical area, occupation and character type situations. It tells you HOW and WHERE to find the play by simply following the book code provided next to the running time and it gives you a brief description of what the monologue is about. Much more useful than most monologue books full of monologues that have never been published as part of a play and are obviously overwritten and dramatized. I recommend this guide to any serious actor looking for new audition pieces.

This play can be read as anti-semitic. In fact, it's pretty hard to defend it from such charges. Shylock is a pretty rotten character and the fact that he is jewish is difficult to overlook (particularly since the other characters mention it on pretty much EVERY page). However, I think it is important to mention that the "heroes" of this play do not necessarily have to be interpreted as heroes. They are by no means perfect and there are many subtle (and some not-so-subtle) instances within the text in which their biases against ANYONE unlike them is illustrated. If one reads the play this way, then Shylock becomes more of a tragic figure rather than an absolutely heartless villain. I don't know. My feelings about this are mixed. There are a few funny parts of this play and the language is, as always, beautiful. The theme of putting a price on human beings is one which has been explored numerous times since. Overall, it is enjoyable, but perhaps not so much so as some of the other comedies. Do not read this play without having read a few others by Shakespeare first. It is an excellent play, but not his best and not his most enjoyable either.

This is a wonderful play - and unless you have seen it or read it you don't know it at all. That's because everything the popular culture tells us about this play is false (for example; how many of you think this play is about a merchant named Shylock? ;-)

The Merchant of Venice is a lively and happy morality tale. Good triumphs over bad - charity over greed - love over hate.
There is fine comedy. Portia is one of Shakespeare's greatest women (and he ennobled women more than any playwright in history). There are moments of empathy and pain with all the major characters. There is great humanity and earthiness in this play. These things are what elevate Shakespeare over any other playwright in English history.

Plays should be seen - not read. I recommend you see this play (if you can find a theater with the courage and skill to do it). But if it is not playing in your area this season - buy the book and read it.

After reading most of the other reviews here, I am fully aware that most of the reviewers didn't read carefully enough (or watch carefully enough if they saw the play.) Now, I'm not saying its not open for different interpretations, but there is one thing I would really like to get straight.

I read MoV for a Bar Mitzvah project on Anti-Semitism. Naturally, my sympathies went to Shylock. However, even if i were Christian, i still would've favored Shylock. What many people believe is that Shylock is a cold hearted ruthless person and only wanted to get back at Antonio because Antonio was a Christian.

Not true. Shylock specifically says something along the lines off, "Why should I lend money to you? You spit on me, and call me a Jewish dog!" I'm not saying that Shylock was a good guy, but I am saying that he is not the villain.

In fact, the "Merchant of Venice," in this story is actually Shylock, not Antonio, contrary to popular belief. My thoughts on the story was that Shylock requested a pound of Antonio's flesh because he did not trust Antonio. Who would trust someone that spat on him? The fact is, Antonio doesn't pay him back in the end.

Now, there's always something else we have to put into consideration. Would the judge had given the "spill one ounce of Christian blood" verdict at the end if Shylock were not a Jew?

This is the mark of a great play. A play that really gets you thinking. But I encourage you, I beg of you, that when you read it or see it, please do not hold Shylock up to being a cold hearted villain. Hold Antonio up to that image. (joking, of course, Antonio's not a bad guy, he's just not a good guy.)

I had mistakenly thought that Wrox books were held to a higher standard. First getting a taste for them going through both of Rob Vieira's two SQL Server Programming books and regarding them as the finest technical books I've ever seen. However this Professional SQL Server 2000 XML is a disappointment. Part of the problem lies with having 12 different authors because it seems a bit jumpy. I think I'll really try to limit my future purchases to single source efforts. Also, no care was taken with the code examples that you can download from the Wrox website. The book shows the source but there is really no way of really matching the example to the source other than guessing the name. Often I've needed to open up all 15 or so files in the directory to realize that the particular example is not included. I'm picking my way through but it is not pleasant.

It is a good book as far as explaning what SQL Server has to offer regarding XML capabilities but it should have covered the case studies fully with the .Net Framework. Also, it covers very good the IIS configuration, and how to manage XML Templates, XPath and Schemas. The book has a migration example from ASP to ASP.Net which does not cover ADO.Net. If you want a rich source on how to integrate SQLXML and the .Net Framework THIS IS NOT THE BOOK.

I looked at two other SQL Server 2000 XML books, but found this one to be the best - covering almost everything on SQL Server 2000 XML. Very well written, nice examples help understand the technology better. The chapter on Updategrams is very useful. I wanted to learn updategrams and this chapter covers it nicely to get started using them in production.

Overall i think the book is a good read. Hempstone does a good job of telling the times as the they were during his term in office in Kenya. Some of the things maybe slightly exaggerated but i think the important thing is that it tells what was in our minds during this time but we as kenyans were unable to say. He also does an excellent job of describing Moi; dictator, vicious, illiterate, corrupt etc. (probably would explain why Moi is suing him)
There were several things that i didn't like about the book. Everytime Hempstone mentions a person he has to tell us what tribe that person belongs to...urrrgh....if there could be a reason for banning this book in kenya..this would be it! The other thing i noticed was that Hempstone does an amazing job of making himself look good in the book. The book is filled with notes of important people or not praising him for this or that....it struck me as very self promoting. Some of the stuff about locals was absolutely untrue. For example...at one pt he says the Samburu are know to diet on meat, milk and urine like the maasai. The urine part is an outright lie, i say this a maasai born + bred deep in maasai land...maasai do not drink urine...yaaak....blood we drink urine is a no-no!
The last and minor thing is the endless repeatations in the book. Several statements are repeated over + over again through the book...i got the impression that maybe a pt was being drum into my head.
Nevertheless, this book gives an interesting insite into the political issues in kenya as well as most likely alot of the other african countries. I was kind of disappointed that the book didn't go more into depth on the sudan crisis --- that region of africa needs serious help!

Whilst the book is certainly a useful and informative perspective, and covers a fascinating and deeply perturbing subject, it's difficult to overlook the author's pomposity and self-righteousness; so much so, that, given his rose-tinted and deeply erroneous belief in wondrous US foreign policy, one begins to wonder whether his views upon events in Kenya at the time are equally skewed.

Having only lived in Kenya a very short while, and not during the time he describes, I cannot have my own understanding of events to corroborate what he says, and Hempstone certainly makes little attempt to back up any of the stories about the nefarious Biwott and megalomaniac Moi, beyond saying that he got them from reliable sources... Which is a real pity, because it would be so nice to see him truly skewer the indubitably corrupt and malignant politicians.

As a memoir it's certainly entertaining enough, as long as you learn to flip through Hempstone's self-promoting blather, which at times begins to sound like a curriculum vitae. It gives you plenty of fascinating historical background, and a decent understanding of the beautiful country Kenya is, but as reliable reference material, however... Who could say?

I was in Kenya when Amb. Hempstone was there and all included in the book is highly accurate. It is a very good read about life in Kenya during those years.