"Encyclopedia of the War of 1812" fills a gap in the study of American history. The War of 1812 is often regarded as the last chapter in the American Revolution. It is usually boiled down to a mere skirmish between the fledging American nation and the British Empire before the two eventually became firm allies.

The encyclopedia includes useful entries ranging from a few lines to several pages on key military and civilian leaders on both sides of the conflict, significant battles, and important diplomatic treaties that resulted in starting and ending the war. In all, this a fine reference work that allows the War of 1812 to stand as a watershed in the development of the American nation.

I did not think much of this book at first. However, over time I have found it to be to far better. It covers nearly all topics of the war and gives a good brief description. Some are better covered than others. Most have an extremely useful list of references for further reading. Therefore, it is useful for the beginner and expert.
A few maps are at the front and end of the book. Individual battles do not have a high level of detail or maps. A large portion is dedicated to bios of those involved.

Marcus Hearn's exhaustive research in the early 1990's provides the basis of most of the information in this comprehensive guide to the formative years of Doctor Who, yet nowhere in the book does he recieve even pssing credit. Rather than being presented as a dry 'info-dump',the book's accessibility could have been vastly improved by more user-friendly approach to conveying its wealth of material, some of which is interesting, some mindlessly dull. Unforgiveable, too, is the insulting 'What others said about William Hartnell' section, which is not used in any other handbook in the series, woefully implying some kind of inadequacy, or unreliabilty in Hartnell's own words. Equally annoying are the reviews offered by David Howe for each individual story, which are vapid and predictable in the extreme. He awards 'Marco Polo' and 'The Crusade' 10/10, despite both being broadcast some 35 years ago, claiming 'he really can't find anything wrong' with either story. Is this really the point of being a Dr. Who fan, as Howe claims to be? Strangely enough, the stories that remain intact in the archives (and thus accessible for review) such as 'An Unearthly Child', the classic first ever story, favour less well, suggesting, as John Nathan-Turner once infamously stated, 'The memory cheats'. Although, as usual, it's sheer wealth of information is indispensible, this is by far one of the weaker handbooks in the series.

This book is a must for any Doctor Who fan. From the inception of the show in April 1962 to the end of October 1966, this book looks at the William Hartnell era of Doctor Who. These handbooks are really good. I've only seen these stories recently, but the book brings back the memories of them. It even thoroughly helps out on the missing episodes that can't be seen, by summarising these stories. So you get a sense of how it might've been like to have seen them. The attention to production details is excellent. You learn about interesting facts about the episodes: budgets, originally intended actors, location and studio recordings, original titles, original direction of some stories, etc. The book is divided into 8 chapters: William Hartnell stuff, the Doctor, the stories, establishing the myth, production diary, a focus on the making of the classic story "The Ark", and selling the doctor. The First Doctor Handbook is a great reference source of information on Doctor Who's early years. These handbooks are all great (there are 7 volumes in the Doctor Who handbook series), but the fact is that the first doctor handbook was actually the third one made in the series, published in 1994.

The co-authors trio of David J. Howe, Mark Stammers, and Stephen James Walker have proven themselves to be the definitive historians on the Doctor Who TV series. Besides the handbooks, they have also written three volumes focusing on the three decades of Doctor Who's television run: The Sixties, The Seventies, and The Eighties. I highly recommend all of these books to any fan of the world's longest running science fiction TV series!

Dark Ages Mage, or DAMage, is not a game for everyone. And before I get started, I want to make sure everyone knows: you need to have the Dark Ages Vampire core book to play it.

DAMage is not for me. Why? I'm a fan of the Mage: The Ascension game line, and my thoughts start from there. Your mileage may vary.

The game defines magic separately for each group. It defines four "pillars" for each group, each with five ranks. These serve (supposedly) to measure what a Mage can and cannot do. Like any good game mechanic?

A lot of people didn't like the ambiguity inherent in M:tA's description of spheres. If that's you, avoid DAMage like the plague-- DAMage mechanics for Magic are described totally from the in-character point-of-view of the individual paradigm. As a way to understand what each kind of magic can really do, or settle disputes about whether a given Mage has the right knowledge to attempt a casting, they're completely unplayable.

They are, however, creative, even sometimes inspiring. If they were presented as magical theory, rather than a game mechanic, they'd be alright.

They'll also be good for selling supplements. The pillars demand exhaustive lists of "rotes," concrete definitions of individual powers, to be playable, and STs and players will find themselves obliged to go buy the "tradition book" for all the groups they intend to portray.

Another thing that bugged people about Mage: The Ascension, was that the sphere system seems "homogenous." That is, the progression in various abilities is pretty arbitrary, and if it's seen as universal among all kinds of will-workers, it intrudes on the in-character integrity of that paradigm.

I think that's a reasonable objection-- the Mage line's approach to Magic is it's own scenario, and though people claim you can do "any kind" of magic with it, that's not entirely true.

And, I think this helps us see why DAMage was developed along these lines. People wanted each paradigm to make sense "unto itself." Unfortunately, they chose to carry baggage from M:tA over. (Why? In an attempt to sell copy to Mage players.)

Wary of alienating Mage players, they retained an analog to a "sphere system," and gave lip-service to the "dynamic" quality of magic as found in Mage. And the result is something that is a glorified freestyle role-playing of magic, based on flavor text, or, with the eventual publication of massive rote lists, will really boil down to spell lists.

What people don't realize is that M:tA's sphere system was *born* out of a desire for a playable compromise between the reliable klunkiness of spell-lists, and the flexibility, but potential twinkery, of free-form role-play. It's imperfect, but, taken as what it is, it's also superb.

DAMage could have used M:tA's finely-tuned compromise. Instead it tried to reinvent the wheel, moving in both directions, failing to do either justice. DAMage could have been Mage: the Ascension with really cool, useful material on RPing in the Dark Ages setting.

And by the way. The presentation of the setting is rather lackluster, in DAMage. Possibly this is because they expect you go out and pay more money for Dark Ages Vampire. But if you're an Order of Hermes fan, for example, prepare to be disappointed. (Moreover, personally, my mind boggles at the authors' encouragement to send Muslim sorcerers off with their Christian cabalmates to kill Muslims in the Crusades.)

Alternatives better than DAMage include Mage: the Sorcerer's Crusade, Mage: the Ascension, or Sorcerer, each already in White Wolf mechanics, and adaptable to the Dark Ages setting (DAMage expects you to have other books too!) If you're a vampire player, particularly, I would think Sorcerer would be the way to go. There're also Ars Magica and D&D. And GURPS puts out great supplements, including on the Middle Ages. Which, if you want setting and flavor, are far superior.

As a fan of mage the ascension, i bought this book hoping to get some more insight into the DA magical societies. This, of course, was in the book, but it also flips everything on its head. while the magic system is similar, the 9 spheres have been done away with in favor of a 4 pillar system which is more taylored to each society. THis, i actually like for the setting. On the othe hand they trampled all over one of the most interesting groups off the age, The Order of Hermes. While they are still depicted as powerful, and organized, their house system is nearly ignored. (check out Ars magica for more Order of Hermes data) ALso, the book tries to promote interfellowship cabals, which is absolutely absurd in an era where most mages would sooner kill a rival mage than work with him for the most part. Mage: The Sorcerer's Crusade makes it very clear that such cabals almost NEVER happened until the uniting of the Traditions, and the writers expect us to believe they already worked together happy and together 2-300 years previous? Please...

Not to say the book is bad, because for the most part it is rather good. For Storytelling material it is bad, but as setting information and rules it is excellent.

Oh, on a final note, i only gave it 3 stars because White wolf decided not to put any rules in it outside of magic rules simply to sell more copies of Dark Ages: Vampire. It desserves 4 in its own right.

I must admit, I was waiting impatiently for this book more than even the new Dark Ages: Vampire that preceded it (and is necessary in order to make full use of Dark Ages: Mage). I love Mage: The Ascension, especially it's new incarnation in the Revised Edition of that game. This game however is not Mage: The Ascension.

The similarities are obvious and yes, it is the World of Darkness set back into the Dark Medieval, but the truth of the matter is that this is not the same game as it's predecessors, Mage: The Ascension or Mage: The Sorcerer's Crusade. There is no War for Reality, there is no competition. There is only magic. The opening chapter on medieval superstition gives a blanket feel of ambiguity to everything in the age and I think this is where the real strength of this game shines.

This book is not intended for first-time roleplayers. This book is advanced in every respect of the word. As a Storyteller for Dark Ages, having the rules to create and use Mage NPC's in my chronicles is outstanding and the rules for their creation, advancement, societies, everything... is right here. However, I was disappointed by the fact that although this game (and although it requires the use of Dark Ages: Vampire to use it, it -is- a separate and dinstinct game unto itself if allowed) has rules to actually play Mages, I can't say it's that easy. But then again, it obviously isn't supposed to be simple, after all these are willworkers, people whose expectations charge reality and force it to change. It's just not cut and dry.

The character creation is easy. The rules for advancement, simple enough. Unfortunately, it's the ambiguity of each of the pillars that catches me off guard, because, although we are playing these mages and their mindset is critical to their play, having the levels of power measured by interpretation is asking for complications. However, I believe now, after having re-read this book two times + since purchasing it, that it is SUPPOSED to be ambiguous and inexact, facilitating the person to person interpretation that was the rule of the day. After all, if someone easily adhere to exacting rules in the Dark Medieval, they were not Mages. Mages break the rules in every way, shape, and fashion and don't apologize for it; rather they take their success to mean that are due even more power. Enter hubris.

All in all, this is a great book and more visually stunning that I first imagined it would be. The spine, once again, is not attached to the book itself, but I'm beginning to suspect it's not supposed to. I gave this game 4 stars (instead of 3) because of the innate potential of such a game and the Dark Ages line. However, if you're are die hard fan of the Sphere system, I heartily recommend The Sorcerer's Crusade instead. This game is darker, more brutal, and more ambigious. These can be good things in the hands of the right people, but not for everyone.

This book is almost impossible to understand. There are no explanations in plain english to allow the reader some sort of real world association of the concepts that it tries to explain. If you are already a math professor, and understand linear algebra, buy it. If you are a student who is trying learn it for the first time you'll end up spending most of your time trying to figure out how all this stuff relates to the real world. There is no solutions manual available, and the solutions to problems in the back of the book are completely useless. Shaums Introduction to Linear Algebra does a much better job for a fraction of the price!

I used this in my undergrad course as a math major at UT Dallas. I really enjoyed it; the book has sections on applications in just about every chapter, and there are lots of computational exercises as well. In addition to answers to odd-numbered exercises, each chapter has a "self-test" with all the answers provided at the back of the book. It's a bit chatty, but that befits an undergrad text.

This is a good book for self-study, though if you are really serious about it, you might want to supplement it with a more rigorous reference (the Dettman text is good for this).

I must say I have been pleasantly surprised with this book. I find it very readable. It has been very easy for me to teach myself what I need to know right out of the text. There aren't many math books I've found that can make that claim. I haven't needed to consult any other books to understand the material. The only real improvement I could wish for from this book would be a solutions manual.

The book follows a very logical progression. Each topic builds on previously covered material.

It's clear to me now why UT chose this book for its math major classes. The emphasis in this book is teaching you to think abstractly and work out difficult proofs, which you're going to need for more advanced math classes. The book has a lot of proof exercises (but there are a lot of computational exercises as well.) In all, I'd say this book does a great job doing what it was designed to do, which is to train future mathematicians. This naturally implies, however, as a previous reviewer stated, that it's going to be short on applications. So if you're going to be taking a class using this book, it would be a good idea to learn a little about the applications of linear algebra before you start, if you need that knowledge to keep yourself motivated. Then prepare to learn linear algebra from a very fine book.

This is a wildly uneven anthology of stories about WWII. The best of the stories are Stephen Coonts'"Sea Witch" and James Cobb's "Eyes of the Cat" oddly, both are about PBY planes, a definitely unique topic. Both deliver excitement and unpredictability and a unique perspective. Stories by Barrett Tillman and Harold Coyle are standard, well told combat tales. Stories by Harold Robbins and David Hagberg belong in a different espionage anthology and there is a truly boring and glaringly out of place story by Dean Ing, who is a much better writer than this. Ralph Peters does well with his tale of a German soldier's problems returning home.
Not up to the caliber of Combat, the earlier modern war anthology, this still offers enough diversion for those interested in WWII fiction if you're willing to accept the uneven nature of the stories.

This book is in the same classification as the Combat book.In
this book you have ten authors write stories about World War II.
Stephen Coonts writes about a Catalina flying boatwho are doing battle with the Japanese in the Pacific.Harold Coyle does a story about the battle on Guadalcanal with the Japanese that earned this area the name of Bloody Ridge.Jim Defelice tells about an American pilot who parachutes into Germany to gather
intelligence and gets decieved.Harold Robbins tells a story about someone whi is sent to kill Hitler.Dean Ing tells a story about an effort to build an interceptor to stop a Nazi super weapon.Barrett Tillman tells of the role of a flamethrower operator in a battle at Tawara against the Japanese.James Cobb
tells of a Catalina searching for Japanese radar in the Pacific.
David Hagberg tells of allied agents trying to stop a Nazi superweapon that can cause havoc in the United States.R.J. Pineiro tells of an American pilot who trains Russian pilots in new Aircobras.Ralph Peters tells of a German soldier going home on foot after the war has ended.All in all this was an interesting book.It ranked as an equal to Combat.

They really aren't around anymore, but from the 1930s through the 1970s, there was a proliferation of what became known in the trade as "adventure" magazines. These ranged in quality from the semi-respectable (Argosy) to the not so respectable (a veritable slew of titles, such as Stag and the right-out front For Men Only). They featured stories of spies, derring do and jungle intrigue, but they primarily contained war stories. Lots and lots of war stories. The covers often told the tale regarding the type of quality you could expect within; this was particularly true of Stag, which featured damsels who were either in distress (especially with respect to the state of their undergarments) or inflicting distress upon U.S. soldiers who were tied to chairs and doing their best to appear panic-stricken. All of these magazines, alas, are long gone, or at least don't seem to have the circulation they used to. I was reminded of them, however, by the publication of a mammoth volume of war fiction titled VICTORY.

VICTORY is a companion volume to COMBAT, both of which are edited by intrigue-meister Stephen Coonts. VICTORY is a doorstop of a volume, weighing in at well over 700 pages and consisting of ten previously unpublished pieces by masters of the war story. The stories in VICTORY range in length from fifty to over one hundred pages; if they had appeared in any of the adventure magazines, they would have been serialized. Most of the stories in VICTORY would or could have found a home in Argosy, though one --- "Blood Bond" by Harold Robbins --- is definitely Stag material. More on that in a minute.

The stories in VICTORY do not glorify war. Far from it. All of the stories are set during World War II, with the exception of "Honor" by Ralph Peters, set immediately thereafter. It is difficult to pick an immediate favorite; the average reader may have several, for different reasons. Coonts's own "The Sea Witch," which opens VICTORY, begins as a fairly predictable tale with an unpredictable ending and that utilizes an unexpected technique to catch the reader flatfooted.

"Blood Bond" is typical Robbins. It is a spy story, dealing with a plot to kill Hitler, and stands apart from the other tales due to its unrelenting scatological narrative. Robbins writes the way James Bond really thinks. Though Robbins, gone for several years now, had his share of detractors, he never inflicted boredom on his audience, and this previously unpublished work continues his streak, even in his absence.

David Hagberg's "V5" concerns the German rocket that could have turned the tide of World War II and the Allied military and espionage components that feverishly work together, though at some distance, to ensure that the project never makes it off the ground.

Peters's "Honor" deals not with Americans in the war but with a German officer in the war's aftermath, trudging through the nightmarish ruin that is postwar Germany as he tries to return home to his wife. The conclusion of "Honor" is predictable, almost from the first paragraph; it is the journey, not the close-to-foregone destination, that is important here.

The biggest surprise in VICTORY may be "The Eagle and the Cross" by R.J. Pineiro, a tale of an American pilot who is sent to the Eastern front to train Russian aviators during the final months of the Battle of Stalingrad. The bittersweet ending is perhaps the most haunting of any tale in the book.

With VICTORY Coonts again demonstrates that his talent as a writer is matched by his editorial abilities. While this volume is aimed at a more narrowly defined audience, the quality of the stories involved should, for the most part, satisfy the more discerning reader of any genre. Recommended.

--- Reviewed by Joe Hartlaub

I must admit that I was unable to complete this book. Halfway through reading this arduous book, I found myself deadlocked before a persistent question: why go on? What's the point?

This book is heralded as the first of a series of reflections on the gift. This seems like a noteworthy project but in the hands of this author, the project falls flat. For some, the conception of a series of studies implies growth at every turn. For Foucualt's The History of Sexuality, at every turn, the author was faced with challenges, crises, and redirection. It took 7 long years before Foucault continued the series; I doubt that the author here has ever faced such crises. I note that this gift series is well on its fourth edition. The gift series is on a roll... it is abundant, as the book repeatedly says (ad nauseum).

If Nietzsche was the greatest philosophical stylist--well, there is no comparison to Nietzsche here. Take for example a paragraph I found on page 167, which follows two quotes from Hegel and Heidegger (of which no direct link is ever made). It reads:

Only great art. Only poetry. Only thinking. Only humanity. Only man. Only only.

(resumption of the review)

What is going on here? Such pseudo-poetic turn of phrase appear throughout the book. By now we are accustomed to sentences that defy and challenge the conventions of logic and grammar. However, we have here just PLAIN BAD WRITING. This book, read as experimental prose will disappoint many. (I suspect that perhaps no one will be disappointed as no one should seriously consider this book at any length. The reviewer fully understands the irony here.)

But Stephen David Ross is a philosophy professor and this book covers the entire history of western philosophy from the pre-socratics to the recent works by Derrida, Butler, and Luce Irigaray. In its effortless and unconscienable 300 pages plus, this book does a great disservice to all. Technical phrases are haphazarously mentioned without explication. Otherwise, we are left with baffling and insolent phrases such as the following:

I interrupt this interruption before return from it to add that I understand one of the amrks of the good in our time, perhaps its most telling mark, to be the question of sexual difference, interrupting the hold of every category and identity with questions of gender and sexual identity. (page 12)

(resume review)

Interruption of an interruption for an interruption? Ross takes important themes of sexual difference, ethics, and justice and whirls them into a single, sprawled self-referential portrait. In the end, instead of promoting and drawing us to task on these issues and themes, the book repels any intelligent reader. I surmise that, metaphorically, the author paints exclusively in water color with emphasis on the pastels.

This is an incredible (incredulous!) narrative of a series that is based on the good but which stands without any real or explained connections. All is good by the virtue of the good that is forcefully squeezed out by the author. Enough is enough! this reviewer protests. Mercy, mercy. Enough of the good already! But as Ross repeatedly states: the good exceeds limits, always.

In the end, all is encased in this book as the good. But rather than challenging the history of western philosophy, Ross has virtually imposed and reified the very narrative that this work professes to challenge. What is the link between Heraclitus and Braidotti? The book answers: wht it is the good, of course! In the end this amounts to saying: que sera, sera.

And maybe somewhere between pages 200 and 300, the author cites from Doris Day as well. This reviewer, having said enough, having shunned the abundance of the good, may have missed this moment altogether...

It would be difficult to praise "The Gift of Beauty" too highly unless one has no penchant for fluidity and mobility, in which case one might cast it down like Moses did the tablets. One might become seasick in the ocean of truth, beauty and goodness as Ross presents it, particularly if one were too fixed or too much in need of firm anchorage. He ceaselessly rocks the reader on the waves of the impossiblity of holding truth or beauty fast. A kind of ecstasy is engendered in the reader if he or she moves freely with it. But woe unto anyone who does not! It would be easy to become impatient with Ross's style, especially if one were very linear in one's needs. But this very irritation IS the call of the good of which Ross speaks. Not to feel this in one's bones is to miss the entire point of the book and his style of presentation.

An important goal of the work, and the series as a whole, is to rehabilitate 'the good', a good which 'is not good opposed to bad, right opposed to wrong, justice opposed to injustice.' He constantly refers to 'the call of the good' and sees art as a response to the call of the good.

Without some training in philosophy, the book would be daunting. But one can dip into it at nearly any point and be immensely rewarded. This is a large work, guaranteed to disturb the reader's orientation, whether he or she likes it or not.

Causual spatiality not in Tells of all flaws in not Written or boun

The publisher ought to be ashamed. This book is simply a chapter pulled directly from David Stevens' earlier bestseller THE GARDEN DESIGN SOURCEBOOK remarketed with an attractive new cover. Text and photos are identical. Even though it's a bargain for a hardback, back it goes.

I picked up the Slavitt translation of Aeschylus Oresteia off a publisher's overstock rack at a bookstore. I have enjoyed reading these plays, however, Slavitt's translation leaves me wanting.

Some have complained that Slavitt is too modern and a bit too, well, guteral. My greek is admittedly weak, but the Greeks were certainly not prudes and often this aspect is covered up in our translations.

After seeing a few complaints on the web, I tried comparing a few other translations at the local library. In almost all cases I found Ted Hughes's version to be both more interesting and also clearer. Hughes, like Slavitt is not the most "literal" translation, but he makes it a great read.

I am not enough of a Greek Scholar to recomend a more literal version, but it looks like people have good things to say about Fagles's version.

Ancient Greece is a topic that once bored me, but after I read this book, I suddenly became interested in the Ancient World and the great many achievements of the Greeks. I know many people may not read books on Ancient topics, but this one is definately not one to pass by

A bit uneven in spots, the translation is overall easy to read and highly recommended for highschool or lower level university classes. Students unfamiliar with this material need modern diction and syntax, despite what the reviewer from Japan opines, and this translation provides them.