I thought this was a silly book and not very useful. It does list a large number of names, however it groups names together in personality types- very different kinds of names & up to 30 for 1 type! Also, the research they did was laughable- they named cats and observed their behavior. It sounds like they may have only used two cats as well. If you just want to be entertained it could be all right, I'm sure some personalities happen to be accurate.

I recently discovered "the secret meaning of names" and am, to say the least, absolutely amazed! So far I have read the descriptions of the personality traits, social traits, health, pshychology, intelligence, and emotional nature of 13 of my family and friends. And, much to my amazement, every one accurately depicts each of these people. What an amazing book, either for research or entertainment, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the study of names or people.

The premise of this book is depicted above so I won't get into that, instead, I'll tell you more about what I like about this book:
I was given this book by my mom around 20 years ago when she went to an American Air Base bookstore in Manila. We'd spend nights after dinner reading through our names (I have 7 siblings). What was so amazing was that even though I come from an asian ethnicity/background, this book profoundly describes each and every one of us (even my parents) to the dot!!! I cherished this book a lot and it gave me hours of entertainment --- I'd even take it to school and my grade school best friend and I would check out teachers, classmates, etc... It amazes me how Mr. La Rouzic was able to connect all those names to those traits related to personality types and be pretty accurate about it to this day. I hope they publish more of these --- maybe then we'd get a better understanding on how to mix and match names so there won't be a "clash" of personality types (might be the source of the so-called 'split-personality' theory) and there'd be a lot less oddly-named people in this world. To date, nothing i've read on name books come close to this. I highly recommend this.Good luck finding it!

The Art of Preserving is filled with exotic jams,jellies,chutneys, and relishes which are artfully packaged and beautifully photographed. The book is a treat for the eyes! Unfortunately, the author does not provide sufficient detail in her recipes to accurately and safely produce these items. Although an overview of the canning process is provided at the beginning of the book, specific information on how long to process jars is not included with each recipe. If you are a novice canner, I would recommend the Ball Blue Book as good start to your preserving library. Once you are familiar with canning and the necessary steps, you can use the The Art of Preserving for inspiration to jazz up your recipes.

The recipes are well balanced and interesting. My problem with this book is the method of sealing. Jars are often sealed after the ingredients have cooled, so no true seal occurs. Covers such as parchment and cellophane are used. I would certainly want to use USDA approved sealing methods with these recipes. This includes sealing the jars with rubber rings or Ball/Kerr type jar covers and screw lids and processing the jars in a hot water bath from 10-30 minutes depending on the recipe ingredients. (Check web site canning sites maintained by university home economists) I would not feed these recipes to my family without using standard (USDA) food safety precautions for preserving.

The pictures and the recipies are just wonderful, but I have a problem with "Blueberry Jam", page 42. She says to use 1/2 the blueberries initially, but never says when to add the other half to the jam. Anyone out there have any input. My thought would be to do so when adding the sugar, but I'm not so sure...Feedback please...Thanks

stark's writing of the book is problematic because it is cluttered and very hard to comprehend. ...
I took off one whole star because of stark's disclaimer in the first chapter: "Before I proceed, however, it seems appropriate to discuss whether an attempt to explain the rise of Christianity is not somewhat sacrilegious.." I don't feel that Stark should tiptoe around possibly challenging theology if the book was written from a sociological and historical point of view. ...But Stark's information is concise, thorough, and very informative. That is why he received three stars from me.

Excellent book. If you want to learn about the success of Christianity in a social perspective this is the book you have to read. It connects the religious teachings of Jesus and His Church with the expansion of early (and late) Christianity.

As someone who is trained as both a theologian and a sociologist, Stark has done an excellent job in challenging assumptions (e.g., how the mission to the Jews succeeded rather than failed, how a large number of early converts actually came from the upper classes, etc.) held by many contemporary scholars of early Christianity. Hopefully, this will throw these scholars back into the historical material and have them take a second look.

The book has been interesting since its inception.The author conjured it from a mass of interviews during a summer some years later. Granted, the book is haunting, tragic and disturbing. The text, failed to understand the horror and confusion of the Anglos. I am well aware of this. Ronny Haynie, 3601 Sunset Ave. 1974....Farmington, New Mexico

I read a review of this book some years ago when it first came out. It sounded like a fascinating story so I made a mental note to keep an eye out for it at the book stores. Time went on and I still hadn't come across it so I ordered it off Amazon.com. When I got the book I was a little aprehensive at first. The subtitle, "A True Story of Murder and Magic in Indian Country" made me wonder if I was going to get the facts or the myth. When I started reading the first few pages, I was worried that I was going to get a skewered perspective of the events. As it turned out, none of my concerns were realized and, instead, I got an excellent review of a sordid event in recent history.

The main events of this story take place in the early 1970's. Three Native Americans were brutally murdered by three White teenagers in Farmington, NM. The author introduces us to the story through his own eyes as he discovers the tense aftermath of the murders and the reaction to the light sentencing that the youthful murderers received. Although just passing through Farmington, Rodney Barker finds himself suddenly involved in the turmoil. The events are etched in his mind and, when he dicovers more about it some years later, he decides to investigate the whole story.

Mr. Barker does a very good job in telling the story and trying to do so from all available perspectives. He is sensitive to the Navajo's point of view and goes to great lengths to bring that perspective to the reader. Yet, despite his partisan introduction to the story, he seems to have done a pretty good job of getting the "Anglo" perspective as well. There are times when there doesn't seem to be a reasonable response to some of what has happened. Yet the author often brings us just such a response. He follows the lives of the perpetrators and we find ourselves actually starting to care about them in their later lives. He leaves not with answers but with an awareness instead.

People not familiar with the tension of communities that border Native American reservations will find these events hard to believe. For that matter, so will those who do live in such communities. I read a Native American columnist once who said that the worst racism against Native Americans can be found in those communities that border reservations. Mr. Barker's book is an example of that statement at its' worst. Unfortuanately, while it makes us aware of this problem, it leaves an emptiness as we look for a solution to the problem. Why was it that the teenage activity of "rolling" intoxicated Indians in Farmington was allowed to happen? Was the author's explantion of the problem overstated or was the community's response to it understated? I live near an Indian reservation and I can attest to stereo-typing and tension between the races. However, it is nothing like the description of the situation in Farmington. Thus I am wondering about many things as a result of reading this book. The success of this book is that it has made me thing about things that need to be thought about.

Very well written, gripping, and entertaining despite the gravity of the subject matter. Well worth reading.

There are fads in all things and this is India's latest one.
It all began with "j. krishnamurti." He was no relation to "u.g." but u.g. used to avidly attend his lectures. J. krishnamurti was raised from boyhood by the theosophicall society to be the "world teacher" a kind of boy messiah. So, j. krishnamurti needed a teaching. He came up with one by repackaging the upanishads and certain elements of buddhism and lacing it with a liberal dose of himself as "debunker."
This is definitely where all this began.
The banner was then picked up by "ramesh belsekar" who is supposed to be a "fully enlightened gnani." He also is one of the "debunkers" which is all the rage with the indian intelligentsia right now. I described belsekar's "philosophy" or "spiritual pathway" and his learned' utterances to an unbiased friend who then recapped it for me by saying "in other words, when you're dead you're dead." of course, belsekar was also influenced by a scottsman who wrote under the name "wei wu wei" who was also one of the father's of the modern pessimism/debunking craze in indian thought.
lastly comes the natural development of this in the person of "u.g. krishnamurti." he is by far the bleakest most pessimistic most know-it-all of them all. he will assure you that you don't know, but he does; you're ideas are just beliefs but his are more than that...but he can't explain it to you. he will however happily attack anything that might give you hope or bring a little light into your existence of struggle. can't have that. in other words, this is a book for massochists.
u.g. is aptly named because his books make me go, "ugh."

Krishnamurti is best understood if one understands the religions that dominate his culture in India (and even ones that are influenced from hindu belief, even those far removed, like Taoism). Much of what the critic below says is true, that Krishnamurti does not offer many positive words, that he often tells a speaker that what he is saying is false. These practices were/are common in eastern religions. These are methods to get the seeker to throw away any thoughts they have by presenting the opposite, since thought is considered to them the root of all problems in life (if you stop thinking you have a problem or not think you need this or that, then you have no problem). Krishnamurti doesnt precisely respond in this way, but it might be beneficial to understand eastern thinking in order to understand Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti was affected by this, and his language is only unique as it comes from him, instead of someone else. He is not saying many new things - perhaps nothing he says is new - he just says old things in interesting ways that might perk up your ears.
But ultimately I found that what Krishnamurti says can be intepreted as either negative or positive (or anywhere in between), depending upon the listener. His intention is not to influence you in either direction. And Krishnamurti does not demand that he is the only one that possesses the truth (in fact he would say, I think, that one can never understand the truth), but the critic below would have you believe that what he is critizing about Krishnamurti is truth. We all say what we think. You can take it or leave it. And for some it may be better that they leave it.

There's nothing to be said about U.G. except that he is absolutely mandatory reading for the serious seeker. This isn't warm and fuzzy spirituality, this is burning-down-the-house spirituality, and this book should have a prominent place in any thoughtfully-stocked spiritual library.

I was never channeled by this woman and had nothing to do with this book project. Her book may have some wisdom and value, though I don't know because I haven't read it. But any of its contents are her own thoughts and ideas or the thoughts and ideas of people or entities other than myself.

I enjoyed this book because it combines knowledge, wisdom and love. The information is both beautiful and practical and should be taken in slowly, chewed up carefully, tasted sensuously and swallowed lovingly. The pages are easily read, but don't hesitate to pay close attention to every word. It's well worth the effort to retain the meaning of Lord Michael's precious communications. After finishing the book, I keep picking it up again and again for spiritual maintenance.

This was such an uplifting book, and I felt Archangel Michael was with me whilst I was reading it. I recommend this book to anyone who is going through their own personal awakening.

Webster's says "poetry" is concentrated imaginative language. And "gay" would relate to minority-group experience? I don't see very much high poetic quality here, nor explicit references to gay perspectives (not just sexuality, but "diversity" of viewpoints).

Oh, some are good. John Weiners' confessionals. Dan Bellm's "Boy Wearing A Dress" on gender-identity. James Schuyler's chatty "Who Is Nancy Daum" is a bracelet of imagery-stones. Wayne Koestenbaum's campily-operatic intonations.

But too many times (to use an analogy) it's a flatland of prose, lacking poetic mountain-vistas. Like Frank O'Hara: "Lana Turner has collapsed!...I have been to lots of parties / and acted perfectly disgraceful / but I never actually collapsed / oh Lana Turner we love you get up." Like Taylor Mead: "I came pretty close to / upchuking [sic], Chuck." Like Jack Anderson's "Partial Index to Myself": "B Bach ballet bark worse than a bite bed befuddlement birthdays." Like too many more.

Nor does the anthology show gay presence, experience, response. Editor Liu says, "I still question the notion of a 'gay sensibility.'" He was "simply interested in documenting a particular and peculiar time in contemporary American poetry, turf notwithstanding."

Fine, but why, plus why call it gay? I wandered through pages of non-gay scenes--like walking through fields without a "hint of mint" (to use an analogy plus an allusion). Too bad: minority poetry (Blacks, Native Americans, etc.) can give the "outsider" vision. And the selections from Dennis Cooper, Thom Gunn, Edward Field, and Frank O'Hara are not the memorable gay-imbued visions I recall.

What went wrong, if it did? Editor Liu seems underinvolved in the project. Talisman House approached him "to edit an anthology." And "after some thought I decided that an anthology of gay American poetry would best suit my energies." Not the decades-long project which Gavin Dillard claimed was his anthology A DAY FOR A LAY.

Good-quality gay poetry does exist. But artistic excellence is often eclipsed today by either political "relevance" (which seriously damaged the Larkin and Morse anthology GAY AND LESBIAN POETRY IN OUR TIME) or flat-prose conversation chopped up into lines and masquing as poetry. Still, do visit Liu's garden for the few but definite poetic and gay-blooming flowers which do grow there....

To answer the other New Orleanian's question: D.A. Powell is an incredible young poet, An Iowa graduate, who has published two books of which i know, Tea, and his new one, Lunch, which isn't as good over all but which contains probably my two favorite poems of his, "[My father and me in hollywood, fading and rising starlettes]" and another about his father which ends with a reference to Gone with the Wind. He's one of the highlights of the anthology and everyone should check him out!

No self respecting gay poet would have signed off on being enclosed in a bland white! cover. The anthology itself is excellent, of course not all the up and coming legendary current poets are here. Seems it is true one only sees who one sees. And to answer the previous reviewers questions regarding the inclusion of Miss Doty in another anthology: he is needed in order to elevate the status of the current lesser knowns, a basic law of signature.

Kiss Kiss Rachel Tensions

I really expected more from this one. The only good thing about it is the really short story about Elric, not the one with him at the end of time which is just strange and really lacks a plot other than resembling a D&D dungeon crawl. The other stories are not even worth reading. Not worth a lot of money at all. Keep your eyes open in used book stores.

This book seemed to me to be lacking the great rich adventure I have come to expect from Michael Moorcock.. It is not acctually a full book., It contains other stories that are not directly linked to the Elric Saga.. It is a very fine book. But I wouldn't rate it as highly as the first 6 books of the series., I have read them all.

This volume consists of several Elric short stories. The first, eponymous one, took me completely by surprise. It was an all-out spoof of the fantasy genre in general, and of Elric in particular.

Tongue planted oh-so-firmly in cheek, Moorcock spends almost 70 pages skewering his own melancholic albino prince. How can any true Elric fan resist lines like these: [To Elric] "You are very welcome here," said Werther. "I cannot tell you how glad I am to meet one as essentially morbid and self-pitying as myself!" Or Werther's first assessment of Elric: "What a marvellous scowl! What a noble sneer!"

Up until this book, I had been reading the Elric novels because they are often held up as classics of the fantasy genre, and because my brother said they were good books. But, while I (mostly) admired the writing ability displayed by Moorcock in the previous novels, I found them repetitious at times, the main character nearly always unlikable, and the situations often incomprehensible.

After having read this short story, I am ready for an all-out Moorcock assault. I plan to read some of the other "eternal champion" books, but mostly, I am determined to find Moorcock's other comedies, for which he displays an even greater ability than he does for fantasy. In the forward to this book, Moorcock states: " . . . though I do prefer my comedies to my melodramas and personally would put a greater value on books such as Gloriana, The Condition of Muzak, Byzantium Endures or The Brothel in Rosenstrasse." I can't wait for my next experience rolling-on-the-floor laughing with Michael Moorcock.

I am doing a term paper on cults for a sociology class. I picked this topic because I have always found cults, their members, and their leaders particularly interesting. I bought this book to help me in my research, but didn't read far before knowing it wasn't going to be what I had hoped.

The book is not very maturely written, with a little too much tongue-in-cheek wit for its own good. Aware of its own stability among the seemingly lost sanity of the cult, the writers become presumptuous- even boring.

The biggest problem I had with the book is that it is more of a review of cults and sects in general... while it is certainly helpful to offer insight through comparison to other cults/sects, the comparisons in this book overtook it. For every piece of Heaven's Gate information, there were five facts about cults in general-- information that is certainly good to know, but should be in a book titled, "Cults," not a book claiming to be about a specific incident.

The book handles the history of the leaders, but gives little insight into their emotional stances or those of the members. After reading the book, I am slightly more knowledgable about cults in general, fairly well-versed in tidbits about other cults, somewhat aware of what happened in Heaven's Gate, and accutely aware of where the cult's leader went to school and the general idea of hysteria over armaggedon.

Read this book for a little more info on Heaven's Gate. Don't read it expecting insight on the specifics of the cult itself.

This book expored all that was evident in the the tragedy of Heaven's Gate and i found it to be very descriptive in that it explored the subject to a rather deep extent. I enjoyed it and found it quite interesting.

Suicide cults! Apple sauce! Sexless androgenoids! Sure there are satanic cults, drug cults, Ufo cults, Christ cults, Hip hop cults, beenie-baby cults, Ebay cults, and even tupperware cults, but none come close to the inspired zaniness of Doe's Heaven's Gate cult.

I've been an observer of cults for most of my adult life and I must admit that I've got a soft-spot in me for all of them. Many books are written in the aftermaths of these cults and most are a boring lethargic read. Victims families are trotted out for the dog & pony show and stoic lawmen denounce the "crimes". NOT IN THIS BOOK!

Here, Forrest Jackson and Rodney Perkins become entrenched in the genesis of the Heaven's Gate cult as well as interpreting the parallels with other cults and pull back the veil on our own cult dominated society, exposing our fetishes for some cults and our poison hatred of others. Not only is this book a fun read because of the scalpel-altered DOE and his suicide-prone squad of comet pilots, but this book takes it's subject matter seriously, and never in a Bugliosi tone of superiority. The closest equivalent that I can think of to this book in terms of cult research is MESSENGERS OF DECEPTION by Dr. Jacques Vallee.

COSMIC SUICIDE is one of the best books written about the Heaven's Gate cult, hands down and it's written from the desk of someone who did the leg work and circumvented all the idiot editorializing that this book would have been subjected to had it been published by a major publishing house. To put it simply... if cults are your thing... especially the Heaven's Gate cult.... then BUY THIS BOOK!

Now one may say that we do not have much evidence for life in the Bronze age, but surely we have more than what Castledon is using. Written for a more mainstream audience, I would not use as a text for undergraduates. Instead, read it to see if it pushes you to think differently about any "fact" from that most ancient time.

I read this book with deep interest and found that most of his impressions were right on the mark. I agree that to survive in the rough world of the Bronze Age the Minoans were very skilled fighters and raiders rather than flower sniffing pacifists pictured by Evans and other discoverers. But not every building was a temple. Each "palace" I agree was a temple in part. The west side of every major "palace" has been shown to have cultic significance since the time of Sir Arthur Evans. However, the east side of the central courts resemble Minoan residental architecture from all over Crete and from Thera. Is it not possible that the rulers (be they kings, priest kings, or a ruling priestess)still needed places to live! I feel that many of the so called villas in Knossos that Castledon calls temples are just very large homes with a home altar or a sacred room.

Still an interesting book with a lot of ideas that I feel will change our views on the Minoan civilization. However, I feel he could have balanced out his views with some good sense. A ruler has to live somewhere? Has Castledon ever come across these sites yet? He makes the argument that just like Egypt and Assyria, monumental temples existed on Crete and these are the so-called "palaces" However, every other major civilization in the Bronze Age had monumental structures that housed the rulers of the state, and why should Minoan Crete be any different there either. Could it be that the palaces of Minoan Crete served both purposes? I would appreciate other readers views on this matter.

Books about ancient cultures tend to be either slightly soft-focus and "fluffy" or dry and almost excessively scholarly; neither approach succeeds in bringing a culture to vivid life for the interested lay reader. This book, however, does just that. It has scholarly evidence in detail, but also fleshed-out conclusions, and unflinchingly looks even at evidence that doesn't "fit" our modern image of ancient peoples we want to like, in its quest to bring us a living, breathing image of the Minoans. (It also has illustrations in plenty; I feel a bit juvenile to admit this, but I very much appreciate illustrations, as no verbal description can quite convey the brushstrokes, the maze-like floor plans, the quality of line.)It's not a perfect book---I agree with another reviewer who complained that people probably had more houses and fewer temples than Mr. Castleden concludes ---but it is an excellent one, especially for an "armchair archaeologist".