This book is a great teaching tool... how NOT to act in school... read it and enjoy. All the Junie B. Jones books are irreverant and poke fun at ourselves as well as being great to read together with your child... laugh and learn TOGETHER!

Like the other Junie B. Jones books, this one was easy to read and funny. However, I really didn't like the extended discussion about whether Mickey Mouse (etc.) is real -- my 6-year-old reader didn't need to find that out from a book!

It is a very funny book about a girl named Junie Beatrice Jones except she just likes B. and that's all. She has trouble controlling her temper and excitement. Sometimes she yells out "YOU'RE A DUMB BUNNY!" and she calls her teacher "Mrs."...she has another name too but Junie B. just likes Mrs. and that's all. One day Mrs. said, "Boys and girls, please take your seats. I've got a wonderful surprise!" "IS IT JELLY DOUGHNUTS?" Mrs. put her finger to her lips and that means be quiet. "YEAH ONLY GUESS WHAT? JELLY DOUGHNUTS ARE MY MOST FAVORITE EXCEPT I ALSO LIKE OTHER KINDS!" After that, my mouth got very drooly and some drool fell on the table. I wiped it up with my sweater sleeve. Just then there was a knock at the door. Mrs. hurried to open it. "HEY, IT'S A..." to find out who it was...read the book! You didn't expect ME to tell you!

The teacher who teaches this is an enviromentalist wacko and this book can be used solely for that purpose.

The authors obviously put a lot of work into making science accessible and interesting! The information in the book is up-to-date, and the approach is balanced. Great text!

This text is a clearly defined study of environmental science. It is full of content and each chapter offers extensional learning through the use open-ended presentations of current events applicable to the content. There are loads of interesting topics and there are also references to Online sources for additional information. This is an excellent book for the study of environmental science.

Many people would like to say that Shakespeare did not write this play. But this is hardly fair. Even with the world's finest writers such as Marlowe and Dickens, not every single thing they write can be a masterpiece. But what makes "The Two Gentleman of Verona" worth reading? Well, Shakespeare presents us with a valid theme. (Conflicts often exist between romance and friendship.) There is also beautiful language. Launce and his dog offer some interesting comedy as well as a beautiful and memorable passage in 2.3. The scene where Valentine is accepted amonst the outlaws is memorable. This is Shakespeare's first play where a woman (Julia) disuises herself as man to do some investigating. It is also easy to see that several elements of this play were used in "Romeo and Juliet." To be sure, this is not a masterpiece like "The Comedy of Errors," "Richard III," or "King Lear." But it is still an good study that is worth some interest.

Although few would claim that Two Gentlemen of Verona is one of Shakespeare's greatest plays, it is well worth reading in order to serve as a reference for the best of his romantic comedies. In essence, Two Gentlemen of Verona gives you a measuring stick to see the brilliance in the best works.

The play has the first of Shakespeare's many brave, resourceful and cross-dressing heroines, Julia.

Shakespeare always used his fools and clowns well to make serious statements about life and love, and to expose the folly of the nobles. Two Gentlemen of Verona has two very fine comic scenes featuring Launce. In one, he lists the qualities of a milk maid he has fallen in love with and helps us to see that love is blind and relative. In another, he describes the difficulties he has delivering a pet dog to Silvia on his master, Proteus', behalf in a way that will keep you merry on many a cold winter's evening.

The story also has one of the fastest plot resolutions you will ever find in a play. Blink, and the play is over. This nifty sleight of hand is Shakespeare's way of showing that when you get noble emotions and character flowing together, things go smoothly and naturally.

The overall theme of the play develops around the relative conflicts that lust, love, friendship, and forgiveness can create and overcome. Proteus is a man who seems literally crazed by his attraction to Silvia so that he loses all of his finer qualities. Yet even he can be redeemed, after almost doing a most foul act. The play is very optimistic in that way.

I particularly enjoy the plot device of having Proteus and Julia (pretending to be a page) playing in the roles of false suitors for others to serve their own interests. Fans of Othello will enjoy these foreshadowings of Iago.

The words themselves can be a bit bare at times, requiring good direction and acting to bring out the full conflict and story. For that reason, I strongly urge you to see the play performed first. If that is not possible, do listen to an audio recording as you read along. That will help round out the full atmosphere that Shakespeare was developing here.

After you finish Two Gentlemen of Verona, think about where you would honor friendship above love, where equal to love, and where below love. Is friendship less important than love? Or is friendship merely less intense? Can you experience both with the same person?

Enjoy close ties of mutual commitment . . . with all those you feel close to!

"The Two Gentlemen of Verona" is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. Maybe that's because it's one of the only one's I understand. My youth Theatre did a wonderful production of this play. I was not in it, but I saw it twice. It was set in the 60's, peasant-shirted and bell-bottomed. I think it's a wonderful story, although a bit unrealistic because of all the forgiveness that happens at the end of the play. But I think that it's a play everyone should read. This edition of the play is, I think, a very good one. If you are planning to buy a copy of "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," I would advise you to buy the most current edidtion printed by the Folger Shakespeare Library. They have lots of information in the book, and many definitions of the more difficult Elizabethian words.

What is it not about? : Gossip, lies, boasting, turning the truth upside down, praising one-self (particularely by using pseudo-names and writing reviews about ones own books, yes, that happens very strongly with Patterson). I could go on and on.

"The Gurdjieff-work" has been quite protected until now, but now it seems, that since most of the great followers have died, the the old saying can be applied: When the cat is out, the mice are dancing. Well, here we have quite a big mouse, rather a...

The reviews under the name of Ivan Butovitch and under R. Cazares have the same style. I do not trust these reviews.
The reviews of "Eating the I" by the same author stronly
suggest that this problem is repeating itself here again!

I was very curious about this book, but after reading it, I found that it is basically advertisement for Pattersons workline, and trying to put down others. Clever attempt, but
not for the serious. Patterson gives in to the fascination of
the "rainbowpress", reducing readers and writers to this sort of "sharks, thriving in pecking in the serious work and suffering of people, who are far above them"!

Nothing about transformation, only self-love, self-importance,
condescension towards women and lots of hidden advertisement.

It's hard to believe that the same man who wrote the brilliant "Struggle of the Magicians" also wrote this thing. We can only assume that Patterson evolved very much both as an individual and as a writer in the intervening years (this is the earlier work). The book is an inelegant string of shameful incidents in the author's life; he merely presents them with a sort of glee at his own ability at objective (in his mind) self-disclosure, without ever mentioning in any detail about how Gurdjieff's ideas ever helped him to use these incidents in transcending himself. You can get that much from daytime talk shows, if you want it. It seemed at the very end that the book had a happy ending, when Patterson seems to be leaving those antedeluvian "masters" like Gurdjieff and Jung behind (having discovered a true anti-guru in Sunyata), but unfortunately for him and perhaps fortunately for readers, it didn't turn out that way. To this day he continues to propagate the Gurdjieff cult in a series of wonderfully well-written books that are easily the best of their dubious kind.

This is an esoteric book that most people won't recognize as such. That's because of the picture most people have of what constitutes an esoterically spiritual person. The pursuit of an ultimate reality beyond the cacophony of mundane life is connected with images of serene meditating monks, of wandering recluses, of wide-eyed dreamers and spooky mystics. To read instead a book full of parties and socializing, office politics, career moves, flirtation and adultery, and ego posturing seems odd. "Real" esoteric and spiritual people are expected to get away from petty socializing, to take vows of poverty and chastity, and to put their all into the pursuit of some strenuous austerity or achievement, as do monks, yogis and fakirs. But this book is about the Fourth Way, in which mundane life is grist for the mill of self-development.

It covers a period in the adult life of William Patrick Patterson. He's a writer and editor in the cutthroat milieu of New York City. He's also married, and tempted by bold, modern women. He rises like a meteor and is shot down by an office competitor. He knows wealth and poverty, arrogance and fear. He finds and honors a rare spiritual teacher. More than one in fact. There's cussing, drinking, verbal clashes, and relationships gone bad.

It's not the bald subject matter, but the insights and principles that illuminate it that distinguish this book from an ordinary memoir. Here is one of many examples: Patterson faces an ugly truth underlying his employment situation concerning the way a boss is using and mistreating him. He withdraws his cooperation from the boss at a critical moment, knowing full well the it will at least create extreme unpleasantness at the office if not result in his ultimate dismissal. He has upset an equilibrium that needed to be upset, yet what will the consequences be? Can he get control and set the situation right or not? There is no way of knowing this at the moment his decision must be made. He is on a fatal trajectory that continues when the co-worker confronts him and demands an explanation for Patterson's absence from an award dinner. Should he appease his adversary by making a phony excuse? "These two "I"'s inside me debate. The one, very rational, mature-sounding. The arguments are so reasonable, sensible. So what if I lie - so what? But then, just at the last instant, a feeling comes of total disgust - disgust for what stood before me, disgust with that whole way of life. And inside that feeling a silent voice declares: I-am-not-going-to-lie-to-him.

I tell him: "No excuse."

"What!" he screams and sags, a look of horror, bewilderment, frozen to his face .......

And something falls away and I know right then: I have broken free of him."

Later he tells his wife that he'll apologize if she really wants him too but is not optimistic about doing it, because: "I feel like there's you know, a big movement going on. Big wheels are turning. I'm at the interval in the octave. all this has to happen. I'm being moved on now."

How right he was. At the end of the book he had moved on and found some peace. With his wife, with his departed teacher the formidable Lord Pentland, and with a new career. No this is not a book claiming that the Fourth Way will make one rich, sexy, happy, or lucky. But it is about what the study and practice of the Fourth Way looks like from the inside of a modern man in modern society, which is where it was meant to be practiced all along.

I am a gang and youth violence expert working with the San Diego County Office of Education, Safe Schools Unit. I have alerted many of our schools about the series of books by Stanley "Tookie" Williams. I do not recommend the purchase of this book. The content of the books are not appropriate for young people. The images of gangs are not accurate (Too much negative sterotyping). The book is written in a simplistic style that will quickly bore young students. Youth need to critically examine information not be talked down to. You may email me for alternate suggestions for gang prevention books for youth.

Maybe not for educators, most likely not for students, but for up and coming Lil Gs this book tells it like it is ... straight forward with excellent phonetic spellings in the back. This book steers you away from the bad and toward the good. Stay Clean and Say NO to glue. Dig the art, too, man. Pick this book up, G. Eighth Street Cadillac High Rollers in the House.

Why is this person (wsakamot@sdcoe.k12.ca.us) so negative towards Stanley's message getting out there to the young people.I dont see a book by him...

Mixing the erudite and colloquial language, Washabaugh's text has so many references to other sources one begins to wonder whether any of the content is actually original. Since he's an American Anthropologist I suppose one should forgive his limited view of an art form whose cultural roots must be as alien to him as little green men from Mars. The author seems to think flamenco performers are 'doing politics' whether they want to or not. He totally misses the point that flamenco has no high ideals, and no political goals, apart from serving as an emotional catalyst. On his web article about some of the videos he talks about in this book, his lack of research is really deplorable. No- Do in Seville comes from the days of Alfonso X in the 13th Century when the loyalty of the city led him to proclaim No Me Han Dejado- They Did Not Abandon Me on the coat of arms of the city. Nothing to do with Christ's cry from the cross, Mr. Washabaugh, do your homework.

Author Barbara Gallati has compiled a nice biography of one of America's talented impressionist artists. The story is well written but seeing only 44 color illustrations of the 103 shown is disappointing. Presenting the "Blue Kimono" in color on the cover and in black and white is quite a comparison. I kept looking for information on the number of pieces Chase painted in his career but that was not listed. This 143 page book is a little small for my personal taste.

What is presented however are many portraits of the artist's beautiful family members and well known pictures of Central Park in New York and Prospect Park in Brooklyn. There aren't a lot of books available on William Merrit Chase but this one is good.

My only complaint about this play is that Shakespeare should have had some dialogues where the characters discussed crucial history before the play opens. Gloucester (murdered or dead before the play but mentioned several times) had tried to usurp Richard's crown too many times. History itself is not sure if Gloucester died or was murdered. Bolingbroke for a while conspired with Gloucester and now sees another oppurtunity to usurp the crown.The virtuous John of Gaunt served Richard with honor and integrity and eventually moved parliament into arresting Gloucester for treason. This would of made John of Gaunt's rages all the more valid. Otherwise this play is outstanding! Richard shows himself to be capable of ruling at times, but gains our contempt when he seizes his the honorable John of Gaunt's wealth. John of Gaunt's final rage in 2.1 is a passage of immense rageful beauty. Also, Shakespeare moves us into strongly suspecting that Richard had Gloucester murdered. However, despite Richard's crime, Shakespeare masterfully reverses our feelings and moves us into having deep pity for Richard when he is deposed. The Bishop of Carlisle (Richard's true friend) provides some powerful passages of his own. I can not overestimate the grace in which Shakespeare increases our new won pity for Richard when Bolingbroke (Gaunt's rightful heir) regains his wealth and the death of Gloucester is left ambiguous. 5.1, when Richard sadly leaves his queen and can see that Henry IV and his followers will eventually divide is a scene of sorrowful beauty. 5.4 is chilling when Exton plots Richard's murder. 5.5 is chilling and captivating when Richard dies but manages to take two of the thugs down with him. The icing on the cake is that Bolingbroke (Henry IV) can only regret his actions and realize that he has gotten himself into a troublesome situation. But that will be covered in "1 Henry IV" and "2 Henry IV." We can easily argue that it is in "Richard II" where we see Shakespeare's mastery of the language at its finest.

Richard II was incompetent, wastefully extravagant, overtaxed his nobles and peasants, ignored his senior advisors, and lavished dukedoms on his favorites. His rival, Henry of Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), was popular with the common man and undeservingly suffered banishment and loss of all his property. And yet two centuries later Elizabethans viewed the overthrow of Richard II as fundamentally wrong and ultimately responsible for 100 years of crisis and civil war. Queen Elizabeth's government even censored Shakespeare's play.

Shakespeare masterfully manipulates our feelings and attitude toward Richard II and Bolingbroke. We initially watch Richard II try to reconcile differences between two apparently loyal subjects each challenging the other's loyalty to the king. He seemingly reluctantly approves a trial by combat. But a month later, only minutes before combat begins, he banishes both form England. We begin to question Richard's motivation.

Richard's subsequent behavior, especially his illegal seizure of Bolingbroke's land and title, persuades us that his overthrow is justified. But as King Richard's position declines, a more kingly, more contemplative ruler emerges. He faces overthrow and eventual death with dignity and courage. Meanwhile we see Bolingbroke, now Henry IV, beset with unease, uncertainty, and eventually guilt for his action.

Shakespeare also leaves us in in a state of uncertainty. What is the role of a subject? What are the limits of passive obedience? How do we reconcile the overthrow of an incompetent ruler with the divine right of kings? Will Henry IV, his children, or England itself suffer retribution?

Richard II has elements of a tragedy, but is fundamentally a historical play. I was late coming to Shakespeare's English histories and despite my familiarity with many of his works I found myself somewhat disoriented. I did not appreciate the complex relationships between the aristocratic families, nor what had happened before. Fortunately I was rescued by Peter Saccio, the author of "Shakespeare's English Kings". Saccio's delightful book explores how Shakespeare's imagination and actual history are intertwined.

I hope you enjoy Richard II as much as I have. It is the gateway to Henry IV (Parts 1 and 2) and Henry V, all exceptional plays.

The thing with Shakespeare histories is that almost no one reads them, as opposed to his tragedies and comedies. I don't know why that is. The histories that are read are either Henry V (largely due to Branagh's movie), Richard III (because the hunchback king is so over-the-top evil), or the gargantuan trilogy of Henry VI, with the nearly saintly king (at least by Part III) who much prefers contemplating religion and ethics to ruling and dealing with the cabals among his nobles.

So why read a relatively obscure history about a relatively obscure king? Aside from the obvious (it's Shakespeare, stupid), it is a wonderful piece of writing - intense, lyrical, and subtle. Richard II is morally ambiguous, initially an arrogant, callous figure who heeds no warnings against his behavior. Of course, his behavior, which includes seizing the property of nobles without regard for their heirs, leads to his downfall. Nothing in his character or behavior inspires his subjects so he has no passionate defenders when one of the wronged heirs leads a rebellion to depose Richard II. But Richard now becomes a much more sympathetic figure -especially in the scene where he confronts the usurper, Richard acknowledges his mistakes, but eloquently wonders what happens when the wronged subjects can depose the leader when they are wronged. What then of the monarchy, what then of England?

On top of the profound political musings, you get some extraordinarily lyrical Shakespeare (and that is truly extraordinary). Most well known may be the description of England that was used in the airline commercial a few years back... "This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, ..."

If you like Shakespeare and haven't read this play, you've missed a gem.

Patterson seems to see himself up as Mr. Judge, or lets call him "Mr Judge of the Fourth Way". What pompous behaviour. He never met any of the women he writes about, has no idea about their reality, but presents a picture, which might mislead many readers, who did not have the chance to meet some of the "great men and women" of the Gurdjieff work. Patterson crusades for his own pseudo-Gurdjieff-line, look at his webside and look at the pictures of Gurdjeff and others, look at the style, the colours, feel the energy! This is Gurdjeff reduced to Pokemon-comic-quality! I bet, Patterson even dreams strongly about a Patterson Line, this Patterson, who understood Gurdjieff the best, who outclassed Ouspensky, Bennett, Orage, the Rope... (see "Struggle of the magicians"). Mama Mia.... or God help us !

The book seems to be really interesting, I was quite taken by it when I first read it. I sought, this man really got some serious information together. But then, after studying carefully the sources, it was clear, that this was not at all the case. What Patterson is doing is "Sensation-Journalism". These Sensation Journalists remind me of the dark ages or early middle ages. Like in these days the cross was misused, Patterson misuses his collections, and suddenly everything is holy and justified. Who does not go along with these Sensation-Journalists, is a heretic.
They really believe, that their press-pass gives them the right to dig in the life of others and sniff around to find whatever might be sensational, while in truth its nothing else than an excuse for their own cheap upside-down goals.

Ladies of the Rope is a fascinating journey through the lives of a group of women: Margaret Anderson and Jane Heap, both co-editors of The Little Review; Kathryn Hulme, author of The Nun's Story and Undiscovered Country; Solita Solano, author, editor and companion of Janet Flanner who wrote for The New Yorker; Georgette Leblanc an actress, and Louise Davidson.

Although quite different from one another this group of women would come to share a common aim, to awaken. They would become the Ladies of the Rope, a group of women, all lesbian except one, that G.I. Gurdjieff choose to disseminate his teaching of the Fourth Way in Paris in 1935 .

The book is an intimate account of lunches, dinners, trips, meetings, conversations and life with Mr. Gurdjieff. These times were used by Mr. Gurdjieff to deliver "shocks" to allow them to see themselves as they truly were, not as they thought themselves to be. The author did extensive research in numerous archives, which enabled Ladies of the Rope to be told factually through letters, diaries, notes and memoirs.

Because it is based on their own writings and notes, this book is an authentic exploration of their friendships, personal relationships and their work with Mr. Gurdjieff. The author gives the reader an inside look at who the ladies of the rope were before they met Mr. Gurdjieff, during their days with their teacher and after his death. It shows a glimpse of the teacher/student relationship Mr. Gurdjieff shared with this group of women and the lifelong bond the women shared with one another.

This book is unparalleled, as no other work exists that has told this wonderful story. For those of us too feeble to make the long trek to another country to search out and carefully study these women's papers and notes, a big, big, Thank You to the author. Finally these women have been brought to light as the group of true warriors in the Work that they were and still are.