This "little" book (it can be read in a few hours yet consulted as a comprehensive reference tool) is the one own if you must limit yourself to one (and given the abundance of material in print and on-line, it may be wise to have just one reliable resource). It provides user-friendly yet responsible information about all of the SSRI's (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil) as well as the drugs that preceded them (tricyclics, benzodiazapines) and the more recent antidepressants (Effexor, Remeron, Celexa). Appleton looks at many promising drugs awaiting approval as well as the vast number of touted herbal remedies. The author has no agenda. He provides balanced information about the percentage of consumers who are likely to be helped and to what degree. He also suggests 2 and 3-step drug programs for individuals who are "treatment-resistant." Best of all, the author combines appreciation for the medical efficacy of certain drugs with healthy skepticism and an experienced professional's common-sense.

This is an excellant place to start if you want to know more about antidepressant drugs. It is easy to read and understand but this is not just some guy's opinion. The information contained here is current to the date of publication.

As a bonus the author includes a review of various medications not available in America but commonly used overseas (Europe mostly) and some herbal medicines. This section is also helpful and easy to read and look up specific herbs or medicines.

The section on drugs in the "pipeline" is not of the same quality and interest as the rest of the book. Skim it if you must but don't start with the last chapter and think it is reflect of the rest of the book.

This would be helpful for those with depression or for family members trying to understand depression and options for treatment. It is also a useful tool for non-medical service providers who need an easy reference tool for common antidepressant medications.

The book is not very long but offers just the right amount of information and makes for easy reading without all the technical jargon. It gives a very informative background on the various new antidepressants and is a must read for those already on antidepressants who are curious or have concerns about what they are currently taking. What I liked most were the comparisons of the various kinds of new antidepressants as well as the side effects known to each.

I am currently reading this book. I am the mother of two children, 2 1/2 years old and 11 months. This book has been very helpful in allowing our family to gage where our 2 1/2 year old is developmentally. My daughter has known her primary colors and ABC's since she was 18 months old. As a parent, I want to understand what a solid based curriculum should 'look like'. We do not want our children to be 'bored' in school and Bennett provides a wonderful checklist of what a preschooler should know. He also outlines what we as parents can do with our children to foster their growth.

Our primary role as parents should be to nurture and teach our children. Too many parents today want their children to be taught by strangers and they want as 'little' involvement in their education as possible. Shame on them! The greatest gift in life is having children --- Our main purpose as parents is to foster their love of learning and teach them to be moral and upright citizens.

In our home, we have NEVER pushed our daughter to 'learn' her ABC's or 'learn' her colors. As an infant, I read to her and drew the letters on a Magna Doodle. After a few months of this, she was able to recognize her letters and colors.

Learning can be fun and creative. We sort clothes together and she loves to help me clean the house. Involve your children in your EVERY DAY LIFE!

I applaud these Authors for their insight in education and how we as parents need to be the PRIMARY source for their education!

As a member of a public school board of education, one thing I look for is parental involvement. I like to see large crowds at school board meetings. This book is a valuable guide for parents of children up to 8th grade. Bennett stresses parental involvement. Parents should get to know their childrens' teachers and inquire about the content of the curriculum. Much of the book sets forth what children should learn in each subject area in each grade level. I found the chapter on social studies particularly interesting because that is the subject area where "multiculturalism" and revisionism can most water down the curriculum. Clearly, we should not white wash warts in our past, but we should teach history in a positive manner, while recognizing that no culture, including ours, has a perfect past. We should teach our commonality as citizens without over empahsizing our differences. Parents should know what is being taught in schools and, where children are not being taught what children should know, the parents should be active in correcting the matter.

Bennett points out that the home, as well as the school, should be a center of learning. He gives examples of activities that parents can do with children to increase their learning. He also discusses dealing with difficulties that may arise in schools, such as disciplinary problems, etc. This book also discusses innovative and controversial issues such as charter schools, home schooling, how religion should be addressed in our schools, etc. I highly recommend this book and hope that it will spur parents on to close involvemet with their children's education.

From Publisher's Weekly - Publishers Weekly Former U.S. Secretary of Education Bennett (The Book of Virtues) and his colleagues (Finn, author of We Must Take Charge; Cribb, formerly of the U.S. Department of Education) offer American parents an impassioned and straight-shooting reference for educating their children. In prose free of academic rhetoric, the authors state: "[I]f your school is inflicting a mediocre education on your child, the sooner you know about it the better." They then present a "yardstick" by which to judge the academic quality of any school (public or private). A model core curriculum organized by grade level--primary (K-3), intermediate (4-6), and junior high (7 and 8)--presents the material clearly and logically, and helps readers assess whether a child is getting a thorough dose of English, history and geography, the arts, math and science. While blunt in their criticism of decaying academic standards (evident in grade inflation, lowered expectations for students and terrible international rankings), the authors are unequivocal in their support of dedicated educators and all those willing to hold children to the highest possible standard. Parents may question some of the model curriculum's expectations (e.g., that second graders dramatize the death of Socrates), but the authors are quick to reassure readers that the book's purpose is not to serve as a list of must-haves but rather as "inspiration and general guidance" in gaining a sense of "the knowledge and skills that should lie at the heart of a solid elementary education." Bennett is a controversial figure because of his passionate cultural conservatism. But this book, despite a brief word in favor of school vouchers, is about padagogy, not politics. It's an ambitious and commonsensical guide that will inspire both parents and educators. 100,000 first printing; 25-city radio satellite tour. (Nov.) Copyright 1999 Cahners Business Information.

This is probably the best book in print on the question of the authorship of the Shakespeare plays. It is engrossing, readable, and the material is well organized and easy to follow, which is no small task in dealing with this subject.

The Shakespeare Claimants, a book from the 1960's on this subject, now out of print, is much better in my opinion, because its author is not afraid to comment on the relative rationality of the different theories. Author John Michell has chosen a different approach: Michell is equivocal in his treatment of the different theories of authorship. He therefore reports with a straight face such absurdities as the Baconian ciphers, and the idea that the Deptford police conspired with Christopher Marlowe to fake his murder.

In that his intent is to be neutral, he is extremely successful. And in all fairness, I'll note, that he does not give space to patent insanities, such as the theory that Queen Elizabeth I wrote the plays.

However, he does not, in my opinion, deal adequately with the issue of "the secret that was not a secret." He mentions all the times that theorists use as evidence, incidents when William Shakespeare the actor is passed over for some sanction that befalls one of the theorists over the text of one of the plays. This is proof positive, say the theorists, that someone knew Shakespeare the actor was not Shakespeare the author; this demolishes earlier arguments of the theorists that Shakespeare was used as a cover because the real author could not be known as a playwright. While such situations come up time and again, Michell never ties them all together to make one great sweep at the idea of an authorship question in the first place.

Indeed, this is something else I found lacking in the book. There is no general discussion of the unliklihood that anyone but the actor wrote the plays with the name "Shakespeare."

But Michell does add something to the picture that most of the theorists have lacked, and this admittedly does add strength to the question. This is a general knowledge of Elizabethan history, literature, and society. He is able to tame some of the wilder aspects of the theories with his superior knowledge.

If your interest is in Shakespeare, the actor, or in Shakespearean literature and criticism, you may want to throw this book against the wall after a couple of chapters. But if the Shakespeare Question intrigues you, or if crackpot conspiracy theories in general interest you, you'll love this book.

In some ways, the Shakespeare authorship question is not well-formed. Without a doubt, William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. The question, however, remains: Who was Shakespeare? The distinction isn't solely a matter of semantics. There are a few fleeting references to him in London notices of the day which make it clear he was already known in theater circles. However, the dearth of biographical details of the writer of the greatest plays in the English language--and possibly any language--sends some scholars into a flurry of speculation.

John Michell's book, Who Wrote Shakespeare?, is not outwardly a proponent of any particular line of speculation, but more a compelling survey of the main theories, including the orthodox theory--that the man from Stratford-upon-Avon was the responsible party. To distinguish this man from the famous author, in case they might be different, Michell writes "Shakespeare" only for the author, and "Shakspere" for the man whose supposedly backward upbringing is an inspiration for many "heretics"--those who believe that Shakspere could not have written the plays.

Michell begins by describing the author. Through the incredible breadth and depth of the plays, it becomes clear that Shakespeare had command of a wide range of knowledge--from law to the classics to court life, even to medicine. It seems impossible that any one person could have brought to bear so much learning, but Michell does well by presenting all of the challenges that any budding theorist must contend with. (Later, in fact, Michell devotes one chapter to the group theories, in which the plays were written by more than one person.)

He then proceeds to go through the candidates, one by one, starting with the most obvious one: William Shakspere. The most imposing obstacle that the Stratfordians--as the orthodox contingent is called--must contend with is not Shakspere's learning, for there are many years and details that are missing from his life story and he might have picked up his learning during any of the gaps. No, the most crushing blow is delivered by the legacy of this allegedly intensely literary man, who nonetheless did not teach his youngest daughter to read, and mentioned no books or manuscripts in his will. How, the heritics ask, could the greatest playwright in the history of literature leave his descendants so poor in education?

At this point, the amateur heretic sniffs the kill. But no other candidate for the Shakespeare mantle is safe, either. Everyone is suspect: Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, has the necessary learning, but he died in 1604, long before many of the plays were supposedly written. Francis Bacon lived long enough, to be sure, but the evidence in his favor is not strong.

The most intriguing candidate is Christopher Marlowe. He is known to have had a hand in many of the early Shakespeare plays, works unquestionably written by Marlowe have a style eerily similar (by quantitative metrics) to Shakespeare's, and unlike the other candidates, Marlowe was a professional writer who undoubtedly knew Shakespeare--whoever the latter was. The one problem is a thorny one: the official story is that Marlowe was murdered in 1593, long before even the Earl of Oxford.

However, Marlowe was involved in espionage, and his murder is shrouded in a faint cloud of suspicion. Michell presents the case that Marlowe did not die as was described in documents, but was spirited away to Italy, from where he later returned to write much and possibly most or all of the remaining Shakespeare canon. The narrative is brisk and engaging all throughout the book, but especially here in the cloak-and-dagger Marlovian drama.

In the end, readers expecting an answer to the question will be disappointed, but Michell warns his readers of that periodically. The real prize is a careful, balanced presentation of the facts and conjectures as they have been uncovered and presented throughout history; most anyone who begins this book will know something of the controversy, but rare is the reader who will not gain something of an appreciation for many of the men who would be Shakespeare.

I read Michell's book just before embarking on a 3 week Shakespeare workshop at the reconstructed Globe in London this past summer; intriguing, infuriating, thought-provoking, insightful, Michell's historical and cultural tour of England through authorship gives the reader a chance to make us his own mind, quite unlike most other authorship books. A bit tedious at times, but certainly not lacking details and impeccable research.

"The Illustrated Longitude" is an excellent, worthwhile historical account of John Harrison's progression as an instrument maker and legitimate finder of a practical solution to the problem of determining Longitude at Sea.

If you are at all interested in the antecedents of today's accurate timekeeping devices this book is a must. The print quality is very high and the illustrations a wonderful aid to feeling the story unfold. The book does not contain detailed plans of Mr Harrison's chronometers or description of the techniques of celestial navigation, but rather is a brisk, engagingly written account of the origin of the Longitude problem, Mr Harrison's solution and those of his rivals and the political intrigues which delayed full acknowledgement of the merit of the H-1 to H-4 devices.

I bought this book some months after visiting the Old Royal Observatory in Greenwich, England. The ingenious mechanisms at work can keep an observer enthralled for hours. They are also very beautiful. "The Illustrated Longitude" really fills out the significance of the Longitude problem in that era and the career details and challenges overcome by a very clever and self made man.

Having bought and read "Longitude", the only lightly illustrated original hardback version, I wanted to know more about how the actual clocks worked, and I wanted to see them, without making a trans-Atlantic pilgrimage to Greenwich.

Hence, when I saw an illustrated version of "Longitude", I had to buy it. This book contains the original text, with no additions, except for the illustrations. The photographs are beautifully done, as is the printing.

My only hesitation in not awarding the book five stars is that I was hoping for one of two things; either an illustrated version of the original, with a couple of pictures of each chronometer, at a reasonable price, or a more detailed illustrated version, with more information on how the chronometers actually work. What we ended up with is a compromise. Beautiful pictures of the chronometers, but little extra detail of Harrison's marvelous inventions.

Still, an improvement on the original, which is an excellent book, one I have read several times. Highly recommended.

By the way, when I purchased this book, I donated my original version to the library.

I originally read a library copy of "Longitude" back when it was published in 1995. But I hankered for a copy of my own. Recently I discovered this new illustrated version of the original and must say that it's a real find. The pictures really do help one understand better the magnitude of William Harrison's breakthrough discovery about how to use a very accurate timepiece (now called a "chronometer") to determine longitude and help ships avoid the tragedy of becoming lost with potentially tragic consequences. The text is not so technical to put off a non-expert. I'm sure one could learn more about the workings of the chronometer, but I suspect a more detailed explanation might have put it beyond the comprehension of many of us.

Though thought-provoking at times, this exchange ultimately falls flat on the unwillingness (which many will interpret as inability) of the liberals to give more than a cursory, self-satisfied justification of their views. One would assume from their half-hearted effort that the liberals have no "facts" to back themselves up, but that is not my understanding of their position. The few factual arguments they did raise were ruthlessly shot down by Craig. And they barely tried refuting Craig's own factual assertions, so Craig could only point out their omissions and could not develop the debate any further.

There are some illuminating thoughts here, especially from the responses and Craig's concluding reflections -- thus, three stars. But those looking for "meat" should look elsewhere. I liken this book to an "all-star game" -- neat concept, but not to be taken too seriously.

One concluding note: even to this "conservative" reader Buckley's partisan "mediating" was inappropriate and distracting. His smug comments about Jesus making Crossan disappear "in a puff of smoke" and his attack-dog questioning of Crossan made the "debate" look like a 2-on-1 mugging. Craig would have done just fine by himself.

As a conservative (not fundamentalist), I found this book to give good insight into the beliefs of extreme liberals. I can't say I didn't have misconceptions. SO in that aspect I found the debate extremely helpful.

The major problem with this book is the liberals themselves. William Lane Craig and Claig Blomberg simply destroy the liberals in terms of arguments put forth. That is the problem -- the liberals do a good job of expressing their views and beliefs, but they spend a very minimal amount of time actually putting forth arguments for their beliefs. Here is a brief summary of the book:

William Craig's opening statement -- Bill does his standard debate arguments. Solid foundation, yet still quite simplistic. A good opening for the conservatives.

John Crossan's Opening -- He talks about his perspectives a lot, but put forth's almost no factual data.

William's response -- Craig criticizes Crossan's metaphorical interpretation a bit, and goes over his original arguments in a bit more detail.

Crossan's response -- Again, Crossan puts forth little new empirical facts and claims. Disapointing.

Discussion -- They talk a bit. The moderator is too biased...he is a conservative and shows it.

Closing statements -- Craig criticizes some points that Crossan put forth in the chat; Crossan gives no actual data.

Robert Millet's essay -- Robert gives good insight into that apologetics are usually designed for the people they represent (i.e. Christian apologists impress Christians much more than athiests). He also attempts to criticize the account of people raising from the dead in Matthew. The fatal flaw is that it's fine that Millet isn't convinced but WHY DIDN'T HE THEN RESPOND TO WILLIAM'S ARGUMENTS IF THEY WERE SO UNIMPRESSIVE!?

Craig Blomberg's essay -- Craig reviews the debate. Craig is suprisingly critical of William, but since Will won the debate so much it is still evident (in the essay and debate) that Will won.

Borg's essay -- Borg gives great insight into his belief's, and it was very interesting, but puts forth little data.

Witherington's essay -- Withington demonstrates using the Bible that the Bible does show that the resurrection was not metaphorical, but instead literal. The problem is, is that the Jesus Seminar rejects most of the Bible so it is irrelevant.

Closing -- Crossan again puts forth little data but talks about his beliefs. William does his standard good job of puting forth evidence.

----------- This book was very interesting and worth a reading, though the liberals put forth very disapointing arguments. Conservatives win. Woorah.

This was a great book and I agree with the general observations of the vast majority of the reviewers. That is, Craig won hands down. Crossan didn't really even enter the debate which surprised and disappointed some reviewers. But it's really not surprising at all. Crossan's arguments (or lack there of) come directly from the work of the Jesus Seminar. And Crossan's utter defeat illustrates that the Seminar's work is of little value in disproving the Gospels and the mainstream Christian interpetation of them as largely accurate, HISTORICAL accounts of Jesus' life.
Rather, the Jesus Seminar must be looked upon as an experiment in liberal theological thought. It was a chance for liberal scholars to come together and develop a consensus unburdened by critical peer review from their more conservative, and for the most part more mainstream, more distinguished peers.
The result was a new pardigm for interperting the NT. Briefly, the consensus was that it is all symbolism and metaphor. This new paradigm is a logical outcome based on the assumptions, membership, and methods of the seminar. But when brought out into the light of day, it is very awkward and even ridiculous.
The seminar serves a worthwhile purpose as an experiment and "anchor" at the extreme liberal end of the spectrum. But not much else.

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 was prepared to like this book, and really had no problems with the earlier chapters. However, the latter sections concerning the wars of the roses, and Richard III in particular, are nonsense from a historical perspective. Norwich must have flipped through a few scholarly works and decided that including footnotes and cititions would be adequate. The problem is that he tends to ignore the credibility of the sources he cites, perhaps feeling that anybody living within a couple of hundred years of the events in question would be a credible and objective source. In the case of Richard the 3rd, many other people have made the same mistakes (i.e. taking Thomas More and John Morton as reliable sources of information). However, most of these people don't embarrass themselves by writing a book that uses such sources and citiations.

Looks like Poor Richard is never going to get a break!

This book tells the story - long, confusing, but connected - of the English kings of the late Middle Ages, from the downfall and death of Edward II in 1327 and the accession of his son Edward III. His successor Richard II was deposed and killed by the Lancastrian Henry IV. Then followed his son Henry V and a great time for England against France in their ongoing Hundred-Years War. His son Henry VI was so ineffectual he set off the long bizarre dynastic scuffle called the Wars of the Roses, from which the Yorkist Edward IV finally emerged. He had his own middle brother, George, killed, but his youngest brother, the infamous Richard of Gloucester, slaughtered his way to the throne, holding it for a tenuous two years as Richard III, until the resurgent Lancastrians finally got rid of him and the whole bloody Middle Ages, and put Henry VII (the first Tudor) on the throne in 1485 - the first decent ruler poor England had seen in a century and a half.

This was the period that Shakespeare chose for his history plays. To the Elizabethans these events were still reasonably current (as our Civil War is to us), and yet enough removed - and of a different dynasty - to be safe in the playing. (Not quite: Elizabeth's (former) favorite Essex paid for a special performance of Richard II, which concerns the deposing of a legitimate monarch, and soon after he was proclaimed a traitor.) The politically savvy playwright wanted to walk the fine line between telling the ripping good yarn of these brutal yet colorful fellows, while somehow not tarnishing the gloss of the monarchy itself.

But Shakespeare was no historian. He has modified the story to suit political and dramatic exigencies, and often, it appears, by mistake. The dynastic interweavings are confusing, and his sources had gaps and contradictions, so sometimes he misplaces characters and events. More often, though, he has to tell a long story in a short time, and give it some push. Thus the compression and conflation of events, the exaggeration of character.

Ok, so maybe watching the plays is not the best way to learn English history. Certainly, Norwich brings this home. He gently but relentlessly documents Will's departures from the actual history, and they are legion. Every once in a while, in this book, he devotes a chapter to the particular play that "covers" the material he has discussed to that point. Basically, each of these chapters goes through the play at hand - I Henry IV, say - and shows how it deviates from or hews to the truth. After a few of these chapters, I just skipped them: the tale Norwich tells in his history sections is great fun, but the Shakespeare chapters simply drive home the point that the plays are at best approximations to the actual. Fair enough: I'm convinced. I still want to watch the plays: they contain cultural and emotional truth after all, besides being, many of them, great plays.

So, read this book for the history, rather than the Shakespeare criticism. And though the plays are not good history, reading a good popular history is not irrelevant to enjoying them: after all, they were written for a public that already had a better than nodding acquaintance with the events they portray. And so should you.

I was recently fortunate enough to attend the Stratford Festival of Canada where I saw, among other Shakespearean plays, the two parts of Henry IV and Henry V. It was a wonderful experience but I began thinking about the events depicted in these plays; namely, how historically accurate was what I saw? This theme of historical accuracy in plays and movies has become rather popular lately, inspiring a number of books and documentaries. In an attempt to answer this question for Shakespeare's history plays, I read this book, Shakespeare's Kings, by John Julius Norwich and I'm glad I did.

This is a very well-written and informative book. In chapters alternating between history and the corresponding Shakespearean play, Norwich covers the period from Edward III through Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, Edward V to Richard III. The history chapters are clear and concise considering the large number of people that populate them, and how they are often executed, banished and losing and gaining lands and titles. Norwich is also quite good at offering different views on the period before settling on the view he feels is most substantiated. He then follows the history with an examination of the appropriate play, explaining how events are telescoped and rearranged, how characters are sometimes mistaken and invented and how even history must suffer if drama is to be maintained. I am particularly fond of the fact that Norwich doesn't let historical inaccuracies interfere with his appreciation of what a dramatist like Shakespeare needs to accomplish for a successful play. History and drama are not the same.

I was also interested to see a discussion of the play Edward III which, according to some scholars, is a recent addition to the Shakespearean canon. I had not heard of this play before nor its attribution of authorship to Shakespeare but it is listed as part new edition of the New Cambridge Shakespeare, for one. I was very glad to discover this so I could look into the matter. It is nice to see an author comment on the most current scholarship, however we might ultimately feel about the conclusions.

A final note worth mentioning to the interested reader: this book only deals with the history of the two major tetralogies. It does not cover the "fictional" histories (like King Lear, Macbeth, etc.) nor with the English histories out of sequence (King John, King Henry VIII). For what it does cover, however, it is an invaluable tool. Particularly for those who, like myself, enjoy these Shakespearean histories.

Harbors and High Seas gets more use from me than the lexicon reference to the Aubrey Maturin series, A Sea of Words. I skimmed through Harbors and High Seas after each O'Brian book the last time through; leaving alone the clearer geographical detail, this really adds depth to O'Brian's already convincing world.

I would recommend this highly to fans of the series who feel bereft at its close and long to return, to poke around a little themselves. Harbors and High Seas is full of taking off points, tangents to the stories that the curious reader can follow up on. A print of the decrepit Temple, reproduced here, might spark you to pursue some detail or other about Napoleon's Paris. The discussion of the many Desolation Islands has lots of little sides to it that could reward some curiosity. Like the stories, this is a sort of open-ended invitation into the historical setting, you might say.

Harbors and High Seas is a "companion" to the series, a complement to it, not just a reference to be consulted when you're muddled. Don't just refer to it -- read it for fun.

I'm now on book 7 of the Aubrey-Maturin series, and have only had my Companion for the last 2...how much it adds to the joy and the education. The best part of the companion is the maps, with clearly marked routes taken by Lucky Jack's vessels. O'Brian's description of Aubrey passing by Elsinore while Jack describes his role in Hamlet as a young midshipman comes alive with both the map and the picture of Elsinore. As well, eliminating the frustration of trying to determine what is fiction (Grimsholm) from what is not (Admiral Suamarez) greatly adds to the historical learnings.

The only downside to having this companion is the irresistable temptation to read ahead...the plot lines of the first 17 books are all given in general outline. As O'Brian readers know, however, much of the joy is as much in the characterization and writing as in the plot line. So, even if you do look ahead, it in all likelihood only will increase your desire to move on to the next book....I personally can hardly wait to get to Treason's Harbour and the mood that O'Brian will create around historic Malta.

If you love maps, though, and have always used them to add a visual learning dimension and reference to the words, you can't possibly read the books without it.

In closing, I guess I should add the warning that as addictive as these books are, they become even more addictive with the companion.

Beware!

Once in awhile just the right writer comes along for a critical assignment, and this time it is Dean King, accompanied by some other worthy contributors. A globe isn't nearly enough when you're sailing, fighting, surviving and adventuring with Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin, and it mattered not to me that King had to wait until there were sufficient chapters in O'Brian's incredible series (one that I look upon as one great, great book with 19 chapters) to form an adequate foundation for Harbors and High Seas, for I read them over and over and King's guide makes the repeat servings even more delightful.

Now as I travel the world in the O'Brian series I know where I am and where I've been -- and often where I'm going. The maps are outstanding (I always thought a map here and there in the novels themselves was called for), and King's narrative takes me ashore in places all over the aquatic world to round out my adventures with my favorite literary characters.

The old pictures from The Naval Chronicle are worthy -- and thoughtful -- additions to the whole fine work.

I guess I'll be reading Aubrey/Maturin books forever, and with Harbors and High Seas right at hand. Too bad the guide had to end with The Commodore but, hey, I'm not complaining. I'm happy for what's here.

Thanks to King, too, for his lexicon, A Sea of Words. That was the finishing touch for the O'Brian addict that I am -- I want to KNOW what a studding sail is, a snow (for I, like Maturin, thought a "snow" must be a white ship), the mainchains (not "chains" at all), the messenger (definitely not a means by which you might get a message to Garcia) . . .

A tip of the hat and a warm thank you to Dean King and his cohorts: John B. Hattendorf, J. Worth Estes, and mapmakers William Clipson and Adam Merton Cooper.

It is truly wonderful that this incredible series of historical novels has inspired these indispensible accompaniments. There is also the volume edited by A.E. Cunningham, "Patrick O'Brian: Critical Essays and a Bibliography" which belongs on the shelf with every O'Brian fan's collection. These books about O'Brian's books are a further testimony to the greatness of them -- they stood tall on their own, it's only that they're even more robust now.

Doug Briggs

Shakespeare in this play shows how love is not human but surrealistic. Love does not answer reasonable questions. It is a fundamentally unreasonable attitude that brings the lovers to absurd behaviours negating all logical, political and historical values. Love has no limits even if history will prove stronger and the lovers will be destroyed. Shakespeare beefs up this theme with a language that is so rich that we are fascinated by the words, the symbols, the symbolic value of words and acts. He is particularly rich in his style that is entirely, words, poetry, actions, and even feelings, organized following some simple symbols, particularly numerical symbols. In this play Cleopatra appears as being the core of the symbolism and she carries with her the number eleven that comes from the old English runes with the meaning of fate, of fatal defeat, of a flaw that cannot be corrected or escaped. It is her destiny to bring Antony to his defeat and death, just as it is Antony's fate to be governed by this woman and led to his own destruction because of his love for her. It also shows how the Emperor is able to use this fatal situation in order to capture all powers and to impose his absolute will on the Roman Empire. He seems to be the one who plays not well but with all the assets of the game up his sleeves, and he takes them out one at a time when the situation is ripe for these assts to become the key to is ascension to absolute power by defeating those who may oppose him.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Cleopatra may be a somewhat ambiguous female character, but I totally loved her, and Bill's portrayal of her. I don't know if he expected the reader to judge her, but I suspect not. The harshest criticism of her comes from Octavius Caesar, who himself doesn't do a single noble thing throughout the whole play. She is fully aware of the fact that she is a sensual, passionate woman- which has no negative effect on her ability to rule Egypt. Her biggest faults are her violent temper (which I suspect is just part of her passionate nature) and her tendency to lie when it suits her (either for sport or for serious politics). Antony (I feel) is actually kind of a loser compared to her. His insincerity runs deep- he marries Caesar's sister in a political move, although he had repeatedly pledged his undying love for Cleopatra. She forgives him, because she truly loves him, even though he doesn't do anything to deserve forgiveness. Antony never fully allows himself to love Cleopatra. He constantly is overreacting to the slightest indication that she might be betraying him or whatever. It is one of these overreactions (combined with an ill-timed lie on Cleo's part) that ends up destroying them both. Even in the end, Cleopatra's death is more dignified and better conceived than Antony's messy and fumbling suicide.

Anthony and Cleopatra is one of Shakespeare's difficult plays, and so I suspect the ratings on the play are low because it's a more mature play than Romeo and Juliet. Here we have two middle age lovers who part of the time are foolish with lust/love and the rest of the time are tough minded heads of state. The "tragedy" is that they can't be both and survive. This is not a play for the young folks, I'm afraid. But if you want some heavy drama where the characters are spared nothing and given no slack, read Anthony and Cleopatra (hint: Cleopatra's suicide is more political statement than a crazy wish to die with Antony). Better yet see it performed by some real actors some time.

This book was a really good story but if you're a hard out terror fan this isn't the book for you.I enjoyed the book but I love most of Sweet Valley University.
What happens is deadly William White returns from the dead and is scarred over one side of his body.Elizabeth encounters him on the quad and at first she's really terrified of him.But gradually she starts to believe he really has changed.It doesn't help that her boyfriend,Tom Watts,is being a total jerk.But William hasn't changed that much as Elizabeth finds out.
The back of this book is slightly misleading but I won't tell you why.All I'll say is because the author only mentions a tiny bit about the''torture he's going to put her through.''I'm so,so,so sorry if this wrecked it for anyone.
The reasons why some will not like this book
-It is pretty slow moving and isn't actually that terrifying.
-This is the second time William has 'risen' from the dead and it's not that realistic.

But is a good read.It won't take long if you're a good reader.Give it a try even if it's not that spooky.
Happy reading.

This book: the newest in the SVU category, has captured my in my thoughts about a young man't insanity about another woman he loves. The story is about a man named William White, who was in a fatal car crash, with Elizabeth Wakefield. IT is a good mystery, but I cannot tell you what happens for it will ruin it, now won't it?

To tell you the truth, I thought Deadly Terror would be no better than Cyberstalker. I expected it to drone on about Liz's virtual hallucinations (can you say yawn?) I absolutely despised Cyberstalker, quickly placing it on top of my Worst SVU Books Ever Written list. However, the continuation, Deadly Terror, completely made up for it. Once I finally let the fact that William White was actually alive sink in, the book graced me with a sense of fulfillment that I could not have enjoyed from Cyberstalker. It was full of surprises and subtle comedic quirks. I sometimes found myself laughing out loud as I eagerly turned the pages. Shockingly, I found myself growing more and more intrigued by the changed William White. I was impressed by his character, and, shamefully, I was secretly rooting he and Liz on. Naturally, those thoughts ceased nearing the end of the book. Towards the end there were many twists and turns that would stumble any reader. Overall,if Cyberstalker made you lose your lunch, don't worry. Deadly Terror more than makes up for it, guaranteed.