Mapping America's Past is an attempt at using maps to portray American social, economic, military, and political development. The maps that are included are excellent, but what was included is somewhat puzzling. The general analysis of wars, expansion, and elections are useful, but maps of political party development in the Cleveland area or prostitution in New York City are not entirely relevant to the general American history student. Similarly, many of the accompanying texts offer little detailed insight into the topics the maps cover.

This book should be considered a general resource, but for an in-depth historical atlas, the reader must look elsewhere.

A highly satisfying review of historical topics.I'm often able to read only in 20-minute bites; every spread of this book is a self-contained history lesson, accessible in 20 minutes but worth revisiting many times. Most important topics and events of American history are covered well, and the rendering of complex information (e.g. the six gauges of railroad in 1850 and how this incompatablity affected commerce, population and political power) is truly inspired. This is a superb gift for an American history buff.

Why these letters have not been placed in CD_ROM format puzzles little old me. Sometimes the annotation includes letters from all over the place, making the sequence hard to follow. Sure, researchers may like this sort of stuff, but I bet even they know better ways of putting it together.

"The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant" is a project begun in 1962 for the purpose of publishing all the known letters written by Ulysses S. Grant. Volume one was published in 1967 and there are now twenty-four volumes in the series. People who follow Grant's career are aware of the inestimable value of this project. The Papers contain all known correspondence written by Grant and letters received by him. The editing of the series is unparalleled and the volumes represent primary source material at its apex.

Those who believe Grant was a "drunkard" or a "butcher" should read his own words, which show Grant's humor, pathos and unique personality. Masterfully edited by John Y. Simon, these volumes are a "must have" for anyone with an interest in U.S. Grant as a general, a politician and as a man

The author's comments are right on target. If you want to debate the reasons to have these documents, weigh ethical considerations, and write a values statement, this is the book for you. But if you buy the book already convinced you need these documents and what you want is a detailed list of suggestions, customized wording, state-specific information and forms, this book is disappointing.

An excellent book that highlights how and why one can make decisions in end of life treatment. The book correctly sets aside the idiosyncracies of state forms (these are free from any doctor's office), and gets to the heart of _why_ to discuss this topic. This book is very helpful in starting and encouraging a conversation between family members and health care providers about what is important to the individual before and when the chips are down.

This book takes a different approach to teaching introductory statistics. Stout, et al introduce the idea of resampling very early on and leave out many mathematical "formulas" found in most intro books. While their approach is better in theory, I found this book rather difficult to teach from. The problems in the end of each chapter were very simplistic and many students did not understand the point of doing the problems.

I would recommend a book like Freedman's Statistics or Moore and McCabe for an intro stats textbook.

I found out about this book only because I am a resampling methods author and was discussing resampling one time with the a faculty member of the Statistics Department at UCLA. Apparently they use it for the introductory statistics course that they give. It is unusual in taking a resampling approach to elementary statistics. The late Julian Simon at University of Maryland was the only other person that I know who used this approach. Many of us have recently been talking about doing this very thing.

The authors are well known statisticians with the credentials to produce such a book. Both Stout and Marden teach in the Statistics Department of the University of Illinois. The book came out in 1999 and is already in its third edition. I finally got a copy of the third edition that just came out so this is a review of the third edition... The idea of starting beginning students out with simulated and real data sets instead of mathematical models is a good one. The auithors execute this well. They are not doing it because they lack the capability to handle probability models. Stout has published in the top probability and statistics journals for years and has published several advanced books! Marden is no slouch either.

Also I have not taught this way yet myself, I believe it can be done successfully and such an approach can be beneficial to the students. I have taught bootstrap confidence intervals as part of an elementary statistics course for health science majors and I do think that the bootstrap percentile method confidence intervals are more easily understandable than the paraqmetric ones to these students and I suspect that other concepts based on resampling will also be more understandable to them. So I am surprised that the other amazon reviewer found that the approach didn't work. All I can say is that it works at UCLA and I think it could work for me too using this text as the vehicle.

The authors start out in Chapter 1 with descriptive data including histograms, stem and leaf charts and pie charts. In Chapter 2 the cover measures of centrality and spread and in Chapter 3 relationships among variables. All this is covered without reliance on statistical models which are first introduced in Chapter 4. All important topics are covered and they make good use of cartoons and graphics much like Freedman's book "Statistics". Difficult topics are not avoided but are marked as optional. It has a large number of problem sets with explained solutions in the back of the book.

I would love to teach out of this book.

This was one of the worst SVU books in the series. Sure, it seems intriguing by the summary on the back of the book, but hey, it ain't all that. (Excuse the slang.)It lacked the suspense and excitement that usually pushes the reader to keep on turning those pages. I found myself dreading each chapter and anticipating the final conclusion of the story. I didn't even get the conclusion. The book is a two-part series, so if I wish to read what happens to Elizabeth and the gang, I have to drag myself to the nearest bookstore (preferably Amazon, wink, wink) and purchase Part Two. And so far, I haven't seen Part Two on any bookshelves yet. Overall, this book seemed to drag on monotonously with Elizabeth freaking out over William White halluciations. Half the time I didn't know if she was dreaming or if she was seeing reality. I suppose Part Two will finally put an end to my distress when the hallucinations are explained and a conclusion is found. After all, I can't read a book and not find out the ending, can I? (Even if it does mean buying a second part.)

Listen. This book is good. I don't care if lovely William has returned for about the fifth time. I like him. I also know the fact that Tom and Elizabeth were born to be together not that wussy ugly Todd. So what if the book isn't dwelling much in the old reality area. You don't read books for reality, you read them to be entertained (otherwise you'd read an encyclopedia instead) and this book is highly entertaining. I live in England and my friend got it over to me. Bravo to the writers. I look and londg for the next installment of wonderful Will.

This book is definetly good it's more interesting to read than the second one but I really enjoy this book more..

Elizabeth and Tom Watts (her boyfriend) seem to be having trouble in their relationship. Elizabeth ex-boyfriend William White who Elizabeth thought died in a Car Accident really didn't. William White and Elizabeth were really in love until one day Elizabeth finds out that he is a racist and was involve in an attack of her bestfriend Nina and her boyfriend Ryan. Elizabeth expose the news all over campus. But when William White returns is he looking for a second chance or revenge?? This book will leave you amaze!

I am not sure who this book the 'committee' wrote this for, but I can think of no one. More like a hodge-podge collection of Internet clippings somewhat related to Java & Macs, interspersed with useless code. It is sad because the Mac market needs a Java book covering getting started and the many options and tools Apple has provided the Java student & developer.

I am sorry I wasted my money & was responsible for the deaths of the trees that made it!

This is probably the worst technical book that I have read. Its more a collection of papers than anything else, and much of the content is trivial. Beginning progrmmers would find nothing in here. Advanced programmers will probably find a few nuggets of information that are useful, but they are few and far between.

If you are looking for an excellent book on Java on the new Macintosh operating system OS X, this is one to get. The writing style is well done and the book, in terms of content, is well thought out. I am enjoying the authors coverage of pure Java vs Mac OS X specific issues in particular. Keep up the good job.

This book is the work of five authors who set forth a version of theism known as Open Theism, the defining (though not necessarily central) characteristic of which is the proposition that God's omniscience does not include everything that will be actualised in the future.

Richard Rice opens with an exegetical case for the notion that God's immutability is restricted only to His character and ultimate plans; He experiences change in His actions, experiences and knowledge. Both the Old and New Testament are briefly (but carefully) mined to bring out both the pathos and openness of God to His people and the future respectively. Already in Rice's chapter, the pioneering Scriptural defense of open theism, we see a reasonable refutation of the only TWO verses in the OT - 1Sam 15:29 and Num 23:19 - which states that "God does not change His mind" (which Rice convincingly argues when taken in context is synonymous with "God does not LIE"). He contrasts this with the more than THIRTY which make the opposite point (e.g. Jer18, Isa, Hosea, etc.). Rice then discusses the life of Jesus and shows how the intense pathos of God is revealed through the Incarnate Son's ministry, tears, and ultimately His death on the Cross. How the doctrine of immutability can claim to be Scripturally derived in the light of the life of Christ is truly a mystery. Rice's work is passionate, meticulous and unassuming; the very first chapter of the first major work on the movement lays down the arguments in the Scriptural arena, within which the debate needs to take place. I heartily recommend him.

Next, I don't like saying this but I'm afraid I found John Sanders' contribution a little on the boring side at the time. His chapter is a very comprehensive look at what theologians throughout history believed about divine immutability, relationality, etc. Sanders shows the undeniable continuity between Platonic ideals and early Christian thought, and makes a strong case for the non-ability of much theological thinking to break free from the unBiblical notions left by this early influence. A very text-book-like chapter consisting less of an argument than a survey of a remarkably persistent trend to equate 'Perfection' in terms of 'Unchangeability'. Hopefully more people will find it more interesting than I did, but if not, Sanders' chapter of a similar nature in his "God Who Risks" will more than compensate for any disappointment with his work this time around.

Clark Pinnock then whips the storm back up again with his powerful and systematic proposal for a RELATIONAL view of God as the foundation of everything else we understand about Him. His experiences, actions and - most saliently for the book - His knowledge is dynamic and undergoes progress and change by the very nature of the Person He is and the Creation He's brought into existence. Like Sanders' piece, this chapter doesn't so much argue a case for open-theism as much as it elaborates a particular understanding of God, given the authors' assumptions. I've found this approach to be characteristic of Pinnock's work in which, in effect, he seems to be saying, "I'm not going to try hard to prove you wrong and I right; I'm just going to show you the theological beauty and benefits of my view of God and its congruity with Scripture, and you tell me if you prefer this to traditional (mainly Reformed) theology".

William Hasker's philosophical perspective (my favourite, next to Rice's) begins by highlighting problems with the notion of divine timelessness and scrutinizing the traditional equation of divine 'perfection' with divine immutability. His essay begs us to reconsider, "What is 'perfection' in a Personal Being, anyway? And why have we traditionally associated it with 'changelessness'?" He, like Sanders, pinpoints Neo-Platonic philosophy as the major influence on classical theologians for their bias against change. He then briefly discusses the major theistic viewpoints of divine providence and omniscience: Calvinism (which makes God logically responsible for all evil), Molinism (which, though removing many problems associated with Calvinistic divine sovereignity, still eventually makes God the 'Arch Manipulator'), Simple Foreknowledge (which sorta 'imprisons' God in His foreknowledge, making Him helpless to intervene), Process Theology (which is panentheism in Biblical packaging), and Open Theism (which Hasker sets forth as showing God to be a loving risk-taker who desires creatures who voluntarily love and befriend Him and has thus actualised a universe with incredible contigencies, beauty and surprise - but also terrible potential).

Finally, we come to David Basinger's spelling out of the explanatory and experiential superiority of open-theism as compared to Calvinism and Process Theology on the following aspects: petitionary prayer, divine guidance, suffering, social responsibility and evangelistic responsibility. Like Hasker, he presents open-theism as the redeeming 'middle ground' between the divine helplessness of process theology and the all-determining Control Deity of Calvinism. Only with open-theism can there be a meaningful notion of human responsibility (contra Calvinism, which leaves one wondering what the point is resisting evil/sin since everything's been foreordained) without the need to state that God has already done 'all that He can' (contra process theology, which gives us a powerless God). Though insightful and honest with regard to existing non-resolved issues, I wouldn't recommend this chapter to anyone not at least open to the possibility that the Bible teaches the openness of God.

Although the book, being a pioneering 'ground-breaker' for open theism, certainly needs more elaboration and work, I'd have to say that I agree with its overall thesis. Critics often fail to note that open theists employ solid Biblical epistemology and evidence to derive the back-bone of the view, particularly the non-exhaustive understanding of God's omniscience (the Sriptural evidence for immutability is pitifully scant; the number of 'divine repentance' passages itself, like I've mentioned, is a staggering 30-plus which was the major factor forcing me to rethink my theology. I can't help but wonder why God would say so often in His very own Word that He experiences genuine changes of mind and thus knowledge, if this is a completely false ontological notion). Unfortunately, academic backlash is usually focused on the philosophical and experiential implications of open theism, all the whilst seemingly ignorant or dismissive of the powerful Scriptural case in favour of it.

With that said, I would propose that this book be read only AFTER one absorbs either John Sanders' "God Who Risks" or Gregory Boyd's more accessible "God of the Possible". All in all, the book IMO represents an inspiring work and a necessary provocation to the Christian (especially the Reformed) community to relook at its Biblical foundations and traditional presuppositions about the nature of God. And in closing, allow me to quote from Pinnock's chapter, which eloquently sums up the picture of God the book puts forth:

"...God is so transcendant that he creates room for others to exist and maintains a relationship with them...God is so powerful as to be able to stoop down and humble Himself...(and) God is so stable and secure as to be able to risk suffering and change."

The Openness of God attends closely both to the broad biblical text and Christian piety when offering a much-needed "open" alternative to deterministic Calvinism. Through an easy reading, multi-dimensional, textual format, Rice, Sanders, Pinnock, Hasker and Basinger offer a more or less comprehensive evangelical, "free-will" theism that corresponds closely with the theology of many scholars in the Arminian, Wesleyan, and Charismatic traditions. This should be a required text for seminarians of all stripes. Perhaps the book's only drawback is that its authors sometimes misrepresent process theology and thus fail to adequately consider more of the theological alternatives offered by process thought. Otherwise, this is the kind of book you will want to give a friend who has been exposed to just enough classical theology to want to write off theology altogether. This is good medicine for former evangelical intellectuals who may have left the fold disillusioned by the Calvinistic brand of evangelical theology. Take, eat, digest, and flourish!

After reading and studying The Open View of God I cannot say much, except that it was refreshing! How unfortunate it is that Sproul has sprawled so far and Reformed philosophy is so pervasive in the populist theology world today. Thank God He still is enlightening beyond the Reformation!

The Open View challenges the classical-Philosophical view of God preached and taught by so many in a systematic and decisive way. Our traditional understandings of immutablity, providence, sovereignity, and immpassiblity need to truly be re-examined in the light of our practice/experience and, as the authors so argue, in the light of the Biblical text. Aristotle is put in his place, sorry, but the un-moved mover is not the God of the Holy Writ. To be ever changing and relational is to be Divine. I Give this Book a strong 10!!

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.

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.

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.

I should have known when I noticed in the store that this book lacked an index, that I should have put it back on the shelf. The omission of an index in what is purportedly an information resource is generally a bad omen, as illustrated by this book.

The book feels rushed and half-hearted. The information included, whether on weapons systems or unit history is spotty, at best, and missing or incorrect at worst. Delta, which admittedly is not officially operational, rates only a single, offhanded mention. There is a definite biased slant towards Army Special Forces at the expense of other branches, and while it would be expected if this were written by an USASOC denizen, it is inappropriate and unprofessionial in this context.

The photos are grainy and rather oddly chosen and the use of black and white printing, presumably to save money, shows a sincere lack of attention when the book shows different SF unit badges as uniformly gray patches.

This book pales when compared to earlier efforts like Marine or Carrier and comes across as a quickly produced reaction to growing interest in U.S. Special Operations.

Special Forces could be a great book, however Clancy's style of writing is not suited to non-fiction as much as it is to fiction. He tends to let his points of view\arguments come forward in an poor way (an example being his use of the word stupid a number of times) and is sometimes overawed by what he sees. Moreover, he does go a litle overboard with the acronyms, which can interfere with the presentation nof information and clutters the flow of reading. The book's strongpoint lies in the information it does posess after the reader strips away all the p.o.v's, acronyms and bracketed text. The photographs are good, however the point of showing unit emblems and some other photos are lost as they are printed in greyscale. While this is the last in his series of "tours," lets hope that maybe a revision could be in the works that would make it easier to read.

I am not a reader of Tom Clancy's novels. This is not one of Clancy's novels. This is a biography of the United States Army's Special Forces unit. i have done a lot of reading of numerous U.S. military elite units, but never done too much on the Army's SOF. This is a very well researches and presented book. The reader can come away from this book with a thorough understanding of how to apply for the USA SOF, the training, the specialty training, unit selection, and what they do and why they are called to do it.

There is a small biography of General Shelton, which I enjoyed because I saw so much of him after 9/11 but knew little about him. I wish he was given a little place to write in this book because I'm sure he's got lots to write considering he's the first SOF Joint Cheif Chairman. This book, I feel, leaves out much of the history of the Army's SOF history. The Army has such an interesting history I don't see how some of it was not written about. If you want a history book, you'll be upset when you get this book.

This book is an excellent tactical view of the Army's Special Forces. After reading this book the reader will fully understand that The Green Berets and other Special Forces soldiers are not what are diplicted in Hollywood. Sometimes the truth can be quite boring, but not when it comes to this topic. Unfortunately this book is obviously written by a person who has never experienced life in the Special Forces. It would have been nice to read some commentary from a man who has gone through the training, endured the harsh physicality of SF life, and who can comment on various aspects of the life in this elite group of men. Clancy has probably done as good a job that a civilian could. The novel at the end was unecessary and I didn't read much of it.

This book is well written and easy to understand. I enjoyed reading it. This is not typical Clancy, it's better.

Time was when you could ask three questions of science/nature writing: Is it important? Does it matter? Would anything change if the reverse conclusions were reached? The answer had better be "yes" to at least one question. Of course, the answers to those questions when asked about A Rum Affair are "No," "No," and "No.'
One thing was determined, however, and that was that a book can be written about anything---the spare change in your pocket, the color of dirt, whatever. It seems curiously reversed that I paid money to read this book when someone should have paid me a hefty sum to read it. Just awful.

I am really quite puzzled as to just why the author wrote this book. By his own admission Sabbagh isn't a scientist, and by his writing it is apparent that he doesn't understand Botany, Botanists or Biogeography. In spite of this he has chosen to write about all three. The story is a rather sad little affair which could be interpreted in a number of ways. In one a botanist is suspected of fraud by members of the scientific establishment, the case is investigated, the suspect records are quietly dropped from publication, and everyone eventually retires and dies. It is clear that Sabbagh, for reasons that escape me, would rather that there had been a public trial, with any guilty parties being tarred, feathered & ridden on a rail. Since this DIDN'T happen when anyone involved was alive, Sabbagh sets out to do it to the dead. Starting by gaining access to a manuscript whose author had specifically requested should remain sealed (there are some weird aspects of class struggle throughout this book by the way, Sabbagh boasts that since he is "a Kingsman" -a graduate of King's College Cambridge- the widow of his hero is confident that the ms will be "in safe hands" -false hope as it turns out.) Sabbagh sets out to develop a case against his villain, John Harrison. This "case" is based in part on excerpts from the sealed manuscript by the book's hero, John Raven, in part on wild speculation, and in large part on every bit of gossip, hearsay and innuendo that Sabbagh seems to have dug up. It is clear from the outset that there were people -especially particularly well-connected people in the British scientific aristocracy- who didn't like John Harrison. It also seems likely that Harrison wasn't particularly likable in general. Whether this dislike could have engendered the sort of plot that Sabbagh suggests seems somewhat far-fetched, and is based here on second and third hand gossip & sometimes ludicrous "reading between the lines" of selected letters. While there is clearly the POSSIBILITY of fraud in the behaviour of "villain" Harrison, what also emerges is that both the "hero" John Raven and the author are what I was raised to call "cads". By Sabbagh's own account Raven gets access to Harrison's study sites on false pretexts, in spite of repeated sensible warnings that the study area is remote & inhospitable Raven shows up without food or camping supplies -and manages to burn down his tent! (Sabbagh has previously suggested that Harrison is being obnoxious by telling Raven to bring supplies, but he automatically forgives his hero when he fails to follow either courtesy or caution). Raven then spends less than three days on an island where the Villain has been working for many field seasons, decides that some specimens of rare plants have been literally "planted" and then leaves to write a report which goes nowhere. Another interpretation of the whole affair is that Harrison was hounded by people who didn't like him, investigated by a talented amateur (Raven may have been a cad, but he was certainly talented) who failed to turn up much serious evidence of fraud (Raven mis-identifies a key species of plant in the course of his investigation). Faced with at best a verdict of "not proven" the establishment does the sensible thing and drops the whole matter. There it would (and should) have remained except for the energies of Mr. Sabbagh. We read this sort of book for the same reason we slow down at car-wrecks or scan the front pages of the tabloids. This is a sick entertainment that ennobles nobody.

The merest possibility that a geographic botanist would actually falsify a discovery and violate the sanctity of the British scientific aristocracy is not only enough excitement for one book, but plenty for a sensational story. However, you might have to be an unabashed fan of all things Anglo like myself; also perhaps a talented amateur horticulturist who thrills to the details of the growing conditions necessary for the disputed "discoveries" of J. Heslop Harrison (the names of the characters alone make this a fun read). Sabbagh navigates the touchy territory of real peoples' reputations with great subtlety and renders a fascinating picture of the British universities, their scientists and personalities. Of course there is no silly confrontation scene! All the drama is handled with typical British restraint, which makes the book and this true story all the more enthralling for the right type of reader.