William F. Buckley is unquestionably one of the most articulate and knowledgeable American debaters of the second half of the twentieth century. Buckley seems to know a little bit--if not a lot--about everything, and he reflects and gives observations about various topics in this collection of essays from the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s.

As an author, Buckley is unfailingly witty and acerbic, and this book is littered with quips and sapient remarks. Buckley is particularly good at analyzing other peoples' positions, and at poking holes in their poor logic. That is where this book succeeds.

This book occasionally fails when Buckley attempts to elucidate his own position on an issue. For instance, in one essay Buckley suggests that Beethoven is "a national monument" and should be entitled to governmental protection, so that vacationers can listen to the great composer's symphonies when they are traveling in non-cosmopolitan areas. My suggestion to Buckley would be to rent a car with a tape deck or cd player. It is not necessary for the government to mandate all-Beethoven channels in all cities and towns in order for citizens to listen to Beethoven when they are on vacation.

In another essay Buckley spells out the case for allowing women to serve in the military, but then says that he takes the opposite position. His explanation for why he is against women serving in the military is vague. He says that allowing women to join the armed forces is repugnant to "human nature," which leads one to wonder how Buckley would respond to someone who believes that what he calls "human nature" is an artificial construct. Maybe he did not provide a response to that question because of spacial constraints, but I think that if he is going to base a policy position on human nature, he should provide readers with some sort of idea of what his theory of human nature is.
I hope that I have not accentuated the negative too much in this review, because Buckley truly is a wonderful writer and an interesting read. He has opinions about everything, and he is fun to read not only for what he has to say, but also for how he says it. His vocabulary is expansive and his word-choices are colorful. This book should be read by anyone who wants intelligent and fiercely-opinionated commentary on newsworthy events, and the various parties involved, from 1985 to 1992.

This is a fine collection of the thoughts and witticisms of William F Buckley. It covers most any area that Mr. Buckley holds an Interest whether it be politics, social affairs, sailing, classical music and spending time with dignitaries and well to do people. It is fantastically written (as can be expected from Buckley) however it seemed to talk just over the head of the common man. With his infatuation with the Ryder Cup and talking about people who are important to him, really have no impact on my life. All in all it is a very well written fast paced collection. I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys political and social commentary. And to anyone who just like to read something different than a novel or text of history.
Thanks For Your Time:
T

This is Buckley at his acerbic best on subjects as varied as John Lennon, Ted Kennedy and Elizabeth Taylor to academia, Gorbachev and The First Gulf War.

It's always illuminating and stimulating to explore the brain of one of America's foremost conservative thinkers and as these essays drift more into history, his insights and deliberations become astounding in their perspicacity and accuracy.

These essays cover everything from the fall of communism, the Los Angeles riots, Playboy magazine and lots more. The time spent reading this delightful paperback is time spent in the company of charming brilliance.

I would like to find out if you have a CD-ROM or on-line of the newest version "Principles of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology"?
Thank you in advance for your response.

The fourth edition of this classic text is now available and it is even better than previous editions. Many chapters have been rewritten and new authors add significantly to the current edition.

When rating Shakespeare, I am rating it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistent 4-5 stars wouldn't tell you much. So if you want to know how this book rates against the general selection of books in the world, I suppose it might rate four stars; it certainly rates three. The language, as usual in Shakespeare, is beautiful. Still, it's far from Shakespeare's best.

For one thing, this is one of those cases, not uncommon in Shakespeare's comedies, in which the play has suffered a great deal by the changes in the language since Shakespeare's time; it loses a great deal of the humor inherent in a play when the reader needs to keep checking the footnotes to see what's happening, and this play, particularly the first half of it, virtually can't be read without constant reference to the notes; even with them, there's frequently a question as to what's being said. At least in the edition that I read (the Dover Thrift edition) the notes frequently admit that there's some question as to the meaning of the lines, and there is mention of different changes in them in different folios.

But beyond this, as an overweight, balding, middle-aged libertine, I object to the concept that Falstaff is ridiculous just because he is in fact unwilling to concede that it is impossible that a woman could want him. Granted, he's NOT particularly attractive, but that has more to do with his greed, his callousness, and his perfect willingness to use people for his own ends, to say nothing of his utter lack of subtlety.

Is it truly so funny that an older, overweight man might attempt to find a dalliance? So funny that the very fact that he does so leaves him open to being played for the fool? Remember, it isn't as though he refused to take "no" for an answer; he never GOT a "no". He was consistently led on, only to be tormented for his audacity. Nor is he making passes at a nubile young girl; the target of his amorous approaches is clearly herself middle-aged; after all, she is the MOTHER of a nubile young marriageable girl. And given the fact that she is married to an obnoxious, possessive, bullying and suspicious husband, it is not at all unreasonable for Falstaff to think that she might be unhappy enough in her marriage to accept a dalliance with someone else.

If laughing at fat old men who have the audacity not to spend the last twenty years of their lives with sufficient dignity to make it seem as if they were dead already is your idea of a good time, you should love this play. I'll pass.

i've just finished reading/watching all of shakespeare's comedies and mww is one of the funnier ones. it is a lighthearted look at marital jealousy and features one of shakespeare's great fools, falstaff (of henry iv fame). the out-and-out funniest shakepearean play is still "taming of the shrew", imho, but mwv runs well ahead of the laggards, and certainly well ahead of such better known plays as "twelfth night" and "as you like it".

Shakespeare, considering he wrote this little gem of a comedy in a mere 14 days for the Virgin Queen, pulls off a play that proves both witty and fun. Unequivocally, The Merry Wives of Windsor makes for a more enjoyable play if seen live. Nonetheless, reading it is the 2nd best thing.

Sir John Falstaff is once again such a fool - but a lovable and hilarious one at that. Having read Henry V - where Falstaff ostensibly had met his end - I was pleased to see him so alive(pardon the pun) in this short, albeit clever play. It is no surprise that The Merry Wives of Windsor enjoyed such a long and successful stage run during Shakespeare's day and continues to be one of his most popularly staged plays. Recommended as a fun break from the more serious and murderous Shakespearean tragedies.

"Why, then the world's mine oyster,
Which I with sword will open." - Pistol

This book is one in Zondervan's Counterpoints Series, which presents the view of various (mostly) Evangelical writers on theological subjects. This book is sorely needed because Evangelical apologists have had a history of writing critically and polemically of one another (one thinks of the Clark/Van Til debate), with the result of the layman having a difficult time deciding among the various positions.

The problem with this book is either that the writers are too timid or are more irenic than their label would indicate. There are three authors who present variations on the traditional approach: the classical method (Craig), the evidential method (Habermas), and the cumulative case method (Feinberg). These approaches are quite similar, although some differences do arise. When the reader gets to John Frame's presuppositional method, he expects to get a starkly different approach. After all, Van Til was notorious for attacking "traditional" apologetics as "Roman Catholic" or "Arminian." Well, Frame tells us that he agrees with most of what Craig writes. The final writer, Kelly James Clark (who represents the "Reformed epistemological method"), says the same thing.

Perhaps the editor could have selected a follower of Gordon Clark (a rationalist who denied the proofs of God's existence) or a fideist to present a contrasting apologetic method.

Few books have seriously tackled apologetic method, or how Christianity should be defended rationally. The last book I know of that surveyed options in this regard was Gordon Lewis, "Testing Christianity's Truth Claims" (Moody Press, 1976; republished by University Press of America).

This book presents five different approaches, each represented by one of its exponents: Classical Apologetics (William Lane Craig), Evidentialism (Gary Habermas), Culumulative Case Method (Paul Feinberg), Presuppositionalism (John Frame), and Reformed Epistemology (Kelly James Clark).

Much ground is covered concerning the Bible's approach to apologetics, where apologetic arguments should begin, how certain arguments for Christianity are, and so on. I will simply make a few comments.

The presentations by Craig and Habermas are the most worthwhile because they are the most intellectual rigorous and well-documented. They also tend to agree with each on most things and reinforce each others views. While I tend to favor a cumulative case method (influenced by E.J. Carnell and Francis Schaeffer, but with more appreciation for natural theology), Feinberg's comments are the weakest by far. He never mentions the leading exponent of this view in our generation (Carnell) nor Carnell's apt and well-published student (and my esteemed colleague), Dr. Gordon Lewis. Not one word about either one! His comments are brief, his documentation is thin, and he fails to advance anything very creative or helpful, I'm afraid. A better person should have been chosen, such as Gordon Lewis. Frame gives his "kinder, gentler" version of Cornelius Van Til, which still suffers from the same kinds of problems--most notably the fallacy of begging the question in favor of Christianity. Nevertheless, the notion of a "transcendental argument" for theism is a good one, but it should not carry all the weight of apologetics. Clark's material is philosophically well-informed (one would expect this of a student of Alvin Plantinga!), but apologetically timid. Clark almost sounds like a skeptic at times.

A few bones more bones to pick. The editor refers to Francis Schaeffer as a presuppositionalist. This is false; he was a verificationist with more in common with Carnell than with Van Til. Gordon Lewis's fine essay on Schaeffer's apologetic method in "Reflections on Francis Schaeffer" makes this very clear. None of the writers address the great apologetic resources found in Blaise Pascal. I also found at least two grammatical errors.

Nevertheless, as a professor of philosophy at a theological seminary who teaches apologetics, I found this volume very helpful and useful. But let's not get so involved in methodological concerns that we fail to go out in the world and defend our Christian faith as objectively true, existentially vital, and rationally compelling (Jude 3)!

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy Denver Seminary

I got my copy from Amazon a few weeks ago and the day I received it I could not put it down. This is a wonderful text. The book covers five various apologetic methods from five well known scholars who promulgate and defend each of their own views. Moreover, once each of these five scholars have written why they use a particular method, the other four have an opportunity to respond. The responses are by far the best part of the book. However, the actual essays that cover the five methods give the reader a better grasp on that particular method. This book is helpful in several ways. First, it provides the reader a fairly exhaustive treatment of each of the various apologetic methods. Second, it allows the reader to actually see what proponents of the each of the various methods are saying about each of the other methods. Third, it includes some of the best, if not the best, scholars in each of the various methodologies covered. The contributors include, William Lane Craig (Classical Method), Gary R. Habermas (Evidential Method), Kelly James Clark (Reformed Epistemological Method), Paul D. Feinberg (Cumulative Method), and John M. Frame (Presuppositional Method). The only downside to the book that I can see is the idea that some may think that their particular method was not accurately covered by the scholar at hand. In other words, the Presuppositionalists may wonder why John Frame was used instead of someone else, etc. However, I believe that each method was given a fair assessment and the initial essays with the responses will make the book a wonderful reference for many years to come.

The Two Noble Kinsmen was only partially written by Shakespeare. The primary author was John Fletcher, and Shakespeare seems to have been doing a rewrite more than a collaboration. As a result, you get two different styles of narration and development in the same story. The underlying tale follows very closely on the famous Knight's Tale from Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. As a result, you get a three way perspective on Shakespeare that is not available elsewhere -- what his co-author did, what Chaucer did, and how Shakespeare handled similar problems in other plays.

Where the Knight's Tale was primarily a story about chivalry, love, and spirituality, The Two Noble Kinsmen is very much about psychology and human emotions. Like other plays that Shakespeare wrote, this one shows how conflicting emotions create problems when we cannot master ourselves. In this case, the two loving cousins, Palamon and Arcite, fall out over having been overwhelmed by love for the appearance of Emilia, Duke Theseus's sister. The play explores many ways that their fatal passion for Emilia might be quenched or diverted into more useful paths. The dilemma can only be resolved by the removal of one of them. This places Emilia in an awkward situation where she will wed one, but at the cost of the life of the other. She finds them both attractive, and is deeply uncomfortable with their mutual passion for her. In a parallel subplot, the jailer's daughter similarly falls in love with Palamon, putting her father's life and her own in jeopardy. Overcome with unrequited love, she becomes mad from realizing what she has done. Only by entering into her delusions is she able to reach out to others.

What most impressed me from reading this play is how much better Shakespeare was as a writer than either Chaucer or Fletcher. You can tell the parts that Shakespeare wrote because the language is so compact, so powerful, and so filled with relevant imagery. The tension is unremitting and makes you squirm.

By contrast, the Knight's Tale is one of the dullest stories you could possibly hope to read and admire for its virtuosity without experiencing much enjoyment. Although the same plot is developed, few emotions will be aroused in you. When Fletcher is writing in this play, the development is slow, the content lacks much emotion, and you find yourself reaching for a blue pencil to strike major sections as unnecessary.

In fact, this play would not be worth reading except for the exquisite development of the dilemmas that are created for Emilia. Her pain will be your pain, and you will want to escape from it as much as she does. In these sections, you will find some of Shakespeare's greatest writing.

I also was moved by the way several scenes explored the duality of cousinly friendship and affection occurring at the same time that lethal passions of love and jealousy are loose.

Although this play will probably not be among your 50 favorites, you will probably find that it will sharpen your appetite for and appreciation of Shakespeare's best works.

I also listened to Arkangel recording, and recommend it. The performances are fine, the voices are easy to distinguish, the music is magnificent, the singing adds to the mood nicely, and you will find your engagement in the play's action powerfully increased over reading the play.

When do you lose control over your emotions? What does it cost you? How could you regain control before harm is done?

May you find peaceful, positive solutions to all of your dilemmas!

I will be the first to admit this is not the "best" or the "greatest" play written by the bard, but it is still very worthy of his name, and incredibly beautiful! Kinsmen is a romance in the style of Shakespeare's other late plays, Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale, and The Tempest (my favorite). In many ways it reflects his earlier works, namely A Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet, and The Tempest. It tells a wonderfully romantic story of two good friends who fall for the same girl (I know, sounds familiar, but trust me, it's a different take on the setup) in Athens. The poetry in it is lovely, the characters very well developed, and the plot is incredible. Many people haven't heard of this play as Shakespeare cowrote it with Fletcher, but belive me, it is still wonderful. Highly recomended.

The Arkangel Shakespeare series being issued by Penguin Audio is now halfway through the plays and the surprise is that was given preference to the remaining more familiar works. Co-authored by Shakespeare and Fletcher, this play remains an odd man out for several reasons. Based fairly closely on the "Knight's Tale" from Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales," it tells of two cousins, who just after swearing eternal friendship in one of Duke Theseus' prisons immediately fall in love with the same woman, Emilia, and become bitter rivals for her affections. One of them, Arcite, is exiled but returns in disguise; the other, Palamon, escapes with the help of the Jailer's Daughter, who goes mad for love of him; and...well, see for yourself. Of the play's 23 scenes, 7 and part of an 8th are attributed to Shakespeare, a 9th doubtfully so, and the rest to John Fletcher, who was probably handed over to Shakespeare to learn the ropes as it were. The Shakespeare parts are easy to spot: they are nearly impossible to understand without a heavily annotated copy of the text open before you! Even more so than in his late plays like "Cymberline" and "Winter's Tale," the syntax is so complex, the thoughts so condensed, that one might (and has) compared his writing with the late Beethoven String Quartets. As one of the scholars quoted in the excellent Signet Classic paperback edition of this play comments, the play is most unShakespearean in that none of the characters change over the course of the play. And I should add the subplot of the Daughter's madness is never integrated into the main plot. One scene, in fact, is devoted entirely to the description of some minor characters and might have been influenced by a similar and much longer sequence in "Seven Against Thebes." In short, do not play this for a casual listen; but be prepared to be challenged. Look especially for echoes of the earlier all-Shakespearean plays. The nuptials of Theseus and Hippolyta recall the opening scenes of "A Midsummer Night's Dream," the main plot that of "Two Gentlemen of Verona," the Daughter's madness of Ophelia, and so on. As for the actual recording, it would be difficult to better it! The voices of the two kinsmen (Johnathan Firth and Nigel Cooke) are easily distinguishable, Theseus (Geoffrey Whitehead) sounds advanced in years and noble, Emila (Helen Schlesinger) mature and alert, Hippolyta (Adjoa Andoh) vocally of African origins as perhaps befits the character, and all the rest as understandable as the text allows and "into" their roles. Thank you, Penguin, for this noble entry in a series that is getting better and better.

One of Shakespeare's earlier comedies, "Love's Labour's Lost" does not even hold a candle to some of the Bard's greatest comedic works (A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Tempest, The Winter's Tale). Yet, for all its lack of blazing greatness, the play is indeed a joyful diversion.

The plot is that of a philosopher's paradise being invaded by the most nefarious of things...love.

Shakespeare means many things when he speaks of love: often it can be shallow, bawdy lecherous love, sometimes it is an almost Petrachan yearning "courtly" love, once in a while it is a self destructive, clasping, obsessive love. Here it is pretty much straight-up attraction of the "hey, I'd like to marry you" variety.

As the noble, well-meaning but unable to restrain themselves philosopher's fall for the beauties of this tale, many awkward situations occur. Much of the humor here is of this vein. Plays on words and outrageous situations provide most of the laughs.

For fans of Shakespeare, I wholeheartedly endorse this great play. For beginners, I recommend starting with one of the plays mentioned above.

Be forewarned. Even if you have read a lot of Shakespeare's plays, this one is difficult and demands much effort to follow. But, if you can push yourself into reading this, it is well worth the time. Shakespeare himself performed the role of Berowne. While this is a comedy, the humour relies on irony as opposed to funny events. Also, unlike his other comedies, this one does not end in utter happieness. The interaction of the characters, as well as the situation comedy (especially in 4.3) is quite memorable. This comedy differs significantly from most of his others, but it is a wonderful piece of literature.

Historian William Breuer has produced a popular, anecdotal history of the PT Boat in WWII. It's a good, enjoyable read that gives the reader a broad overview of what the boats did and what kind of people manned them. If you are interested in PT Boats, this is an excellent place to start, but keep in mind you are skimming the surface.

Highly recommended as a companion book is Victor Chun's pictorial history of American PT Boats in WWII.

For more detailed PT stories, try Dick Keresey's "PT-105" or track down a copy of "At Close Quarters."

Russell F. Weigley writes that "anyone seriously interested in U.S. military history should benefit from this small but encyclopedic book. General readers, buffs, reenacters, students and professionals should all be able to make use of it. In every way the authors deserve commendation for making an apparently modest little book into a volume of exceptional usefulness."

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.

If you enjoy the Aubrey-Maturin books as I did (and I read almost nothing else for several months), you will find this book an excellent reference aid. At times I found the geography in the books difficult to follow. The maps in Dean King's companion set forth with excellent clarity where Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin have been and when they were there. Although I found Dean King's lexicon (his other book) more helpful, I would nonetheless recommend this one.

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!

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.

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

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.