This is a great book. It is not difficult to read. The style is very informal and at times actually humourous. It does not follow the definition-lemma-proof way of doing things at the expense of leaving simple definitions out, but these can be easily found somewhere else. The book contains an enormous amount of information, and the authors are clearly men of great knowledge and depth. The book is very nicely produced (from a 1st edition) by Cambridge U Press. Very clearly printed, and at a low price for the volume. I highly recommend both volumes to anyone who works in stochastic processes, or mathematical finance (assuming one wants to learn things, rather than just talk about them).

Although not an easy read, this book contains a wealth of information on diffusion, martingales and Ito calculus. Reading difficulty is comparable to Karatzas/Shreve. Mastery of topics included enables the reader to get understanding of most of the current research papers in this field.

This is the long awaited basic textbook for osteopathic medicine. It is surprisingly complete, covering philosophy, history, research, and manipulative techniques. The beginning osteopathic student may find it most useful for its practical discussion on the techniques--high velocity, myofascial release, etc. I believe it is also helpful in standardizing our terminology, which will make it easier when taking board exams or talking with colleagues from other osteopathic schools. It includes contributors well known within the osteopathic community, including Michael and William Kuchera, Melicien Tettambel, Eileen DiGiovanna, and many others. As a family practice resident I frequently turn to this textbook first when I want to know more about how to treat a patient or when preparing lectures for students and housestaff.

This text is actually required reading for most if not all osteopathic medical students. It is a 'textbook', however, and hence completely (sometimes exhaustively!) comprehensive. But it is easy to read so that anyone with an interest in OMT will get a methodic how-to for myriad techniques, also a thorough history of osteopathic medicine to boot! One of my OMT professors at the University of Health Sciences College of Osteopathic Medicine wrote or co-wrote a few of the chapters so of course, I think those are the best! If you are looking for an educational approach to learning manipulation and the reasons behind it, this is a valuable resouce.

The parts of this book I've read have been clear and accessible for someone with an undergraduate degree in mathematics and some knowledge of stochastic processes. It doesn't needlessly multiply the jargon like some books, and it focuses mainly on the one-dimensional case so that the intuition isn't constantly obscured by matrix notation. Many subjects also have chatty introductions that offer intuition and a bit of relief from the hard work involved in learning this subject.

I thought that this was a great study of various Jungian archetypes and their applications to Shakespearian "myths". This was especially a nice addition to the plays I saw in Ashland, OR. I totally reccomend this in depth analysis.

"The Whiz Kids" met my expectations. It is great material for Phillies fans. Having grown up hearing the names of Ennis, Ashburn, Konstanty, Roberts and the rest, I wanted to read a good account of the first Phils pennant since 1915.

The ever humble Roberts (with the help of a professional writer) recounts his rise to the major leagues as well as the futile history of Phillies baseball. It's a nice, easy to read story that follows a tried formula: the team has a long history of losing, young players come aboard and develop into a close team, they exceed expectations and go to the World Series. There are plenty of scenes that flesh out the personalities and struggles of the team mates. Plenty of train trips and hotel stays. Tough game situations yeilding exciting victories or close defeats. Those looking for deep insights into the era should look elsewhere. In fact, I see this book aimed primarily at us Phils fans. Our banners are few, so we need to raise them high. These aren't Duke Snyder, Jackie Robinson, Pee Wee Reese and the other "Boys of Summer." The Phillies of this era had one great year surrounded by several decent years. Only a couple of the names stand out these years later.

I give the book four stars because it served its purpose for me. If you are looking for light reading material about a cinderalla team, this could be for you as well.

This is a very well written account about a team that captured the hearts of an entire city. This is a great account of the surprising achievment of the 1950 Phillies. The excellent interviews of the players involved and the rehashing of the author is great. A very nostalgic and fact filled retelling of an exciting and fun filled year in baseball. A must read for all Phillie and historical baseball buffs.

Authors Paul Rogers and former Whiz Kid pitcher Robin Roberts have done a great job in bringing a memorable team back to life. Baseball books on teams usually involve New York teams and it is refreshing to read a book about a team that will always be remembered, not just by Phillies' fans, but by baseball fans across the country. Many of the names I came across in this book were merely pictures on baseball cards I started buying in the early '50's and this book provided me with some insight into their accomplishments on the ball diamond. There is a story behind each of those players' names I have in my mind, and the authors brought them to life in this book. If there was one drawback, if I may call it that, I found an excessive amount of play-by-play among the pages. However, I can live with that. The names of Robin Roberts, Curt Simmons, and Richie Ashburn are household baseball names, but I was also happy to read about lesser lights like Bubba Church, Mike Goliat, and Stan Lopata who were only pictures on baseball cards to me. Phillies' fan or not, if you like baseball history, you will enjoy this book.

Cymbeline was a British king in Roman times ( Augustus Caesar's time).
Devices used in the Play:
1) a woman plays a man/ boy role ( several of his plays : As You Like it,
Twelfth Night))
2) a deception by a villain to lie the virtue of a Lady ( Much Ado about
Nothing)
3) Princes kidnapped and brought up as common men ( I don't know if he
uses this in other plays)
4) poison that causes a coma ( Romeo and Juliet)
5) a Prince who is a vile fool ( used in his historical plays)
6) a Queen who is a plotter and evil ( Macbeth)
7) a Prince who kills another Prince and it redeemed by his hidden
identity
8) a Prince sentenced to hang by mistake
9) a King who condemns his daughter wrongly ( King Lear)
One wonders how much of this is historical fact and how much pure fiction.
With all this scheming in the plot , it should be a very successful
play.
It is a total flop!
What it comes out is seeming unreal and contrived.
You get that happy ending feel that is so much in his comedies
but it has a very false feeling to it.
That's probably why Cymbeline isn't performed much.
If he hadn't gone for all these at once it might have worked, but the
result is that you see the playwright as ....
If anyone wants to take the air out of a Shakespeare pedant,
this is the play to do it with! He makes Shaw and Eugene O'neil l
look good. He even make Rogers and Hammerstein and Gilbert and
Sullivan look better, ha, ha...
This play is not Shakespeare's finest hour!

"Cymbeline" is my favourite Shakespeare play. It's also probably his loopiest. It has three plots, managing to drag in a banishment, a murder, a wicked queen, a moment of almost sheer pornography, a full-on battle between the Romans and the British, a spunky heroine, her jealous but not-really-all-that-bad husband, some fantastic poetry and Jupiter himself descending out of heaven on an eagle to tell the husband to pull his finger out and get looking for his wife. Finally, just when your head is spinning with all the cross-purposes and dangling resolutions, Shakespeare pulls it all together with shameless neatness and everybody lives happily ever after. Except for the wicked queen, and her son, who had his head cut off in Act 4.

"Cymbeline" is, then, completely nuts, but it manages also to be very moving. Quentin Tarantino once described his method as "placing genre characters in real-life situations" - Shakespeare pulls off the far more rewarding trick of placing realistic characters in genre situations. Kicking off with one of the most brazen bits of expository dialogue he ever created, not even bothering to give the two lords who have to explain the back story an ounce of personality, Shakespeare quickly recovers full control and races through his long, complex and deeply implausible narrative at a headlong pace. The play is outrageously theatrical, and yet intensely observed. Imogen's reaction on reading her husband's false accusation of her infidelity is a riveting mixture of hurt and anger; she goes through as much tragedy as a Juliet, yet is less inclined to buckle and snap under the pressure. When she wakes up next to a headless body that she believes to be her husband, her aria of grief is one of the finest WS ever wrote. No less impressive is her plucky determination to get on with her life, rather than follow her hubby into the grave.

Posthumus, the hubby in question, is made of less attractive stuff, but when he comes to believe that Imogen is dead, as he ordered (this play is full of people getting things wrong and suffering for it), he rejects his earlier jealousy and starts to redeem himself a tad. There's a vicious misogyny near the heart of this play, as Shakespeare biographer Park Honan observed, kept in balance by a hatred of violence against women. The oafish prince Cloten, who lusts after Imogen, is a truly repellent piece of work, without even the intelligence of Iago or the horrified panic of Macbeth; his plan to kill Posthumus and rape Imogen before her husband's body is just about as squalid and vindictive as we expect of this louse, and when a long-lost son of the king (don't even _ask_) lops Cloten's head off, there are cheers all round.

Shakespeare sends himself up all through "Cymbeline". I wonder if the almost ludicrously informative opening exposition scene isn't a bit of a gag on his part, but when a tired and angry Posthumus breaks into rhyming couplets, then catches himself and observes "You have put me into rhyme", we know that Shakespeare is having us on a little. Likewise, the final scene, when all is resolved, goes totally over the top in its piling-on "But-what-of-such-and-such?" and "My-Lord-I-forgot-to-mention" moments.

Yet the moments of terror and pity are deep enough to make the jokiness feel truly earned. When Imogen is laid to rest and her adoptive brothers recite "Fear no more the heat o' the sun" over her body, it's as affecting as any moment in the canon. That she isn't actually dead, we don't find out until a few moments later, but it's still a great moment.

Playful, confusing, enigmatic, funny and shot through with a frightening darkness, this is another top job by the Stratford boy. Well done.

A combination of "Romeo and Juliet," "Much Ado About Nothing," "As You Like It," and "King Lear?" Well somehow, Shakespeare made it work. Like "Romeo and Juliet" we have a protagonist (Imogen) who falls under her father's rages because she will not marry who he wants her to. Like "Much Ado About Nothing," we have a villain (Iachimo) who tries to convince a man (Posthumus) that the woman he loves is full of infidelity. Like "As You Like It," we have exiled people who praise life in the wilderness and a woman who disguises herself as a man to search for her family in the wilderness. Like "King Lear," we have a king who's rages and miscaculated judgement lead to disastorous consequences. What else is there? Only beautiful language, multiple plots, an evil queen who tries to undermind the king, an action filled war, suspense, a dream with visions of Pagan gods, and a beautiful scene of reconciliation at the end. While this is certainly one of Shakespeare's longer plays, it is well worth the time.

Fathers of the American Presidents by Jeff Young is unique in that it includes all the fathers of all the presidents. Inclusion of personal information about each father is interesting. Young also indicates how presidents were influenced by their fathers. The book should be included in public and school libraries so students can find out more about the presidents and their fathers.

Young seems to get at the heart of all the Presidents. An excellent reference to pick up and read chapter by chapter. Not that all the fathers are that exciting, but Young gives the reader his money's worth and then some. Quite a few surprises among the backgrounds of the highest in the land.

It is very impressive for doctors to study or practice spinal surgery.

what does it take to put a book together and get an exhibition done at a regional museum, with funding from a major foundation? apparently nothing. this book does nothing to further the cause of art and artists of the south. why doesn't somebody do a good survey book on self-taught art? and why does the university of mississippi press publish every book on self-taught art? black folk art 1930-1980 was a decent book on a then emerging field, but that was done in 1981. that was almost twenty years ago. and here we are in the year 2000, and no one has done a book that is any better than that. there is great art out there by these talented artists, there must be someone out there with half a brain to do a good book. when they do, email me and i'll buy it. i wonder if because the artists are self-taught, someone out there thinks it is cute to let elementary school students write about them. much of the art is very sophisticated and cerebral, and it is time the scholarship in this field rises to the level of quality that the art deserves.