A caution seems in order. Over the millennia many tools have been developed for working wood, but razors are not among them. Using a razor on a dense wood will result in "wood marks" on the razor, that is, in the best case. It can go horribly wrong.

The only reasons that only "minor marks" can be seen here is that the haze of sanding marks and sanding dust overlies everything.

On the positive side the book is well printed and bound, and of course wood is so beautiful that even the treatment doled out here can not obscure its beauty entirely. Somebody who never saw wood or does not own any proper woodworking tools may be impressed by this book. However such a person would do a lot better with the "Good Wood Handbook" by Jackson & Day (cheaper too!).

This book was printed beautifully, and expensively in color. Unfortunately nobody thought to prepare the woods before photographs were taken: the wood surfaces were not cut or planed but sanded (truly horrible!). I would be ashamed to own a copy of this book: it definitely is a waste of the wood which went into making the paper it was printed on.

A great deal of the information in this book can also be found in Aidan Walker's 'Identifying wood', a more modest effort which at least is modestly priced. Anyone really interested may be referred to R.Bruce Hoadley's books.

I found this book most useful. It describes popular woods of the world in an easy way with a clear format. Unlike like the other reviewer I found the photographs were clear and understandable. (Any minor marks visible on a couple of the wood surfaces are caused by the razor cutting during preparation not sanding!). For anyone who is looking for an excellent workshop or desktop companion this is a book I would rate.

It may be unfair, but I hold writers who tell other writers how to write to a higher standard of writing. I also hold social scientists who tell other social scientists how to conduct social science to a higher standard of social science. The author has not written a book that convinced me that he is, in fact, an authority on writing. It also does not appear that any research has gone into this book; many of the examples are from his own writing or from the papers of his students.

The subject is a very important one, but I closed this book not feeling that I had gained much from it. The author has written this book in a style that assumes one is reading it from cover to cover. However, I don't use writing reference books this way (and I suspect that many other struggling social scientist wanna-be writers don't either).

There are some nuggets of wisdom here. I found myself shuddering when the author identified all the elements of bad social science writing that I had either indulged in or had read! Nevertheless, the book is not one that I would recommend. Would SOMEBODY out there please write a workbook or reference-book-style social science guide?

In this lusty tale of cape cod's lush countryside, Thoreaumanages to do everything wrong! I give it a two only because ofThoreau's thorough description of a beaver frolicking in a pond.