I was very disappointed with the Adventure Bible for Young Readers. I purchased them for use in Sunday school, and I had to return them. Although the translation is acceptable, the "helps," "blurbs," and editorial comments were filled with misinformation and theological interpretations inconsistent with our church's theology. This Bible could probably be used in a church that is extremely conservative, but in my opinion mainstream churches will not find it palatable.

One of the main reasons we bought this Bible for our son, besides the fact that he needed a version he could read on his own, was because the jacket advertized "full-color illustrations". But this is not true. The illustrations are two-color ink, and the text is typed in a mint green---not easy on the eyes! We ended up returning this Bible to the store for a more kid-friendly Bible.

"Mom, do I HAVE to read the Bible?" Many parents have heard that question more than once. Why? Because until recently, there have been few Bibles that invoke the curiosity of children as this Bible has.

I am a Children's Ministry Director from the state of Washington, and have had the privilege to work with children for about five years now. One of the greatest things that breaks my heart is to see a child not interested in one of the greatest books of all-time: the Bible. Many children will not bring a Bible to church for one of two reasons: they either don't have one, or the one they have is too difficult for them to understand.

The Adventure Bible for Young Readers is not only phrased in such a way that children can understand it, but it is visually appealing to children ages 6 to 12. I purchased this Bible a little over a month ago, and even I can't put it down! It's easy to understand and fun to read! The NIrV has become the standard I use for teaching kids (ages first through sixth grades).

If your child enjoys reading their current Bible as much as they enjoy taking medicine, then this Bible is a must-have for your household!

The research and the premise behind this book are seriously flawed, thus "an errant stroll down an irrelevant path." Some very notable Civil War scholars have all taken the time to read this tedious tome, and have managed to shed some light on the nature of the misinformation presented by Bergeron. First, most of the names that Bergeron produces prove to be support personnel: cooks, teamsters, man servants, and the like. Most of the gun-toting "Confederates" that Bergeron does produce actually turn out to be "home guards," a loosely organized group of militia that never actually operated with the Confederate army and certainly never saw combat. One of the few "black" combatants that Bergeron *does* manage to produce actually turns out to have been mistakenly admitted to the Confederate Army under the assumption that he was white. When the truth was discovered, he was promptly discharged.

For perhaps the ultimate authority on this matter, we should look to Robert Krick, chief historian for the National Park Service at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville and author of ten books on the Confederacy. He has researched over 200,000 service records, and says he's come across maybe "six, or 12 at the very most" who might have been black. Hardly supportive of the notion that there were more than a handful of black Confederate combatants.

However, this is all a very amusing stroll down an irrelevant path. Even if Bergeron managed to provide real evidence of several thousand black soldiers fighting for the Confederacy instead of the shoddily researched handfuls that he does give us, what would be the point? Many of the Wermacht soldiers were of Jewish lineage, and 77 of Hitler's highest ranking officers were either Jewish or married to Jews. Does this lead us to feel any less horrified by the actions of the National Socialists? Are we to believe that a smattering of collaboration is somehow equal to a wholesale endorsement?

This book is another sad example in the ongoing struggle to rewrite history. Rather than read this, I suggest you do yourself a favor and read a serious book about the attitudes of the south prior to the war, most notably "Apostles of Disunion" and "Crisis of Fear."

The idea that the Confederate Army consisted of any black soldiers at all is a refutation to the modern notion the all Southern whites hated all Southern blacks in pre-Civil war days. That the ranks of black soldiers were more than an insignificant smattering turns conventional wisdom on its head.

According to the thoroughly documented essays in this volume, black support for the confederacy was broad and intense. Some of the black supporters were free blacks--many of whom owned slaves themselves. No doubt some were uneducated slaves duped by unscrupulous Southern partisans to back a cause they did not understand. Some must have been forced to aid the confederacy against their wills, but the majority of individuals discussed in these pages wholeheartedly agreed with the objectives of the rebellion.

To those who may dismiss the findings of this work, their legitimacy seems proven by the extensive documentation. At times the superscript weighs down the pages as assertion after assertion is annotated. Six different authors contributed to the collection and at times the facts are illogically tautological. Two essays by Richard Rollins-allegedly about different subjects--rehash much of the same data. Especially disturbing is the second offering titled "Black Confederates At Gettysburg," which barely touches on that subject. While this disorganized presentation is a sizable detraction, the work is a genuine eye-opener.

Those of us living in the twenty-first century will probably find the choices made by these slaves as impossible to comprehend as the fact that human beings could ever be bought and sold as property. One of Mr. Rollins vignettes makes an essential point concerning "the need to be sensitive to the historical figures we deal with in the context of the time they lived, rather than allow the ideological and intellectual assumptions of our own day to dictate what we have to say about the people of the civil war era-both black and white." Centuries from now common folk may very well look back at our "enlightened era" aghast that we condoned partial-birth abortion and euthanasia.

Our rightful revulsion to the slave trade should not allow us to forget that many confederate soldiers-both black and white--were noble men. Nothing in this conglomeration makes any attempt to diminish the horror that all decent people know slavery was. Perhaps it is the institutionalized unfairness of their lives that makes the profiled black patriots' sacrifices all the more doughty. The book's most challenging postulation may be Ervin L. Jordan's lament that the slaves and free black citizens served the confederacy "not as a consequence of white pressure but due to their own preferences. They are the Civil War's forgotten people, yet their own existence was more widespread than American history has recorded. Their bones rest in unhonored glory in Southern soil, shrouded by falsehoods, indifference, and historians' censorship."

History is made up of the stories surrounding events and this book adds another story worth reading.
Many people still believe the Civil War was about slavery, not state rights. Many people also do not realize that right before slavery was officially banned by the U.S. governement, there were over 400 blacks that worked as slaves to help build the capital building. Blacks had been selling their own people (and whites) into slavery long before the U.S. got involved in the trade. True, it was a serious mistake that has repercusions that are still being felt in this country.
It is interesting to note, however, that considering how bad the pre-Civil War South is made to sound, the American Africans in this country have long enjoyed better standards of living and health than in any other country, especially their countries of origin. This book points out that many blacks were in favor of preserving the Southern government. Not only that, it points out that even after receiving freedom, many chose to go back and work for their old masters pretty much as before. There were many blacks loved and adored by their families and this is one unfortunate piece of Civil War history often overlooked. It seems the concepts that founded this country are gradually being lost. Now more than ever, the issue of states rights needs to be re-visited to protect the sovereignty, strength and long-term well-being of the U.S. Or we will pass from United STATES to something akin to the United KING-DOM.

We have just begun camping with our children and I purchased this book for campfire stories. Unfortunately, I started reading one of the stories "Wham! Slam..." which the book said was geared to ages 7 and 8 (my audience). The story told of a witch who axed two children to death and then chased two others, killing 11 dogs with a swinging ax and knife. Luckily, she was killed by the 12th who jumped at ther throat. THe children who survived cut out her heart...etc. Not appropriate for most 17 year olds, much less 7-8 year olds. The cover of the book says "for classrooms, storytelling settings, etc." What school? Rated "excellent" by the very conservative Washington Times...

Stories of fright are designed specifically to re-engineer a classic theme in such a way as to leave the reader laden in a substaintial residue of unsavory - yet all too realistic - possibilities. The stories contained in this book fall so far short of said uneasiness that they seem to only encourage the already painful onslaught of boring children. Let us take our children seriously and follow through with a collection of scary stories that actually fulfills its promise of restless dreams.

I have three children, ages 8-2. The oldest two enjoy me telling "scary" stories around the campfire. Some stories were just too scary to tell them. These are just right for their ages. Scary enough to make them huddle close, but not so scary that they have bad dreams or are too scared to go to the camper alone! The stories are also short enough that they can be committed to memory easily enough. Thank you!

This book is a simple introductory text on event management and will be of little use to those with any amount of experience in the field. At best, it will help the experienced manager refine their checklists. I expected much more from consultants of Ernst & Young.

I was actually looking for a book about the organising of events with small groups of clients, up to 10 and at most 20 people. This was not what I was looking for....However it instilled a lot of new ideas in my crainium that I was able to carry over into my daily line of work when organising presentations to clients and events with clients.
This book was definately written for the novice special event manager in mind. It deals mainly with the staging of large events such as concerts, olympics, and charity events. They introduce the main stages of special events, problems that can occur, risk involved in taking on a special event, making sure you do your demographics homework to estimate the success of the event, chosing the venue, using television and radio for publicity to increase visitation, making a profit, security before, during after the event, the finale, closing down the event.
Even if you are organising events for a small number of participants, I highly recommend reading this book.

Contains short passages about each facet of event managment. Book is targeted at readers planning large-scale (50,000+ people) events, but much of it is applicable to all types of events. Not a great read, and definitely not the only book to own on event mgmt and marketing, but nontheless it serves as an excellent refrence for specific topics and questions, especially for beginners.

Nothing has been the same since Wendi stopped drawing and this book proves it. It lacks the depth Elfquest used to be known for. If you want to remain true to yourself, leave this book behind and stick to Wendi's work.

This book is in a sense the successor to the "Hidden Years" collection. That book collected the first five issues of the series of that name; this one includes the next five - but rearranged to form a complete narrative.

Only the last story, the highly-regarded "issue 9.5", was actually drawn by Wendy Pini herself. The other segments were among the first EQ issues drawn by the Pinis' apprentices and, while competent, are not really in Wendy's league. Fortunately, the full-color presentation is very lavish and more than compensates. Indeed, though three of the five issues in "Challenge" are duplicated in "Shards" (volume 10), it remains worthwhile to check out this volume, since the reproductions of the three pieces (8, 9 and 9.5) look glorious in color, very poor in black and white (to the point that, for example, important detail in no.9 "The Enemy's Face" is lost).

That said, the real glory of "Challenge" is the storytelling, much of it among the best in the series. Though Rayek is the main character of this book, there is a fascinating digression in the form of the two-part story "How Shall I Keep from Singing?", about the arrival of the High Ones, ancestors of all the elves. All the stories herein display the penetrating views of character that have made the EQ stories loved - and this study of Rayek, the most controversial character of all, is fertile ground for storytelling.

it was sorta confusing though. it goes off the story when it talks about the crash, then in book 10-shards it has book 9's ending as its own beginning.

Stoutenberg competently retells the familiar stories of Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, Stormalong, Mike Fink, Davy Crockett, Johnny Applessed, John Henry, and Joe Magarac in a way that stresses the common tall tale elements and should be appealing to upper-elementary school readers. Useful in schools when balanced with some of the more recent and sprightlier stories featuring heroines.

This book I believe is superbly crafted and a masterful show of Lyttle's writing ability. The pictures are very nice and the stories of his childhood are somewhat amusing to me. I think that the serious Hemingway fan would be glad to read this fine literary work by such a skilled author, who also drew the maps in the book himself. Though this book is now out of print i would still like to see that it be put back into publishing for it is a most enjoyable read.

You know, either there just is not the sense of history with a basketball team that there is with a baseball team, or the Minnesota Timberwolves just have a history that no one really wants to remember before the arrival of Kevin Garnett. Richard Rambeck, who wrote a history of the Minnesota Twins, does the same honor for the T-Wolves. He covers the history of professional basketball in the Twin Cities, which allows a few comments on George Mikan and the glory days of the Minneapolis Lakers, but then the Timberwovles take the court in 1990. But all this book really talks about are the first two seasons of an expansion franchise, when the team lost a ton of games and the roster changed pretty much every other week. That means we are talking about forgettable players like Felton Spencer and Tod Murphy, or those who had success with other teams, such as Luc Longley and Tony Campbell.

However, the fault, dear fans, is not in Rambeck's writing but in the stars, or lack of them, that afflicted Minnesota for most of that decade. This is a concise history of the team's first two years of existence, which, of course, if now woefully out of date. I am sure the only reason they bothered was because this was part of a series for all the NBA teams. Maybe if we were talking the Lakers or the Celtics, teams with rich, storied histories, things would be different. But I think most fans would be happy to forget there were T-Wolves before Kevin Garnett showed up in the fall of 1995. Now, if they could just get past the first round of the playoffs.

This tape is a hoot! My visiting grandkids, age 10 and 15 (girl and boy) listened to it at least 4 times, repeating all the funny or scary parts by memory and waiting for the next favorite part to come along so they could join in. As we drove back to the airport they listened right up to the last second, wanting to cram in every word they could to memory.

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.

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.

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.