History Books

Well, we've all been waiting nearly four years for this latest Jeff Kurtti Disney piece (it was originally listed on amazon with a 2005 release date), and on the whole, it's been worth it. The text is extremely thorough without being overly encyclopedic; at times it's casual, light and anecdotal. I bought my first copy here and a second for friend during a recent visit to Disneyland (the book is available at the parks)--it's that good.

I agree with some of the other posters that several key women are missing from this volume--I was looking forward to reading more about Mary Blair in particular. Perhaps the recent controversy with the Blair family over additions to it's a small world is the reason she was left out?

I've been a reader of Disney history for years (and I'm even doing my design masters on theming), and there were several tidbits, even for the well-versed fan, that are new. In other words, you can pick this one up thinking you know everything about the history of the parks and still learn a thing or two. Many of the photographs have never been published before, either.

The only reason I can't give this book 5 stars is the design. Bruce Gordon (a wonderful former imagineer, he passed away far too young in the fall of 2007) is the culprit. Although he was the mastermind, along with Tony Baxter, behind Disney creations like Splash Mountain, he's a self-taught graphic designer, and it shows. Granted, the typography and layout are a considerable improvement over the positively awful design of Disneyland: Then, Now, and Forever. No more tacky drop shadows and garish font choices--and thank God there's at least some white space this time. Still, the look and feel of the book is considerably amateurish when compared to Kurtti's stellar, well-researched text. I just wish Disney hadn't fired Bruce Gordon from WDI in 2005, causing him to poorly lay out books like this full time.

But don't take that as disrespect...Bruce, you will be missed.

Do yourself a favor, Disney park fans. Pick this one up, pronto.

i was talking to my friend a disney imaginner and he sent me a copy of the book and its pretty cool

Another excellent book from Jeff Kurtti and the late but very awesome Bruce Gordon. Lots of great information on little known Disney Imagineers, beautiful page layouts and wonderful rare photographs. I highly recommend this book.

My only issue, which would have resulted it 5 stars instead of 4. Where are Alice Davis, Mary Blair and Leota Toombs? While it's great to read about the legendary Harriet Burns, I was disappointed that she was the only woman represented. Certainly Alice and Mary contributed so much to the classic Disney attractions, and why a picture with Leota Toombs but no information on her? Maybe a follow-up book is in order?

In any case, thanks for finally releasing the Imagineering Legends book. I have to say it is definitely worth the 2 & 1/2 year wait!

I have always been a huge Disneyland fan, but only begun delving into the history for the past 2 years, so I would consider myself somewhat of a newbie amongst the die-hards. This book's strength is its encyclopedic all-in-one format (although as Lannie's excellent review points out, there are a few glaring omissions such as Alice Davis), the wonderful photos/illustrations (many are new to me, with a few familiar ones), and the excellent design that is featured throughout. Each chapter features a different skill/talent for the Imagineers, such as: The Prototype Imagineers (Harper Goff, Ken Anderson, Herbert Ryman, and Sam McKim), The Executive Suite (Richard F. Irvine & Bill Cottrell), The Model Shop (Fred Joerger, Harriet Burns, and Wathel Rogers), and many more. The common thread throughout the book is obviously Walt himself; his talent for putting all of these geniuses together and challenging them to do things they'd never attempted before created the magic that is now Disneyland and WDW. Walt fostered the creative and "can-do" environment that allowed The Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean, it's a small world, and the Jungle Cruise to become the beloved attractions that every guest rushes to experience over and over again.

Each Imagineer is given approximately 2-3 pages; I enjoyed reading not only about what they did for Disney, but learning their background and early information. Blaine Gibson initially refused the invitation to join WED and leave animation, as he felt more than satisfied having sculpting just be a hobby. Once Gibson learned that the job offer was a personal invite from Walt, he changed his mind. It was also nice to note the lack of egos and mutual admiration that the Imagineers have for each other (most attractions were the work of multiple Imagineers, not just one, so it was refreshing that there was no "jockeying for credit." It is somewhat sad to note that many of these legends have passed away (Harriet Burns just recently), but great to know that their work lives on.

I would highly recommend this book as a great addition to your Disney Library. However, the cover currently shown on Amazon does not match the art on the finished book.

In my work I'm at Walt Disney World every week, and the more I research it the more impressed I am. It is a place of boundless imagination. After Walt Disney's original vision, the bulk of the creative work has been in the capable hands of the Disney Imagineers. This book profiles 30 of these Disney artists and engineers.

Although you could argue about the list (I'd love to see Mary Blair, but I guess her role wasn't really as an Imagineer) you can't argue with the depth of the research. Within each profile, Kurtti has gathered not only anecdotes, reminiscences and quotes, but also photos and sketches. The best photographs show the Imagineers at work, painting and sculpting and model-making. The conceptual art is the most fun; you can see Bill Martin's conceptual layout for the Peter Pan attraction in Disneyland, and Rolly Crump's concept sketch for the Enchanted Tiki Room.

I do wish more current Imagineers were included, especially the visionary Joe Rohde, the chief architect of Disney's Animal Kingdom. But then again he's not a Legend. Maybe in a sequel, Jeff?

The design of the book is a little loose for my taste, with some clunky typeface choices and layout. Several of the photos are not rectangles, but rather circles or other shapes, and many are reproduced too dark, at least in my copy. But overall the book is an excellent resource -- and makes for fascinating reading -- for any Disney fan.

Jeff Kurtti is also the author of SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN: WALT DISNEY WORLD: THE FIRST 25 YEARS.

Here's the chapter list:
Foreword: Growing Up With Imagineering, by Martin A. Sklar
What is Walt Disney Imagineering?
The First Imagineer: Walt Disney
1. The Prototype Imagineers
* Harper Goff
* Ken Anderson
* Herbert Ryman
* Sam McKim
2. The Executive Suite
* Richard F. Irvine
* Bill Cottrell
3. The Place Makers
* Marvin Davis
* Bill Martin
4. The Story Department
* Marc Davis
* Claude Coats
5. Masters of Mixed Media
* Morgan "Bill" Evans
* Roland "Rolly" Crump
* Yale Gracey
* Blaine Gibson
6. The Model Shop
* Fred Joerger
* Harriet Burns
* Wathel Rogers
7. The Machine Shop
* Roger Broggie
* Bob Gurr
8. The Music Makers
* Richard M. & Robert B. Sherman
* Buddy Baker
* George Bruns
* X Atencio
9. The Unofficial Imagineers
* Ub Iwerks
* Bill Walsh
* James Algar
* Ward Kimball
10. The Renaissance Imagineer
* John Hench

I think Mr. Buchanan might not have come to the conclusion that Churchill should have made peace with Hitler if he was aware of "Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf" edited by Gerhard L. Weinberg and published in German in 1961, and in the United States in 2003.

Not to be confused with the Second Volume of "Mein Kampf" or the infamous forged "Hitler Diaries", "Hitler's Second Book" consists of the notes dictated by Hitler to his publisher Max Amann in June 1928 and kept in the safe of the Nazi publishing house until seized by the US Army in 1945.

Hitler had evidently put off publication after he realized that it gave away too much of his thinking, not only his low opinion of his political allies and intentions for the Jews, Slavs and Communists in the near future, but also the inevitability of war (allied with the British Empire) against Greater Germany's ultimate rival - the United States.

Editor Weinberg discovered the unedited manuscript in 1958 in a folder marked "Draft of Mein Kampf" while microfilming the US Army archives of confiscated Nazi files in Alexandria, Virginia prior to their repatriation. The US had transferred ownership to the Bavarian government and the Munich Institute for Contemporary History was eager to publish it, so Weinberg entered into an agreement for them to publish his annotated edition in 1961 with no one to make any profit from it.

Unfortunately in 1962 while arranging the publication of the American edition, he found a pirated edition with a bad translation of his German text was already in print, and he couldn't sue to stop them since he was not suffering any financial loss.

Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War by P.J.Buchanan.

Published by Crown Publishing, Hard cover 544 pages $29.95.

How to lose the largest empire the world has ever seen, in three decades.

I have the highest regard for Pat Buchanan. He is arguably the best president America never had. As a writer, he is a victim of modern technology. His prose in Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, is closer to a blog than a literary work, and his dependence on Lexis-Nexis, is apparent on every page. That said, Buchanan is a journalist, and as a journalist he has written a short history of the world from 1914 to 1945.

If the thought of ploughing through a history book fills you with foreboding, let me assure you that Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, is a page turner par excellence. In all the 544 pages, you will not find a wasted word or a superfluous phrase. But be warned: you must read the entire book. Buchanan is guilty of overstating his arguments for and against as the work progresses. Depending upon your particular sympathies, there are chapters that will cause you to defenestrate the book in a moment. But as you progress, your own particular point of view will be addressed.

Fundamentally, Buchanan postulates that America by design and Sir Winston Churchill as a consequence, destroyed the British Empire.

The planks of his platform are that Britain did not have to enter the war against Germany in 1914, but because they did, they escalated a German/French squabble into a world war. He essentially says the same thing about WWII.

His position is that as Kaiser Wilhelm was closely related to Queen Victoria, and wanted to be friends with Great Britain. He uses a similar argument with Fuhrer Hitler. Indeed there is a similar suggestion that Hitler respected Great Britain and went out of his way not to antagonize her.

This places Buchanan's total thesis on very thin ice. It fails to appreciate that Great Britain is an island, and as such is paranoid about hostile forces occupying the continental coast 21 miles away across the English Channel. Once a hostile power can compete with the Royal Navy, and blockade Great Britain, they are finished. Both the Kaiser and the Fuhrer were intimidated by Britain's maritime supremacy.
Of course Great Britain could have turned a blind eye to Prussian aggression, but it would have had to build up its defences and wait for a Teutonic Europe to crush arrogant little Britain. Surely it was smarter to fight them in Flanders in 1914 than the Wield of Kent in 1925?

Buchanan contends that dear old Adolf was misunderstood, and only wanted to regain the land taken from Germany at the Versailles Conference in 1919. Does Buchanan seriously believe that Britain (like America), should have stood by while Germany occupied (and destroyed), all of Europe, murdered all the Jews, and enslaved everyone east of Bratislava?

He further suggests that Great Britain's declaration of war against Germany was tantamount to suicide. And it was. Churchill knew that Great Britain could only fight for three years, and then she would be bankrupt. He also knew that someone had to have the guts to stand-up to the Nazi hordes. What he didn't expect, was that America would exploit the situation, and shake Great Britain down, and financially screw her into the ground. Roosevelt's plan was derailed when Hitler declared war on America. Had that not happened, America would have sat it out while Russia and Germany tore themselves to pieces on the Russian Steppes and our courageous Dough-Boys could have occupied what was left.

Buchanan seems to favour this Mafioso foreign policy. An analogy might be standing by as a hoodlum attacks and robs an old lady, and when they have run off, stealing her shoes.

There are occasions in life when the honorable thing to do, does not pass the Enron test of business efficiency.

It is suggested that the genesis of Britain's problems was giving up a treaty with Japan at America's insistence. Buchanan seems to think that an alliance with Britain had some kind of calming effect on the war-like tendencies of warrior nations. A Japan/Britain alliance would have gentled the Japanese condition to the extent that occupying Manchuria and China would no longer hold any attraction for them. A similar alliance with the nice old Kaiser, would have seen Germany writing loud music, and slapping their Lederhosen for the rest of the millennium.

Too much of Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, relies on quotes from other writers to support a given thesis. These are opinions not source material. However, Buchanan comes into his own in the final chapter where the mirror of old Europe generally and Great Britain in particular is reflected on the United States of today.

Whether you are American or British, this book is tough to read - but you must read it. For, in the words of George Santayana:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

End

"All around us now we see that the west is passing away.." begins the book. Buchanan resoundingly shows that the future of disgrace and loss we now face was not foreordained, but instead caused by impetuous decisions made by British and American leadership that involved the West in an unnecessary fratricidal war. The obstruction of some legitimate territorial claims of the German peoples. The vindictive madness of Versailles. The folly of the war guarantee to Poland, the diversion of Hitler from his goal of annihilating Stalin, the loss of the captive nations behind the Iron curtain, even the roots of the Empire's entry into the Great War- all are convincingly, unanswerably laid out by Mr. Buchanan. In addition, he gives the lie to the cult of Churchill worship, which has left a costly legacy of political foolishness that persists to this day.

Pat Buchanan's book was long due. As a historian I am aware that is almost impossible to be objective about the two world wars that caused so much sorrow and casualties in the US. The feelings associated with WWII were too painful for somebody to be objective and to acknowledge that both sides committed crimes against mankind. We had to wait for 60 years before people have the courage to tell the story of both wars as they were. We needed historians to look at the facts and conclude that the Allies particularly England were not the nice people that most war movies want us to believe they were. Buchanan's very entertaining description of Churchill and of England plotting to destroy Germany in WWI just because of their economic might is courageous and in line with what most historians believe now. An insightful research on the vengeful Versailles treaty clearly helps us to understand why Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933. The book also points out to the other side of the coin when it mentions the Allies war crimes the carpet bombing of German and Japanese cities, the ethnic cleansing of 13 million Germans and the killing in the process of 2-3 millions of people. The Yalta conference will go into history as a shameful chapter of US and British history because of the surrendering of Eastern Europe without their consent to a dictator and in consequence much worse than Munich 1938. This book is a must read for anybody who wants to find a new refreshing look at the history of the two world wars that devastated Europe and the world and eliminated for good the British and French empires. It adds an interesting twist what if WWI had not happened.

A new challenging and thoughtful review of 20th century history. All our old assumtions are questioned and lets face it that century was the worst in human history other than possibly the 14th when plague wiped out a third of the European population.

This book provides insight into the development of the Church from the beginnings to the Protestant Reformation. It is written in chronological sequence and sheds light on the life of important and known individuals of Church history. The author brings in historical facts and mentions traditons leaving out his own interpretation and opinion about them. The easy-to-read writing style allows this book to be captivating reading material for personal interest as well as a helpful source for intensified research on early Church history.

Gonzalez tells history the way it is meant to be told--as a story. This book truly portrays events as a seamless narrative, giving this work remarkable readability. Gonzalez does not compromise information for ease of reading, however; his work is thorough and replete with the pertinent names, dates, locations, etc. Note, though, that this book is meant to be an introductory text. Gonzalez isn't aiming at overwhelming his readers with every minute detail; instead he whets the appetite and provides his readers with a solid foundation for further study. Recommended without reservations.

A readable book, the Story of Christianity Volume 1 will be a simple, but informative read especially for those who never have studied the historical roots and development of Christianity. Dr. Gonzalez takes you back to eras of the first Christians to the beginning of the Renaissance and the Spanish and Portuguese colonization. The first chapters present the first centuries of the church and the frequent persecutions and martyrdoms. Dr. Gonzalez captures the passion of the martyrs as they suffered under the Roman authorities. Later, he leads the reader through various events that shaped the Church, and its followers such as the legalization of the Christian faith under the Emperor Constantine, the various ecumenical councils to address heresies, and formalization of the Church as a legal institute. An interesting chapter was the development of monasticism as a reaction to the decrease in persecution of the Roman Empire and the austerity of monks. This follows growth of the Papacy and its continual tension between the Eastern Roman Empire and the conflicts between the two parties, which were political as much as theological. As the rift grew between the two empires, Western Christianity spread to the various European tribes and their conversion. Especially interesting were the chapters regarding the height of papal power and its political influence through Innocent II, and the Unum Sanctum following under Boniface VIII. The volume ends with the rise of Renaissance humanism and the colonial Altogether, the work provides tremendous insight into the origin of beliefs and practices that are held today by the church's contribution, and its followers through the ages. Dr. Gonzalez narrative is written well and seeks to capture the drama and the conundrums that Christians often found themselves. The one detraction of the book that is it focuses more upon the Western Roman Church and provides a much briefer account of the Eastern orthodox Churches in the latter half of the book and its institutional development and its various mission efforts to spread the gospel to other parts of the world.

As a former history major and social studies teacher I have read a lot of history books. Gonzalez's "The Story of Christinity: Vol. 1" is one of the best history books I've read b/c of its amazing readability. Like the title implies Gonzalez is telling a story and it was such a well told story that I found myself reading far ahead of the class reading assignments for my Ancient Church History class in seminary. The book covers Christian history from just after the time of the Apostles right through to the Renaissance. In addition to readability this book's main strength is that it covers Church history in Africa, Asia, and the South American in addition to Europe. This opens up a whole new world to most of us who have only heard the story of the Church in Europe. There were so many amazing stories that I want to know more and will read some of the suggested readings Gonzalez compiled at the end of each section. Lastly, this book is one of the best I've read b/c it does not shrink from telling the inspiring stories Christians need to spur us on to greater love for God, but it also tells the stories that we don't want to hear about the evil that has been done in the name of Christ by many well-meaing and not so well-meaning people through the ages. This book is a must read!

I bought this book because I was searching various college course syllabi to see what scholars are assigning their student these days. In this case I discovered a very good book I didn't know was out these. Gonzalez is a very detail-oriented writer and has a solid grasp on the subject he writes on. The reader will get an excellent overview of Christian history and an understanding of the great figures who have helped define what Christianity really is all about.

What started as a small group of believers in the Book of Acts eventually grew into one of the most formidable forces in world history. But the book is more than just a history of church development. It covers the ideas and the theology that went hand in hand with church organization. Those beliefs established orthodoxy in the Catholic church. They helped erase (for good or bad) the teachings of gnosticism. They went on crusade. They came to the new world.

Gonzalez is a leading church scholar and his effort is one not to be overlooked when searching for a good introduction to church history.

It is a classic and, therefore, deserves a close reading. Norton editions are great. The text size is good, the print tends to be first-rate, and the critical essays usually include classic essays and major critics. This doesn't strike me as being worthy of the "A" list of literature, but that is a prejudice. I can't really accept any genre lit on the list, including detective, gothic, or science fiction. It is an interesting sample of this period, but I didn't get a lot out the the book itself. For one thing, the atmosphere of doom and gloom doesn't work for me. Everyone is sick and morbidly depressed and sad. This is not explained and I don't think one can easily guess. The writing works, sure, but I don't find the prose style uplifting or thrilling, as writing. The story is very familiar. As a child of the 60s, I remember well watching reruns of the classic film on TV. It is hard to divorce the brilliant film from the wordy novel. The film has some brilliant set-pieces. The novel has a lot in it and it certainly can and should be read at multiple levels, but in the end it is Victorian intellectual thought of the low order. There are other, better thinkers and novelists of far greater talent.

This is a classic and that is the reason that I read it. I liked the movie but the book is a whole other experience. I liked the format; I like the style; I liked the prose; I liked the intellectuality. I really didn't analyze it. I just read it for the fun of it. It was good. It was fun.

The chronological table in the back of the book helped me situate Mary Shelley within the time of the writing of Frankenstein. Percy B. Shelley's critique of the book, published after he died, was interesting. I liked the Criticisms in the back of the book. Most of all, I loved the Being Frankenstein created. This is the saddest, most thought provoking, book I've read in recent times (even though it's old).

Mary Shelley was the daughter of the famous feminist and author, Mary Wollstonecraft, who is best known for her work The Vindication of the Rights of Women. In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, a young university student, Victor Frankenstein, obsesses with wanting to know the secret to life. He studies chemistry and natural philosophy with the goal of being able to create a human out of spare body parts. After months of constant work in his laboratory, Frankenstein attains his goal and brings his creation to life. Frankenstein is immediately overwrought by fear and remorse at the sight of his creation, a "monster." The next morning, he decides to destroy his creation but finds that the monster has escaped. The monster, unlike other humans, has no social preparation or education; thus, it is unequipped to take care of itself either physically or emotionally. The monster lives in the forest like an animal without knowledge of "self" or understanding of its surroundings. The monster happens upon a hut inhabited by a poor family and is able to find shelter in a shed adjacent to the hut. For several months, the monster starts to gain knowledge of human life by observing the daily life of the hut's inhabitants through a crack in the wall. The monster's education of language and letters begins when he listens to one of them learning the French language. During this period, the monster also learns of human society and comes to the realization that he is grotesque and alone in the world. Armed with his newfound ability to read, he reads three books that he found in a leather satchel in the woods. Goethe's Sorrows of Young Werther, Milton's Paradise Lost, and a volume of Plutarch's Lives. The monster, not knowing any better, read these books thinking them to be facts about human history. From Plutarch's works, he learns of humankind's virtues. However, it is Paradise Lost that has a most interesting effect on the monster's understanding of self. The monster at first identifies with Adam, "I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence." The monster, armed only with his limited education, thought that he would introduce himself to the cottagers and depend on their virtue and benevolence; traits he believed from his readings that all humans possessed. However, soon after his first encounter with the cottagers, he is beaten and chased off because his ugliness frightens people. The monster is overwrought by a feeling of perplexity by this reaction, since he thought he would gain their trust and love, which he observed them generously give to each other on so many occasions. He receives further confirmation of how his ugliness repels people when, sometime later, he saves a young girl from drowning and the girl's father shoots at him because he is frightful to look at. The monster quickly realizes that the books really lied to him. He found no benevolence or virtue among humans, even from his creator. At every turn in his life, humans are judging him solely based on his looks. The monster soon realizes that it is not Adam, the perfect being enjoying the world, which he is most alike. Instead, he comes to realize that he most represents Satan. The monster is jealous of the happiness he sees humans enjoy that he has never attained for himself. The monster tells Frankenstein that he found his lab journal in his coat pocket and read it with increasing hate and despair as he came to understand what Frankenstein's intent was in creating him. The monster curses Frankenstein for making a creature so hideous that even his creator turned from him in disgust.

Shelley's intent here is plain to see. "The fate of the monster suggests that proficiency in `the art of language' as he calls it, may not ensure one's position as a member of the `human kingdom." In a sense, she is showing that both her parents were mistaken when they advocated greater education reform for people. They thought education would make people better, which in turn would improve society for all. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein contradicts this belief.

Starting with the full title of Mary Shelley's book, Frankenstein: or The Modern Prometheus one can instantly see that mythology was integral to her book. Lord Byron, poet and friend of the Shelley's was writing a poem entitled Prometheus, and Mary was reading the Prometheus legend in Aeschylus' works when she had a dream, which was the impetus for her book. The Greek god Prometheus, is known for two important tasks that he performed, he created man from clay, and he stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. The stealing of fire really angered Zeus because the giving of fire began an era of enlightenment for humankind. Zeus punished Prometheus by having him carried to a mountain, where an eagle would pick at his liver; it would grow back each day and the eagle would eat it again.

The presence of fire and light in this gothic story helps to point to the similarities to Prometheus and Victor Frankenstein, the creator of the monster, in Shelley's book. The book uses light as a symbol of discovery, knowledge, and enlightenment. The natural world is full of hidden passages, and dark unknown scientific secrets; Victor's goal as a scientist is to grasp towards the light. Light is a by-product of fire that the monster learned quickly when he is living on his own. The monster experienced fires' duality when he first encountered it in an unattended fire in the woods. He is mesmerized by the fact that fire produces light in the darkness in the woods, but is shocked at the sensation of pain it gives him when he touches it. Victor is defiant of god in the same way that Prometheus was defiant of Zeus. Victor steals the secret of life from god and creates a human out of spare body parts. He does this out of an altruistic wish to spare humankind from the pain and suffering of death. Thus, Victor Frankenstein embodies both aspects of the Promethean myth creation and fire. Victor in a sense has the same experience with the fire of enlightenment similar to his monster; he is "burned" by the fire of enlightenment. Victor also suffers from the classic Greek tragic condition of hubris for his transgression against god and nature.

The book also adopts two other great mythic legends. One is Adam from the Bible. Victor Frankenstein bears striking resemblance to Adam and his fall from grace for eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. The other is Satan, a mythic figure that Shelley admired from her readings in Milton's book Paradise Lost. In an interesting juxtaposition of booth myths, she expands on the motif of the fall from grace in her book when she portrays the monster comparing himself to Adam; after he read, Milton's book Paradise Lost. The monster tells Victor, that he at first identifies with Adam God's first creation. "I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence." However, after several incidents of mistreatment that he suffered from the humans he encountered in his travels; the monster soon realized that it is not Adam, the perfect being enjoying the world, which he was most alike. Instead, he came to realize that he most represented Satan. The monster's feelings of hatred and despair stem from the fact that humans found him grotesque to look at and would not accept him as a member of human society. The monster cursed Victor for making a creature so hideous that even his creator turned from him in disgust. Thus, it is obvious for all to see that Shelley's Frankenstein is replete with mythological references and they are central to the plot.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and literature.

Frankenstein is a great work, though one that has consistently been underrated
and misrepresented. Frankenstein is, in the words of Donald H. Reiman, "the
most seminal literary work of the Romantic period". It is a work of profound
and radical ideas, written in poetically powerful prose. Frankenstein is not
really a gothic novel, although its author sometimes employs gothic
conventions and language, and even spoofs them. Rather, Frankenstein is an
enduring myth, a novel of ideas, and above all, a moral allegory about the
evil effects of intolerance and prejudice, ostracism and alienation, both to
the victims of intolerance and to society at large.
Since there are some good reviews here, I'll concentrate on this
particular edition -- the Norton Critical Edition, edited by J. Paul Hunter.
This is one of the two best editions of Frankenstein available (the other
being the Chicago edition edited by James Rieger). Most importantly, this is
the original 1818 edition, rather than the inferior, bowdlerized 1831
edition -- which is the most common, and the only one that was available for
well over a century. Hunter's introduction is not bad. Some of the reviews
and essays in the back are good, and some are not, but this is par for the
course. The main text is intelligently annotated.
Please check out my own book, The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein, which
makes the case that Frankenstein was really written by Percy Bysshe Shelley,
one of the greatest poets in the English language. I also argue that male
love, both idealized and demonized, is a central theme of Frankenstein.

this was a great book. it was very insightful. the author did a great job of defining and describng the most prominent worldviews held in todays world.

We used this book in our class on Western Heritage. It is really useful in explaining the differences in current world views as well as the development and historical aspects of our own.

This is, and excellent treatment of Worldviews and, covers in enough detail all those general categories into which all people must fall.
Though some dislike his "bias" or find this work unfair - this is only due to a clash of Worldviews (not issues of truth).

This catalogue is well written, displays enough content and descriptions to be reliable and finally, points out the logical ends of our systems of thought. One can choose to disagree but must ultimately make peace with the logical and honest "ends" of each Worldview presented (we cannot all be right when presenting opposing truth claims).

I recommend this book to anyone confused or questioning the plethora of religious, spiritual or naturalistic beliefs intended to govern life!

The Universe Next Door
James W. Sire
This review is on the Second Edition of the book, copyright 1988. That being the case there may be major changes in the book that address some current trends in worldviews (I hope that's actually the case).

What's the Point of The Book?
To give us a basic overview and introduction to several worldviews beginning from the author's own worldview (Christian Theism) all the way through the New Age Movement. The author is not trying to indoctrinate us in every point found in the worldview or even the major divisions throughout but he wishes to underscore some major features and question some major problems.

The Good
This is tough because it could also be a "bad" and only that because of the date of the original publication (1976). The meat of the book comes in 219 pages with bibliographical notes that bring the count up to 241 (The remaining 5 pages are devoted to the index). Those biographical notes are a godsend for anyone wanting to dig further into the material and are stated as such by the author. This edition actually features a much appreciated rewrite of the New Age movement section in light of how much has happened from 76 to 88. The worldviews are given pretty fair treatment considering what the author is doing (overview and not in-depth apologetics). The language is fitting with the subject and as worldviews grow increasingly complex the author stands with that view and exposes us to the language being used.

The Bad
The theistic section should have covered different theistic worldviews. I know his purpose was to give an overview and finally summarize how each of these fall short but by ignoring alternate theisms he doesn't really underscore how Christian Theism stands out. In this book it seems that it's either Christian Theism or Naturalism and all that grows out of that. Failing to mention, say Islamic Theism, is a huge oversight and one that can leave the reader saying "fine, naturalism is wacky but why not believe in {X Creator God} instead of the Christian God?" I also think that the nihilism section may have consisted of some ungrounded generalizations for instance he opens that chapter with "Nihilism is more a feeling than a philosophy. Strictly speaking, nihilism is not a philosophy at all." After this he proceeds to show how nihilism leads to despair and despair is the teaching of nihilism that grows out of a naturalistic framework. If he established it up front I wouldn't be as critical.

The Ugly
The cover illustration is dated but that is to be expected with a 1988 title. The book could have been longer and still accomplished its overview goal while simultaneously shedding some light on alternate worldviews.


Star Rating
All my remarks aside, I still think this book is well worth reading as an introduction into worldviews and understanding that the author doesn't intend for the book to do any more. I would warn the reader that the section on Eastern Pantheistic Monism is utterly confusing and demands a second and third reading but that is no fault of the author. Some of the things being dealt with in that philosophy are so outside Westerners' thinking that he or she may have to saturate themselves with the words so as to understand what is wrong with them.

There are a number of reviewers who are under the impression that the only way to write a world-view catalog is from an objective position which has no bias at all.
This is unfortunate, because the book tries to show us how everyone has a presuppositional bias: there is no objective middle ground from which to weigh up the others.

This was required reading as a theology student, and I found it useful. His 7 questions are powerful and useful in deconstructing longer texts, but other sets of questions are more useful and easily deployed in analyzing world-views on a regular basis, such
1) what is my relationship to creation in this view
2) what is my relationship to other people in this view
3) what is my relationship to God in this view.

Another useful one is
1) What is the problem
2) What can save us/them from the problem
3) What does the world look like once it is saved?


Personally, I found it helpful to realize that not everyone thinks like me, and to use this book as a very useful quick guide to the way others may think. Of course he generalizes. Of course he is simplistic. But he is also helpful.

I recommend.
To those who criticize this book as validating Christians in their blinkered view, I suggest finding a different book to validate them in theirs. But isn't that rather Sire's point about us all having a world-view based on a series of assumptions which may or may not stack up?

I just discovered this author and love her work. So far I've purchased and read five of her books. Have thoroughly enjoyed all of them.

What a disappointment this book was. The author portrays Elizabeth as a mindless pawn in the hands of the traiterous Robert Dudley. Anyone who has done much reading about Queen Elizabeth I knows that she was a brilliant linguist and astute politician and was extrememly wise in her choice of advisors. No one put words or ideas in her head that were not her own. To portray her as an emptly headed, mindless individual with no thought beyond what Robert Dudley wanted does a great disservice to one of the most successful and brilliant historical figures ever. She was way ahead of her times in her thoughts on politics and religion. I would not have finished the book except I was hoping to see some redemption somewhere in the final pages. Shame on you Phillipa Gregory for your unfounded and false portrayal of Elizabeth.

I was a little disappointed. Primarily it's because I didn't like her portrait of Elizabeth. However accurate or inaccurate it may have been. Elizabeth is one of my heroes, but in this book she is whiny, capricious, indecisive, foolish..... I didn't like her at all. Allison Weir's portrait of the young Elizabeth in "The Lady Elizabeth" is more likeable, and yet apparently is still a version of Elizabeth that is grounded in the historical facts that are known.

However the mystery surrounding Amy Rosbarth was very interesting. This is worth reading if you are a Gregory fan or a Tudor history fan.

Virgin's Lover / 0-7432-6926-8

I really cannot understand why Gregory books seem to be so hit-or-miss. The Constant Princess was wonderful - great history, great story. The Other Boleyn Girl was, well, it was poor history but a decent story, and that's really all that matters. The Virgin's Lover isn't even a good story, and I really cannot understand why.

The story ostensibly centers around Amy Robsart, Robert Dudley's wife. Amy is distressed that her husband, upon Elizabeth's recent rise to the throne, now has a place at the palace in the new queen's court. This upsets her because, in typical Gregory fashion, the political marriage between Amy and Robert is really a romantic marriage between two lovers. However, we have to take Gregory's word on this matter - the two 'lovers' are invariably nasty and cruel to each other, with Robert being unforgivably distant (he does not even send a message when he is absent over Christmas) and Amy being petty, childish, and nagging (telling him that a dream of his father's death is an omen to stay out of battle - as though Robert has a choice in the matter - and greeting him smugly after the battle when his brother has just died). Amy also invariably prays for the death of Queen Elizabeth when it would be far more realistic for her to pray for the death of her callous husband - and we are told that Robert abandoned Amy long before Elizabeth came to the throne, so this animosity towards Elizabeth is deeply confusing, at best. With these strokes, Gregory has managed to give us two characters who are totally unsympathetic, with the end result that we do not particularly care about Amy's abandonment (we would abandon her, too) nor do we care about Robert's infidelity (we would know better than to love someone so worthless).

With the "main" characters thus rendered meaningless, all we have left is Elizabeth. This is where the novel's flaws show most badly - Elizabeth has been reduced to a silly, vacillating, pleasure-seeking, childish girl who is barely capable of making the slightest decision. She throws a very un-regal temper tantrum during her first royal mass, and leaves the pieces for the shrewd Dudley and Cecil to pick up for her. In fact, she manages to leave ALL the affairs of state to the two men, since the affairs of state are dreadfully dull and she is just a winsome 25 year old girl without a serious thought in her silly head. Until the next page, when we are told solemnly by Gregory that Elizabeth's long years of imprisonment and uncertainty seasoned and aged her and made her fit to rule. And yet, we turn the page, and there is stupid, childish Elizabeth again, because the plot demands that she be so. Honestly, if I didn't know the author better, I would assume that the writer had serious issues against women, that's how badly Elizabeth is portrayed here, and the characterization of her as a stupid promiscuous idiot flies in the face of all historical fact about the woman.

Which brings us to another major flaw in Gregory's writing here - 99 times out of a hundred in this book, she TELLS rather than SHOWS. A good author shows a characters emotions, reactions, conversations, and so on and the reader can intuit from these glimpses that the character is immature or childish or wise or altruistic or any number of character traits. Instead, Gregory just goes the lazy route and tells us "Elizabeth is this," or "Elizabeth is that," and thus is all subtlety lost completely. Paragraphs are written in this sort of style: "Dudley handled all the coronation details, because Elizabeth did not care how the coronation was planned, only that everything be perfect. Elizabeth never cared about the how or why - she was a player on a stage and she only demanded that the other actors play their parts perfectly." Well, that's certainly VERY compelling writing, except that it isn't. Good literature is not written this way. The same point could have come across much more memorably if Gregory had fabricated a conversation where Dudley tried to involve Elizabeth in the ceremonies and she reacted coolly with disinterest. This would have given us some insight into Elizabeth without having to simply memorize what Gregory tells us.

I really cannot recommend this book. Obviously, it has struck a tone with some readers and perhaps you will enjoy it, but I would recommend looking for it at the library before buying a copy. I felt that the history was bad, the writing was dull, the characters were irritating and uninteresting, and the story was lacking any kind of drama or interest.

I would be ashamed to put my name to this rubbish. That Philippa Gregory put her name on this is an embarrassment.

When reading reviews of products or books, I tend to take into most consideration those "middle-area" reviews, since they seem likely to be the most accurate. If only I had seriously read the 1-star reviews of this book. Nothing infuriated me more than to read a female novelist who wrote the Constant Princess (one of my more favorite historical novels - which gave a new, intelligent perspective to Catherine of Aragon) writing a novel about two women who are the most idiotic, insufferable and utterly unrelatable women I have ever heard tell of. The characters are first of all, not even remotely plausible - historically or in fiction.

Amy Robsart is portrayed as a wet blanket of a woman who cannot stand up for herself much less get over the fact that her marriage is ending. She is forever waiting for Robert Dudley, shown here as a miserable louse of a man, to return and live happily ever after with her. Cecil's character is tiresome, simply because he is rendered impotent by Dudley's and Elizabeth's characters, and instead of retaining dignity and poise is resentful and bitter.

Walsingham gets nary a mention and is instead merged into Cecil - pure laziness, really, especially since it's Cecil's made-up spy network that gets all the write up. Elizebeth herself is a woefully indecisive wanton tart, better suited to grocery aisle book cover than anything in a Philippa Gregory novel. Elizabeth, a woman considered to be fairly politically savvy in a time when women weren't even considered viable rulers, is utterly dependent upon men. When Cecil is away, she turns to Dudley to manage all of her affairs.

Worse, there are redundant phrases in the book, one being that Cecil rarely, if ever, puts his name on documents. Oh yes, because Cecil is the spymaster, right? And he's quite careful? This dumbed down repetitive tripe is a poor excuse for a novel, much less anything written by the Philippa Gregory I had come to respect as a writer. I am offended and insulted that this would pass among her fans, and I am dismayed to see so many giving it positive reviews. It's trash. Dressed up historical trash, but trash nonetheless.

The story is told from the perspectives of Robsart, Dudley and Cecil - never from Elizabeth's perspective at all. While this is somewhat typical of Gregory's work and writing technique, Elizabeth is too central and too enigmatic to benefit from it. Instead, the book seems lazily written, as if it's too much effort to imagine any plausible explanation or motivation for her behavior. Because Elizabeth was such an enigmatic ruler in reality, it's a shame that Gregory didn't think to writer from her perspective. Instead, Elizabeth is almost a sideline character, while the Men do Men things like rule her realm and tell her where to stand and what to do (quite literally - evidently, Elizabeth had no clue how to behave during royal entertainments, and depended upon Dudley to tell her exactly what to do).

There is nothing queenly about Elizabeth in this book. Nor is there anything dashing or appealing about Dudley. In a time when one's bed partners meant life or death, and Elizabeth had first hand experience with that (consider Seymour's beheading as a result of his treasonous plots including Elizabeth herself), it's impossible to believe that she would be so casual about her affairs. It's insulting, especially, considering the real Elizabeth was so careful and calculating.

Suffice it to say, I did pay money for this book (humorously, only because Alison Weir's book was out of stock). I fully intend to write a strongly worded letter to both Ms. Gregory and her publisher requesting a refund.

This wonderful little book will challenge every grain of moral weight you think you have, and without a doubt you will be better for reading it.
Every person should read it.

Recieved item on time, right when we were told it would arrive. Book in very good condition.

I've used Wiesenthal's The Sunflower as a text in college courses several times. On each occasion my original high estimation of Wiesenthal's narrative grows, while my dissatisfaction with the chorus of responses that takes up nearly two-thirds of the latest edition deepens.

Wiesenthal asks exactly the right questions that all of us need to confront about forgiveness. Is forgiveness always ours to bestow? Is it permissible or even possible to forgive on behalf of others? Should forgiveness be tied to repentance on the part of the transgressor? Should the transgressor try to atone for his/her wrongdoing? What if, as in the case of the dying SS-man Wiesenthal meets, the performance of overt acts of atonement are impossible? Are there certain actions that are unforgiveable, or is the philosopher Jacques Derrida correct when he insists (On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness) that the only kind of forgiving that makes any sense is the kind that forgives the unforgiveable? And in a godless world--a world where, as several characters in The Sunflower say, wickedness is so rampant that God seems to have gone on leave--is forgiveness necessarily a different kind of phenomenon than it would be in a Godded world?

Weisenthal doesn't pretend to answer any of these questions, but he and the other characters in his memoir discuss them, presenting different perspectives and coming to different conclusions. The very real value of The Sunflower is that it encourages readers to think about the questions.

Which brings me to the responses. Most are impressionistic, unanalytical, platitudinous, and hence totally out of step with the brutal authenticity of Weisenthal's text. A few stand out from the others: Robert Coles', Rebecca Goldstein's, Abraham Joshua Heschel's, Primo Levi's. But most can be given a pass. My suggestion would be to focus first and foremost on Weisenthal's text and forget about the responses. A nice cinematic complement to the book is the documentary "Forgiving Dr. Mengele."

Simon Wiesenthal is best known as the man who had been indefatigable and single-minded in trying to bring Nazi criminals to justice as long as there was a single one of them left. For him this was an absolute moral imperative and something that he felt he owed to the memory of the murdered millions of Jews, of whom Wiesenthal could so easily have been one: he was the survivor of a succession of concentration camps: the Janowska camp outside Lvov, Plaszow (the camp of Schindler's List), Auschwitz, Gross-Rosen, and finally Mauthausen. It may come as a surprise to some readers that Wiesenthal was sensitive to the moral problems raised by the issue of forgiveness - yet this book is a moving meditation on that theme. According to his biographer, Hella Pick, Wiesenthal had `always considered it his most important book'.

Cruelty and casual murder were everyday occurrences in the Janowska camp, and are described in gut-wrenching detail in the first half of this episode from Wiesenthal's life. While doing slave labour at a military hospital near the camp, he was secretly brought to the death-bed of Karl, a gravely wounded 21-year old SS officer whose conscience was wracked - not just at death's door, but apparently immediately after the event - by his participation in a horrific massacre of Jews in Dnepropetrovsk. The officer got a nurse to find `a Jew', who happened to be Wiesenthal, to whom he could make his confession and from whom he could seek forgiveness. Wiesenthal wanted to get away; but something - apart from the dying man's grip - made him stay to hear him out. A Catholic priest later told him that that alone should have helped the man to die in peace, since confession and genuine repentance are more important than any absolution. But at the end Wiesenthal left the room without saying anything. Quite apart from the sufferings he was himself undergoing at the hands of the SS just then and from his expectation of death at their hands at any moment, it was not for him to offer forgiveness on behalf of the victims of Dnepropetrovsk. But the issue haunted him - had he done the right thing? After the war he sought out the SS man's mother. The young man had come from a devout and Social Democrat family who were distressed when their son had joined the Hitler Youth and even more when he had volunteered to join the SS. But the mother was convinced that her son had been a good man. Wiesenthal said nothing to her about what her son had done... The short but haunting book charges the reader to put himself in Wiesenthal's shoes and to ask himself `What would I have done?'

Before publishing his book in 1969, Wiesenthal sent his manuscript to a number of distinguished thinkers for their response, and the comments of ten of them were included in the first edition. Further contributions were made by others to the 1997 and 1998 editions: there are now 53 altogether, and they make up nearly two-thirds of the book. They include - to name only the most famous - those of the Dalai Lama, Cardinal König, Primo Levi, Deborah Lipstadt, Herbert Marcuse, and Desmond Tutu.

Some of the respondents seem to me to veer away from the question Wiesenthal had posed, and draw a distinction between forgetting and forgiving; others discuss the question of collective guilt (some reject it; others blame all the bystanders) - interesting, but irrelevant in the context of this story. Almost all agree that whilst individuals can forgive offences committed against themselves, no human can forgive in the name of other victims. In such cases, if the victims cannot be asked because they are dead, perhaps only God can be asked for forgiveness - though one respondent says that God was hardly fit to forgive something which He had after all allowed to happen. And the Jewish tradition has it that even God will not forgive the unpardonable sin of murder. It is unpardonable, because it is the one sin for which reparation is impossible. The Christian tradition, basing itself on Jesus asking God to forgive them, `for they know not what they do', and on the idea that you must hate the sin, but not the sinner, shaped the answer of some Christian respondents. Some say that forgiveness is not only a boon to the penitent, but also for the victim, freeing him from the burden and poison of hate. Two Asian contributors, one a survivor from the Khmer Rouge and the other a victim of the Cultural Revolution in China, blame only the top leadership, and have some understanding for those who were brainwashed.

One respondent hopes that Karl will rot in hell; others also refuse to accept the genuineness of his repentance, indeed stress the offensiveness of him putting a Jew - chosen not as an individual but picked at random - under the moral burden of hearing the confession and being asked to forgive. Wiesenthal at least saw Karl as an individual and is capable of some compassion towards the dying man and later towards his mother (but one respondent thinks that Wiesenthal did wrong to shield her from the knowledge of what her son had done).

These are just some of the responses to Wiesenthal's question. It is a question addressed to all of us, and it is not surprising that this book has been used as a text in many courses on the Holocaust.

Summoned to the bedside of a dying Nazi who had willingly participated in the systematic annihilation of Europe's Jews, concentration camp inmate Simon Wiesenthal found himself the captive, solitary witness to this 21-year-old SS man's confession of responsibility for committing acts of unspeakable cruelty.

Kurt had asked a nurse to bring him a Jew (any Jew would do); quite by chance the nurse selected Wiesenthal from the work detail assigned to the hospital that day. Against his will, he listened to this man recount his experience of packing a house full of Jewish men, women, and children and then setting the house on fire while lobbing grenades into the inferno and shooting at anyone who had attempted to escape this hell. Kurt watched a father, mother, and small boy leap from a window to their certain death. Before the leap, the father had shielded the child's eyes.

The image haunted Kurt, who was unable to fight again. Instead, he froze on the battlefield and suffered and injury that first cost him his sight and then took his life. Before he died, though, he wanted to confess his sins to a Jew that he might be forgiven and die in peace.

Wiesenthal, who was about the same age as this soldier, heard him out but refused to forgive. Instead, he offered silence in response to the story and returned to the concentration camp.

The experience haunted Wiesenthal; soon after it happened, he discussed it with his friends back at the camp, with a Polish Catholic seminarian. Much later, he presented the story to theologians, political leaders, Holocaust survivors, and victims of other attempted genocides and asked each of these persons what he or she would have done in the same situation.

The story itself is first book of The Sunflower; the responses to the question, "The Symposium," are the text of the second book in this volume. Broadly grouped, the respondents are Jews and Christians, primarily. There are two Buddhist respondents and one Chinese respondent who makes no reference to religion though his response is in keeping with Buddhist thinking. Within these broad categories respondents reflect on different facets of the experience Wiesenthal describes and facets of their faith and life experiences and knowledge to make a response.

The Jewish respondents point to the fact that only the person against whom a sin has been committed has the right to forgive the sinner. Therefore, Kurt cannot be forgiven; his victims are dead. The Christian respondents point out, first, that they feel they have no right to address the question because they have never been on the receiving end of genocide. Then they point out that God alone can forgive and that it is incumbent on each of us sinners to find forgiveness in our hearts for others. The Buddhists respond, as Buddhists do, in the present tense and with an eye on enlightenment--a release from suffering. Each perspective reflects a different concept of individuality and therefore of the nature of accountability.

For this reader, The Sunflower accomplishes the important task of bringing the reader into the concentration camp alongside one of its victims, into the hospital room of the dying SS man, and into the heart of the questions the Holocaust raises about responsibility, accountability, forgiveness, restitution, and grace. These are questions that refuse pat answers and therefore remain alive and active in our minds. Wiesenthal's book challenges our ability to empathize with those who suffer and our ability to think about how and why we believe what we do about ourselves and each other. It is a humble and beautiful tribute to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. We too can honor their memory by participating in the conversation this book presents.

This book is very organized and easy to read. It is very informative and gives the reader more insight on the views, rituals and beliefs of the Catholic Church. It is a must for Catholics who want/need to learn more about their faith.

This is an excellent book but it is begging for something to go with it. That something is a newer copy of the New American Bible, Revised version of the Bible and a copy of the Vatican II documents. All these documents get to the bottom of what we believe. They form the foundation for our religious library.

Deacon Pat

This faithful representation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is by far the easiest version of the catechism to use in education.

The US Catholic Catechism for Adults provides an easy to read and thought-provoking introduction to the Catholic faith. As a person converting to Catholicism, I have found the chapters easy to read and short. Each chapter begins with a story about an American clergy person or saint. From here, the chapters discuss key issues related to faith, sacraments, or living a moral life. The end of each chapter offers interesting discussion questions and a summary of key points. This text can be used for RCIA programs or for individuals wanting an brief introduction to the Catholic faith. For those wanting a more definitive outline of the policies of the Catholic Church (and who have a little bit more reading time), the Cathecism of the Catholic Church (about 822 pages in lenght) should provide that and more.

This catechism is an "adaptation of the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church,' and is presented to Catholics of the United States, who are members of both Latin and Eastern Churches..." although this catechism is only intended to introduce Latin Christians to Eastern traditions, since it is expected that Eastern Rites will eventually develop their own catechisms. The arrangement of the U.S. Catechism follows that of the universal catechism: the Creed, the Sacraments, Moral Life, and Prayer. Like the universal catechism, it also specifically addresses major aspects of Catholic faith and morality.

So if this catechism is simply an adaptation of the excellent universal catechism, then why even bother with it? I think the best reason to get the U.S. Catechism is its helpful layout and user-friendly presentation. Rather than being a series of numbered points (like the universal catechism), the U.S. Catechism is laid out more like your average non-fiction book, making it possibly more approachable than other catechisms. There are helpful gray boxes spread throughout the book that highlight points from the regular text. Each chapter begins with a biography of a major Catholic figure, many which are important to the development of American Catholicism. At the end of each chapter are discussion questions, concise "doctrinal points" (i.e. what Catholics are expected to believe), meditations (from the Scriptures, Church Fathers, etc), and prayers. Appendix A is a helpful glossary of Catholic terms, and Appendix B is a collection of basic Catholic prayers. All of this means that the U.S. Catechism is a self-contained textbook, useful in a variety of Catholic adult education situations.

Overall, this is a fine catechism that certainly meets its goal of being a local adaptation of the universal catechism. While in the past, the United States Catholic Bishops have been accused of watering-down Catholic Teaching, the U.S. Catechism does not contradict, or water down, what is taught in the universal catechism. Thus, I hope that the U.S. Catechism is used regularly in RCIA classes, marriage-preparation classes, and other adult education situations. While this catechism is excellent, I would still recommend owning both the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church and The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, since the U.S. Catechism is based on these works.

One of the few books I simply could not finish. To hard to slog all the way through it. Not the fast paced real life crime thriller I was looking for.

A smart new approach on a story told many times over - the author takes the infamous Road Hill murder as a window through which to tell the story of one of England's first real detectives, and then further explores the impact/relationships to public/media views of other famous cases of the day, and then the impact on the detective fiction genre.

Although the fiction she references is mostly 19th century and therefore leaves out the great writers of the 20th century, I found this study fascinating, and it's led me to seek out some of these old stories for the first time.

As a student of real life crimes, I was a bit surprised not to see any reference to subsequent famous cases that have so many parallels - notably Lizzie Borden, the Lindbergh kidnapping, and JonBenet Ramsay. My guess is the author preferred to keep the scope of the book firmly in the 1800s, and within the borders of England.

Although I bought the book wanting to read the Road Hill story - which covers about half the content - it was a happy surprise to gain all this additional information and insight. While some reviewers might have liked the focus to be entirely on that case, it really doesn't make sense given that it's been written about many times, and the author doesn't have the excuse of new evidence or theories to retell it once again. Instead, she uses it to bring to life so much more.

if you like to read boring history books you'll love this one. if you think you're going to read an interesting historical fiction novel you'll be sorely disappointed.

This story was totally engrossing, more so because it is a true story. As a fan of fictional detective literature, I had to keep reminding myself that this was factual. Compelling reading.

Well-written, interesting subject with several twists and turns (I don't want to give away the ending). Neatly connects several themes - the specific murder in this case, the rise of the professional detective, Victorian England family and commercial life, etc. A fascinating story, well-researched and well-told.