History Books

Winner of the 2008 Newberry Medal, Good Masters! Sweet Ladies! was actually written to be performed. Laura Amy Schlitz has written here a series of interconnected monologues and dialogues which, taken together, depict the life of kids of all kinds in a medieval village. There's the Falconer's Son, the Blacksmith's Daughter, the runaway villein, the Young Lord, The Pilgrim and The Sniggler, all of whom help complete the picture.

The reviewers have covered it all, but such a truly great book deserves ongoing praise. How nice to see that this jewel of a book won the Newbery! Standing ovation from this reader.

A wonderful book from a wonderful person. This is especially good for lower- and middle-schoolers. Quite usable for in-school performances.

I didn't really realize it would be a children's book when I placed the item on hold at my library. I just knew that I wanted to read the latest Newberry award winning book. I guess I figured that if it fell into the same category as "A Wrinkle in Time" by Madeleine L'Engle then it must be good.

I was a little surpised at how thin it was. I was also surprised at how it is not just one coherent story (or even a story in the general prose form).
They are monologue and dialogue plays written by a librarian for the children in her school classes. She wrote them so that each child would have a starring role for three minutes.

They are poetic and easy to read with nice large print. The tone and vocabulary is all medieval - let's face it, I learned a few new words. Large colorful pictures are on every page and even the margins are colored and have text that explain certain words or aspects of the medieval culture/life. A large colorful map is on the first or second page and instead of locations being labeled the specific characters in the story are shown and labeled.

The tempo of the words is good and interesting -- I was particularly impressed with the two monologues done by the sisters talking about the apprentice boy their father has taken and how one of them must marry the apprentice for the apprentice to inherit the shop. The older daughter likes the boy and wouldn't mind marrying him but thinks the boy would want her sister (younger, prettier) instead. The younger sister thinks the boy will want her older sister (so he doesn't have to wait to inherit) but thinks that it's terrible that one of them will have to marry the boy in the end. The dialogues are completely different but manage to come together for a chorus type of refrain.

Another one that does this is the dialogue between the Jewish boy and the Catholic girl. They are able to put aside their differences for a little while and just be children playing together. The dialogue ends with the children saying together "Almost like she's a Jew;" "Almost like he's a Catholic."

The one down spot I can see - if I were the one performing the plays - would be having to play the role of the beggar child or the child of the villein where you obviously are not well-cared for and have to scrimp to survive. Or maybe that's just me being a girl and wanting the character I embody to be noble somehow...

All in all, it was a beautiful book and very easy to read. It took me maybe forty minutes of carefully thumbing through and looking at the pictures to complete it.

The fact that the book is made up of monologues by villagers, like "Spoon River Anthology's" poetry, makes it a natural for dramatic presentations in experiencing life in a medieval village in a social studies class -- middle school, or high school. When students "live" a character first hand, in costume, they experience a different life, and they remember much more of the information. MTL

i never read anything else by MR. WOLFF . this book was really a good read and very funny . i could really identify with the boys narrative and observations . i was quite knocked out when the film came out . it was not nearly as funny or fun as i recall the book being . it seems to me , a good deal less of the book was given over to his difficult and abusive stepfather . perhaps that's because i never had one . anyway , at least borrow the book from your local library if you're several dacades or less removed from your birth and are a guy . you'll be happy with this read i'm sure . you'll want to turn your brothers and friends onto it .

The memoir is intriguing. Any male who reads this can, at some point, relate to the follies, plunders, and disappointments Wolff encounters during his adolescence. It is explicit and candid making for an interesting read.

I'm about 2/3rds through this, and I find it entirely absorbing. Wolff's writing talent is not in using fancy words or complex forms...just one sentence after another of perfectly pitched prose that feels entirely true and believable. He gains the reader's trust and empathy early on and never loses them, even though, in my case, I wasn't much interested in the details of his somewhat sordid and pathetic early years. I keep asking myself this holds my attention, while most memoirs by people I have a lot more in common with don't. (Not to sound like a snob, but guns, dogs, smoking, drinking, etc. have never been my thing.) I think the reason is that his writing seems entirely transparent, plus you care about him. postscript: I've finished it now and towards the end I was increasingly pained by how f**ked up a person Wolff is--or was. It's troubling and yet the writing is still transparent. You might say he gives us a God's eye view: if there is a force that knows everything and can look at all our failings, faults and mistakes with simultaneous compassion and dispassion, then I think such a Being would write up Wolff's early life in the way he himself wrote it. You get a feeling that there is no self-judging or constrictions and nothing to hide: just the truth, the all too human truth.

A great true story (almost) about Mr.Wolffs childhood. Robert DeNiro did an excellent job as the step-Father in this movie. This is typical of a Father figure who has no self esteem and picks at every little thing that goes wrong. It is never his fault always someone else. Toby has a tough time with growing up without a father and being carted around the country by his Mother who has no roots to tie on to. I see a lot of teenage problems in this movie that are played out and done extremely well. Take the time to watch this movie, you will not be sorry.

This is a well written and engaging memoir. It ends a bit abruptly, leaving me wondering how the author went on to become the distinguished writer he did. I enjoyed this book. The people and places described did become alive to me. While not a page turner, this was a book I enjoyed quite a bit.

Arrived in time for college move. Item in good condition and what we expected.

We used this book in my IB Music class in high school, and I highly recommend it. The CDs are helpful, but you will find that even without them, it is a great asset. Most of the recordings are very standard, so you could easily find them online if you didn't want to buy the CDs and wanted to hear the "listening examples." It is very clear and includes good timelines which makes it easy to study.

I am a music major in college and own this book just because it is so user friendly.

This is the best general survey of music available. Highly recommended for anyone wanting to have a grasp of the periods and styles of Western music, even if they have little or no background in music. It also contains a sampling of world music. When used with the 6 CD supplement it will make anyone feel more "at home" with the history of music and open many windows for exploration.

This book doesn't really do you much good without the CD's and they did not come with it. dissapointed!!

Bought this at a university bookstore some years ago (6 CDs). Wonderful selection of music (and some accompanying paintings) from early music like chant to the weird modern experimental art stuff.

The author is a typical leftist; that is, he was a rich kid brought up in a Lilly-white suburb whose politics swung to the left when he didn't automatically inherit the social-standing he assumed was his birthright. This mindset deludes him into thinking that he has some sort of common-cause with the working-class he spent his early years avoiding like the plague. Franks' thesis is that populist demagoguery is only acceptable when serving the purposes of socialism,rather then corporate-conservatism...the possibility that populism itself isn't such a hot idea ain't even on the table.
Obama basically said the same thing with his "guns and religion" gaffe, but at least he didn't repeat himself until he had enough pages for a book. One of the log-rolling blurbs on the cover calls Frank "the second-coming of H.L. Mencken, but with better politics". Wrong on both counts. If you need a laugh at the fumbling of Marxists trying to convert Bubbas to their cause without having to actually interact with them, this is the fish-wrap for you!

This book is a must read for anyone wanting to understand today's politics and the great backlash occurring among good people who have been "tricked" into believing that voting "conservative" will somehow help and protect them. How far from the truth! I urge you to read this book. I highly recommend it.

Author Thomas Frank takes a funny, insightful 2005 look at politics in Kansas (and the USA). Frank shows how cultural wedge issues (abortion, gun control, etc.) have more pull with Kansans than economic ones. Most Kansas farmers and workers have fallen behind in wages, benefits, etc., yet see millionaire George W. Bush as their pal, even as he cuts their subsidies, busts their unions, and lowers taxes for their rich bosses. These Kansans often blame liberals for their problems - even with Republicans controlling government. Frank also shows how Kansas conservatives foolishly vent anger at wealthy moderate Republicans from suburban Kansas City by cutting their taxes! Of course, this is Kansas, which hasn't voted Democratic for U.S. Senate since 1932, nor for President (except in 1964) since 1936.

This book is fun reading, but the author jumps around too much, and wrongly faults free trade and Bill Clinton's middle-class strategy. He also can't see why blabbering idiots like Rush Limbaugh influence many, or why McGovern-liberalism (busing, racial quota's, etc.) still hurts Democrats at the polls. Despite these flaws, this readable look at U.S. politics is mostly on-target.

I just want to say that this book is completely on target and right about the political mindset of Kansas citizens in addition to almost every other right-winged American. I should know -- I used to live in Kansas. Luckily, I spent most of my life growing up in NY because after realizing many of the same conclusions of Thomas Frank, my mom knew we had to leave. The book was very well written and kept me smiling throughout because his descriptions ring true to my personal experience living there - they brought back so many memories of the extreme conservative mindset of all of my family and friends in KS. Anyone who lives in the midwest, has an open mind and understands politics can learn a great deal from this book; and anyone who disagrees is clearly ignorant of the truth.

It is hard to know just how to process "What's the Matter with Kansas." The writer, Kansas emigre Thomas Frank, clearly feels that both major parties are now beyond the pale, or to be more specific, that at some point in the future Democrats will be moderate Republicans (if they aren't already). Invert this statement, and it probably explains Barack Obama's victory in the Kansas Democratic primary as well as Mike Huckabee's victory in the state's Republican primary: former Republicans, appalled by how far to the right their party has moved, surged for Obama while conceding their former party to the forces of reaction. Frank refers (unfortunately just once) to conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan, now an enthusiastic Obama backer for the same reason. A debate between Sullivan and Frank would, I am sure, shed more light than this book does on the future of American politics.

While Chapter Five ("Con Men versus Mod Squad") illustrates that the heat of battle within the Republican party of Kansas now exceeds that between it and Kansas Democrats, Frank insists that while prosperous Kansans may be losing the battle for elective office, they are winning the much more important battle for economic policy. The economic elite of the state, as in the United States as a whole, is garnering an ever-larger share of the pie while the middle class stagnates and the working class goes into freefall. What seems hard to understand at first blush is the determination of the working class to continue the policies (pushed by Republicans, but increasingly embraced by Democrats as well) which have brought about this situation.

Frank's analysis of how conservatives have managed to create what he calls the "backlash" worldview (a term he borrows from Susan Faludi) against not only feminism, but such other contemporary realities as sex on television and such myths as an attack on the right to self-defense, is largely on target. This elevates those issues above economic ones despite the fact that things like the rate of taxation can be changed by simple legislation while things like legal abortion would require a Constitutional amendment and are therefore probably permanently out of reach. Frank makes a convincing case that economics have in fact driven at least the changes in the culture industry (the same sex and violence that makes American movies fodder for the right wing makes them the best selling in the global marketplace) and refers not unsympathetically to the coarseness of our popular culture.

Nostalgia for the New Deal, the last time Kansas was represented in the U. S. Senate by a Democrat, largely drives this book. The next to last page begins with a discussion of how the features of Kansas City recommended to visitors in the 1939 WPA guide to the city largely no longer exist. More to the point Frank refers in places to the New Deal coalition as if it could somehow be resurrected (presumably by blowing up the headquarters of Fox News, whose octupus-like media and pseudo-intellectual arms Frank rails against constantly).

My own position is that the New Deal is the past. It inaugurated the Fifth Party System, which was replaced by the Sixth Party System starting in 1968 with Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy and culminating in the 2001 inauguration of President Bush, when Republicans were in control of all three branches for the first time since 1954. In the 2008 election we have a chance to create a Seventh Party System in which Democrats will have the initiative for another 36 to 40 years; but it will not be based on the same coalitions as the Fifth. This is what Bill Clinton was trying to do (not quite as consciously as Karl Rove's mirror image project) with his presidency in the 1990s.

Frank invites the reader to conclude that Clinton's entire economic agenda was almost equally disastrous (especially for rural America) as that of Ronald Reagan. I am not convinced. According to the 2008 World Almanac (which being a strict reference work draws no conclusions about why this happened), by 1990, things had gotten so bad for four states -- Iowa, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming -- plus the District of Columbia, that they experienced absolute population declines during the 1980's. In the 1990's this trend was reversed except in the District of Columbia, and there, it can largely be explained by a combination of the shrinking Federal government and white flight, for which I suppose President Clinton did bear some responsibility. Of course, in 2004 all four of those states voted Republican, as did three of them in 2000. My suspicion is that the 2010 census will reveal the same phenomenon (possibly in a larger number of heartland states) this decade as in the 1980's, but North Dakota and Wyoming will still fail to vote Democratic, at least this year.

Easy to read, this book accomplished what I was looking for: a complete high-level view of chinese history.

The few things I would have like to be a bit different:
- More maps, there are quite a few of them, but more would have helped
- Less on art, I did not care about history of Chinese art, but about China and Chinese people
- I was surprised that events like the building or the great wall or the decision to cut itself from the rest of the world by burning its navy was treated so quickly. I think some key events like these should have had a bit more time dedicated to them.

However, all-in-all, I'm glad I read this book. It reads like a novel, not a class textbook, and for the first time allowed me to have a better understanding of the Chinese history, beyong the last few decades I had learned in High-school.

I now need to find an equivalent book on India...

Highly informative and readable; wonderfully illustrated both with photographs and maps. This was exactly what I had hoped for.

I used this book as a reference text for a course in Ancient Chinese History. The labeled illustrations are a pretty good reference for the components of the class that require us to identify and date archaeological pieces. Ebrey does a good job giving an overview of all the various things happening in China, however, it truly only skims the surface. In addition, points of controversy are not really discussed. Among the academia, there is debate of one of the groups of Chinese people- the Xia. In this book, Ebrey identifies the Xia as a group that does exist. Depending on who your professor is, you might get a different spin on the situation and the Xia might be considered mythical. While this isn't a serious point of contention, there might be other discrepanicies like this between what Ebrey writes and what others think.

Now this may be nitpicky, but the book doesn't do very well with sitting in a backpack. If you intend to take take it around with you, you'd be better of buying a hardcover version. The binding comes loose relatively easily and it's printed on this beautiful, heavy, glossy paper.

Buy this book only if you're looking for a quick read and a good reference.

As a single volume overview of Chinese history, you couldn't ask for much more than this book. It is clearly written, objective and very readable. The most significant events in Chinese history are all covered (albeit in only superficial depth, necessarily.) The book also tries to describe developments from the perspective of ordinary people, not just the emporers. Cultural and technological advances are covered as well as the major military conquests. Finally, each chapter is concluded with the author's analysis of the period and comparisons to other contemporaneous civilisations.

My only criticism is that the Japanese atrocities during World War II are glossed over, only the Rape of Nanjing is mentioned, and even then, only the lowest bound of the estimated death toll is given. If you read only this book, you might get the impression that the Japanese occupation was a relatively benign experience.

Overall, I highly recommend this book to anyone seeking an introduction to Chinese history.

I'm a Chinese living in China. Because of politicized history accounts in China after 1949 I have little interest in official history books in Chinese. But I like this book very much; for me it provides a totally new perspective on the evolution of our culture, peoples and economy etc. The rich pictures in the book make reading easier and more interesting.

Paul and Anne Ehrlich's THE DOMINANT ANIMAL is not only the most sensible and up-to-date book I've read about sustainability; it's also well organized and well written, a true delight to read. As the bad news increasingly piles up -- mass extinctions on land and in the oceans, decreased availability of cheap energy, increased unemployment, floods and droughts leading to crop failures, polar ice caps melting, and famines, to mention only a few -- it becomes crucial that we quickly make informed and sensible choices. THE DOMINANT ANIMAL provides well researched and balanced pros and cons about the most important issues facing us today. I can only agree with the solutions the authors favor, from the unbridled consumption issue (my current line of work) to their analysis of nuclear energy, pp. 306-308 (pertinent to my past life as a physicist). Though the news are grim, I have great hope that if books such as this are widely read we'll be able save ourselves and our grandchildren from a very harsh future that is already encroaching on us.

The Dominant Animal is very succinct and puts
into perspective what everybody should know about Homo sapiens and "our" omnipresent, modifying
effects on the whole biosphere and every living thing in it!
Who better than Paul and Anne Ehrlich could make that point, and write it in a meaningful, non-condescending way which readers can grasp, understand, and maybe even think and act accordingly?

I was fortunate to get a copy of the Ehrlich's new book while teaching a summer course on global climate change in the United States. My job would have been much easier if the students had all had an opportunity to read "The Dominant Animal" when they entered college. It is the best summary I have ever seen of how the world works - what every Australian (and citizen of any country) should know about why human beings came to dominate the planet, and the threat that dominance now poses to our environment. The discussions of genetic and cultural evolution, processes basic to how we took over the world, are clear and compelling, and the summary of the environmental predicament completely up to date and the best I have ever seen. It's a fine read, even if it won't leave you cheered up - but at the end the Ehrlichs do show us how we might escape

The Green Movement is being herded like cattle and sheep. Guided blindly and controlled by a new, new "TERROR". As science has become a new religion with new priests wearing coats of white.

"So long as the rulers are comfortable, what reason have they to improve the lot of their serfs?"- [3rd Earl] Lord Bertrand Russell, 1952 (p61) "The Impact of Science on Society" on how 'the scientific technique' is used on the world's populations then, now and in the future.

This book is a must read in only that people must know who the author is and what his views are Dr. Erhlich's quotes from his mentor, Charles Darwin in his books. A progenator of eugenics thought through Darwinism and Malthusian beliefs. He also quotes indirectly, Charles Galton Darwin, (The Next Million Years). The grandson of Charles Darwin and close relative of Francis Galton, an admitted racist and eugenicist. Close friends of the Famous Huxley Family including Julian Huxley, a evolutionist and humanist himself and the first Director-General of UNESCO and writer of "The Crowded World" calling for a "World Population Policy".
In the beginning of Dr. Erhlich's interview on NPR, The Diane Rehm Show 7-24-08.

He proudly professes that he was sorrowly wrong and disgruntled in predicting that more poor, hungry and sick people had not died from the Mid-1970's until now. Whilst being wrong he happily admits that HIV/AIDS and other resistant disease were however discovered. He praises his belief in a World Wide Communistic China solution to all our problems. This man is an American, Right?.
His foundation backed opinions are very frightening! His theories and suggestion follow the mainstream thought of global warming as being caused by man but never mentioning that amongst the main causes. Which I believe are cyclical and effected by the greediness of the world's richest individuals and sometimes purposefully as the weather can be controlled effectively and efficiently in today's world by many nation's but its this looming concocted notion and concept that the blame and cause is the ordinary person.

These ordinary persons would have been more than willing to use alternative methods of energy production long ago. Which have been around for many decades but oil is their favorite flavor. It's revenues generate bloodshed, war, power and ultimate control and possibly in the end the destiny of mankind itself. The overtone this book and his previous book "The Population Bomb" will give a glimpse into the mind of those whom say they would rather save a tree or cat than a human soul.

Educated Mankind has become too many, too fast, too soon for the wealthy's comfort. Larger numbers of ordinary individuals are becoming more aware that our predicament is anything but happenstance and natural. A chain of events beyond our control. Which when very carefully researched provides evidence to the contrary. That is that we have been, for quite a while, a long while, very insidiously and intentionally guided towards this idea of accepting population reduction.

The rich and wealthy of the world have the largest families but you will be told to believe differently. It's the poor! You know those who can barely afford food and shelter than arriving to the point of owning a car and filling it with petroleum. The Elitist plan is to rid themselves of those nolonger needed. A working population that has out lived their purpose and usefulness.

Remember, we are now post-industrial. A service economy. Production in this nation alone was willing sent to China. There is but one place to go and that is tyranny to control a wiser much knowledgeable nation and world.

Read, but read objectively with an opened mind and be aware. Be very aware of his kind and their plans for YOU. Then ask yourself who funded this book and dvd project.
*** I highly suggest reading "Foundations: Their Power and Influence" and going to the UN's website to read and download "AGENDA 21" as the UN controls World Policy but its members are not elected by any citizens or the people of the Nation States Members and never will be.

For this I reference the many predictions made by Mr. Ehrlich over the years which have, well, let's face it, not come to pass.

Mr. Ehrlich, your crystal ball is broken. Maybe you should just stick to the butterflies.

I love this series, and I love this addition to it.

But somehow, for me, this book felt quite disjointed in comparison to the last ones - I won't go into details about the plot (which itself was everything I could have hoped), and regardless, it was the execution that bothered me.

From odd changes in perspective to the myriad of spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors (I have never seen so many in a published work previously), I have to wonder whether Ms Novik or the publisher fired their copyeditor. The errors just served to jar me out of an otherwise gripping story.

I hope this is corrected in the paperback version, but as it stands, the print quality of the UK hardback is appalling.

This fifth adventure of Temeraire and Laurence continues very well, and indeed there's a sort-of resolution at the end, though not a very satisfactory one nor one that promises an early end to the series. As it begins, Laurence has been condemned to death, and Temeraire to the breeding pens, although in order to keep Temeraire under control Laurence's sentence has been postponed indefinitely and he's been confined to a warship participating in the blockade of the Continent. Then the ship Laurence was on is sunk; he's one of the survivors, but Temeraire is informed that there were none, so he feels released from any obligation to follow orders. And so he organizes the dragons in the breeding pens into a force of riderless dragons to fight the French, who have broken the blockade and landed an army of 50,000 or so in Britain. Laurence, meanwhile, is reprieved if he'll go get Temeraire and return him to active fighting under the Admiralty (they don't know of his breakout with the other breeding dragons). After some jumping around missing connections they manage to join up, and do some useful stuff for the Brits, although some of what they do is contrary to what Laurence (and most British officers) consider to be the laws of war. Eventually Napoleon is defeated, although he escapes back to France, and Laurence and Temeraire are condemned to transportation to Australia and its penal colony. Laurence is too noble to be really believable, but that's the way the series has been set up and I guess I have to accept it. Temeraire is a lot more practical. There's another new dragon character I quite like--a mid-sized dragon who's also something of a mathematical genius (she's worked out things like the Pythagorean Theorem and the nature of e without ever having heard of them) named Perscitia. And Arthur Wellesley plays a prominent role, though the copyreaders did miss one place where he's referred to as "Wellington" before he got his Dukedom. Also, Novik (and her copyreaders) don't seem to realize that the English Channel starts at the Straits of Dover on its eastern end; she several times refers to "the Channel" when speaking of the waters off the ports of Shoeburyness and Sheerness, which are quite a ways north and east of Dover. The boundaries between parts of the ocean are somewhat arbitrary, so I don't know if both ports are on the Thames Estuary, both on the North Sea, or one on one and one the other (they're more or less opposite each other more or less where the estuary opens out into the wider sea). But, I suppose, let it pass. It's still an excellent story.

The latest in Naomi Novik's series starting with His Majesty's Dragon continues the troubles of Captain Laurence and his Celestial dragon, Temeraire. I won't give away the plot, but the fifth book in the series picks up almost immediately from the end of the preceding novel, as our two heroes fight Napoleon in the second French invasion of England.

What's interesting is how certain points made in book 1 must be taken up, and Ms. Novik has the courage of her convictions to have her characters have the courage of their convictions. The issue of how British high society, the Admiralty and the Parliament should treat dragons is, in a fair way, a substitute for the abolition argument that raged in that time, and Novik uses that as a starting point for presenting whether dragons should have rights as sentient creatures -- and if not, whyever they should feel 'patriotic' for a society that mistreats them. Clever, clever, and filtered (mostly but not completely successfully) through 19th century minds. This adds to previous novels that looked at the treatment of women (e.g., Jane Rowland) who fight for the country but are denied recognition.

One other reviewer questions why we shouldn't root for Napoleon. That's precisely the point: Napoleon, brutish as he might be in conquering other countries, displays an enlightened attitude (or a ruthlessly mercenary one, take your pick, and Novik lets you) in the relationship of man to dragon. Struggle with that one as you read Temeraire's exploits, and you begin the see the cleverness in this series -- it's not about dragons, it's about how we humans see the world.

One star off: the middle-third of the books sags some. Novik could do with some time off before her next book, as much as I'd like to read it.

Overall, a very solid continuation of the series. Novik is an excellent writer, and she's created a world that is at once familiar and alien. That's a neat trick for a sci-fi/alternative history/fantasy writer.

Even though the preceding volume in this ongoing series ended on a cliffhanger, with Napoleon about to invade Britain, the real story here has to do with the developing relationship between Laurence and Temeraire. That's what's holding me to the story, and will keep me anticipating each new volume. The Temeraire series is light reading, but is more than merely a guilty pleasure.

Novik does a marvelous job describing the ongoing battles and intrigues -- and obviously has done a great deal of research. Little details stand out in the midst of elaborate descriptions -- I was struck by her description of a cannon ball that had been fired on the ship where Laurence was imprisoned. It was moving at a pace where the guard thought he might stop it with his foot -- but it had built up enough momentum that it ripped cleanly through his foot and a wall before ceasing to roll.

Where the book really shines, though, is in its attention to the evolution in Laurence's attitudes and response to situations -- his commitment to a sense of honor and dignity in the face of the indignities he suffers -- and in its tracing of an evolution in Temeraire's understanding of himself and of the world. Temeraire was born intelligent and able to speak -- a situation quite different from that of human beings who have to grow into reason, and for whom habituation and norms come prior to elaborate self reflection. He can't understand Laurence's peculiar sense of pride and dignity in the service of duty -- and why he would be willing to be executed for treason when he did what was obviously the just thing. What I found most intriguing in this book were the ways he tried to make sense of Laurence's values -- even as his experiences began to call for some of the same skills as Laurence.

Apart from its alternative history, the series is clearly moving in a direction where Temeraire will begin to develop an independence and autonomy from Laurence -- that is essential to his development. One of the primary reasons offered in the series why the dragons -- while sentient and intelligent -- are not free is the fact that humans have exploited the fact that they imprint so strongly to a master. If Temeraire is to live up to his promise to be a leader among dragons, he will have to find a degree of autonomy and independence in spite of this.

The series looks as though it could go on for a while -- and that's not a bad thing. I look forward to the future exploits and adventures and growth of both Laurence and Temeraire.

First, and out of kindness to Ms. Novik, I am a great fan of this series, in particular books one and two. She has successfully married "Master and Commander" to "Dragonriders of Pern", an act that must have taken considerable courage. And in the main has produced an enjoyable read.

Unfortunately, that read is not to be found in this fifth installment in the series. After settling in comfortably with Captain Laurence and his dear Temeraire, it dawned on me that nothing, nothing at all, was really happening in this book. Laurence broods throughout the novel, embracing his identity as a convicted traitor doomed to hang. Temeraire begins sowing socialist, or are those capitalist?, notions amongst his fellow exiles on the dragon breeding grounds. And then Napoleon invades England, requiring the nation to reunite our two heroes and unleash their considerable military prowess.

Novik is kind enough to reintroduce many of our favourite characters, but with the exception of Laurence's mother, Lady Allendale, they fail to rise above cookie-cutterdom. I became downright annoyed at her portrait of the testy and impatient Duke of Wellington, whose constant sneering made me wonder....how could this man ever have inspired a nation?

With the thinnest of plots, a minimum of character development, and a large quotient of deus ex machina thundering in the background, it strikes me that Ms. Novik is rushing her deadlines and coasting on her laurels, perhaps indulged by her publishers and the moonstruck fan quotient as well. The book chugs along comfortably enjoying its own formula. Not good enough, Naomi, not good enough by half.

As we move to Book 6, and its very interesting locale, I hope the author slows down and makes a sincere attempt to give her characters and plotlines some well deserved depth and richness. There is so much to work with here, and such wonderful personalities to explore and explicate, things most writers would sell their souls for. I wonder if Ms. Novik's history in, and enthusiasm for, fan-fic is blinding her to the possibilities, and responsibilities, that present themselves in an original work.

As Temeraire would say, "Don't drop the egg."

This "letter" is short, sweet and deliciously direct. Harris comes out swinging and sustains his rational assault on the contradictions and absurdities of religion and religious belief from start to finish.

That said, such an aggressive approach will likely be ineffective with religious believers as it will instantly drive them to a defensive posture. Think of a cornered animal; they will respond as a threat to their very existence. Most of us were indoctrinated as children to feel dirty by merely thinking that maybe it's all nonsense, and that's not an easy thing to shake.

This book is a compact expose (compared to the more rigorous analyses by Hitchens and Dawkins) that will confirm the conclusions of unbelievers (preaching to the choir, if you will), but even those who are on the fence, who deep down feel that they've been hoodwinked, are reluctant to come out and say "I don't believe in God." Depending on your family, business, and cultural environment, admitting that you are an atheist can be a social death sentence.

The charlatans who administer the world's religions have too much to lose by doing anything less than unreservedly repudiating logical arguments such as Harris'. I hate to admit it, but I'm afraid that their worldwide influence and control are so pervasive that the heroes of reason who would pull back the curtain on their fraud will always be popularly perceived as evil, when in fact the opposite is true.

it comes to no surprise that these anti-religious loons are trying to convert as many people to atheism and humanism when events like 9/11 were sparked by religious fundamentalism. It is fundamentalism that is the problem, not religion itself. However, these people who have limited understanding of God seek to do damage which is not supposed to be the role of individuals but rather a collective of people who seek to prove that they are right and everyone else who is not like them is wrong. These secular fundamentalists are no different nor any better than their religious counterpart, I find it interesting how much they have in common yet they hate each other.

This war on religion should be more so focused upon the war against fundamentalism, not religion, nor God. These inspired texts have caused much conflict, no one can deny it, but they have also cause people to reach potentials never before reached. Could it be that fundamentalism is the problem being that fundamentalism is what has caused religion to be used for war and personal gain? These critics of religion should be willing to help their religious heretical counterparts in breaking down dogmatic fundamentalism. Instead they dont, they attack all of religiosity as if it was the full problem. These books and others like them are based on ignorance.

Like all good replacements for that awkward moment when you suddenly discover you haven't any toilet paper, Sam Harris comes to the rescue.

I must admit, I've never wiped my rear-end on any atheist books before, but I liked the feeling so much (and it really cleaned it well) that I may even try a Hitchens or a Dawkins to use in place of the errant bog paper.

I would recommend extensive arse wipeage with this book, because while the arguments aren't worth a crap, this book can certainly clear up my crap in a very satisfying way.

I still think he should have put the Charmin bear on the front though!

After reading this book I have gathered two conclusions pertaining to Sam Harris. One, he is a very good writer and should teach an English class on rhetoric. Two, while Harris is at Stanford it may do him some good to take a couple theological classes. Below are the reasons I came up with for my assertions. Because time is short I will only give a few of my reasons.

Harris begins the book declaring that Christians are atheists towards all other religions. Well this isn't exactly true. In fact if you would take Islam, Judaism, and Christianity what you would see is remarkable similarities, it is the atheist who is in fact the odd man out. When a Christian rejects Islam we are not rejecting everything about Islam. However when one asserts atheism they are rejecting all components of religion. Religions accept and understand why 93% of those around the world have some instinctive sense that God exists. Some atheists meanwhile fail to shrug of their childhood tendencies while calling each other "Brights".

Harris proceeds in addressing Old Testament Ethics. One thing is beyond clear is the idea that Harris believes the only approach to hermeneutics is a static approach. Yet from the time of Augustine through the Reformation there have been theologians who have questions this approach. My point is his entire argument on Old/New Testament Ethics is ill-relevant for those who do not take a static approach to scripture. For those who take a redemptive hermeneutics approach, such as William Webb who wrote, "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuality", would find Harris' argument a Strawman. Peter Enns and his book, "Inspiration and Incarnation" also allows for a different hermeneutic approach that deals with the Old Testament stories and the science behind them, Harris ignores this hermeneutic approach as well. These approaches are held by many Christians not simply because it allows them to escape Harris' static approach but quite frankly make the most sense if we consider who God is and how he speaks to those around him. If Harris wants to take on the task of addressing Old-Testament ethics he needs to not be lazy about it and address the hermeneutics of scripture.

Harris then attacks the leaders of Christianity suggesting that it is their faith that caused them to do such acts. Pertaining to Christianity it is beyond obvious that all followers of Christ are sinners, what Harris has to do is show how Luther, Calvin, and Augustine were not products of their culture but rather Christ taught the need for inquisitions to be done by people who follow him. Harris does no such thing. Then Harris goes on to suggest that Hitler may have been a Christian or sympathized with Christianity during one of his speeches in his early years. After reading up on Hitler this was more than obvious that this was not Hitler's true ideas but rather political rhetoric. Here is a private quote that show his true nature.

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, only to enslave them....The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the word of St. Paul."

He then makes the "Red State/Blue State" argument. Name any city with a high crime rate and you will quickly see that those cities aren't loaded with Republican mayors and Republican city councilmen. Can anyone say Detroit? However this is well besides the point. No Christian should say atheists, in general, are more dangerous than Christians. If they do they don't understand the grace associated with Christianity. And this lead me to my last point.

Harris spends a large amount of time claiming objective morality and the errors of morality in Christianity. However this is where he is weakest. No where does he give an ontological basis for his morality. Harris claims pleasure/pain creates a basis morality. Okay, who's pleasure and who's pain and on what basis am I obligated to concern myself with someone else's nerve endings? There is no basis and this is where his book stinks like rotten eggs. He brings up slavery so I will use slavery as my example. Given atheism where am I obligated to concern myself with the slave.

The point is beyond clear. And for those who were "shocked and awed" by Harris and are no longer "devout" Christians I truly wonder what your definition of devout is?

I read this in about an hour at my library; it's very short, but gets to the point: the dangers of Christianity, mainly fundamentalism. So Christians, read this! It won't take long, and it'll give you some things to think about.

Bill Bishop has a simple thesis. Americans have segregated themselves politically and culturally. Most of us now have the money and opportunity to move around, and a huge number of us have taken this opportunity to move to places where we are more comfortable, where there are more people like us. The result, he argues is that the country increasingly consists of enclaves, which are either overwhelmingly liberal or overwhelming conservative. This pattern, he argues, is self-reinforcing. As most areas become more monolithic politically, they grow more extreme. This drives away people of the opposite point of view, which makes each area more monolithic. And as most local elections become non-competitive, the real action is in the primary, which is dominated by party activists, who tend to be extremists. The entire dynamic is to make us all live in echo chambers, in which we hear only opinions we agree with, and in which we all become less tolerant of other points of view and more extreme in our own point of view.

The book has many virtues. First, while I have some reservations, I think there is a good deal of substance to his argument. Much of the country is growing more polarized, people are less and less tolerant of opposing viewpoints and I think Bishop has explained a great deal of why this is so. Second, Bishop does not just give his opinion. He backs what he says with an extensive statistical analysis, and a very interesting discussion of relevant social science. In short, a solid, well-argued book.

Nonetheless, I have at least two sets of reservations. First, Bishop is very careful to not discuss the issues which divide the two sides. I think this is a good strategy for him, given the kind of book he is trying to write. At the same time, however, I do not think you can really understand these issues, without considering the substance of the disagreements. Bishop often makes it seem that people are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I think there is more to it than that.

Second, Bishop's analysis emphatically only applies to middle class, mostly white, Americans. He has absolutely nothing to say about immigrants, who, in my view, probably do not fit his pattern at all.

It may take a journalist to write an important work on politics that can be understood and enjoyed by those without a PhD in political science. This is essential reading for those who want to understand where the rubber meets the road in American politics at the grassroots level. It is a penetrating analysis that is also thoughtful, thoroughly researched and very well-written.
With that said, an editor more concerned with selling books than with the weight of objective evidence may have insisted on the subtitle, "Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart." That is because James Madison wrote in 1787, "The latent causes of factions are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society." Bill Bishop brings this up to date 221 years later by describing how the adherents of those factions have chosen to live apart by segregating themselves into separate clusters of residential neighborhoods in cities across the country. He is far less persuasive in making a case that this is somehow tearing us apart any more today than it did in the atmosphere of bitter factionalism that existed in Madison's era.

My fourteen-month-old daughter has a board book that tells the life story of Rosa Parks in under sixty words. Obviously, there are some gross omissions and stunning oversimplifications, but whatever--it's a board book. I'm just glad she's reading about Rosa Parks. And maybe when she's old enough to turn the pages without tearing them, she can tackle The Big Sort. The gross omissions and stunning oversimplifications will still be there, but at least she'll be reading about politics. And it does have a neat picture on the cover.

It's not that Bishop's main premise is misplaced. Indeed, if you live in the USA and have left the house anytime in, say, the past decade, then you've probably perceived Bishop's "big sort:" the steady division of the country along cultural and lifestyle lines. The book is a well-organized marshaling of prodigious statistical and anecdotal support for this what-else-is-new premise, with samples cut mostly from churches, restaurant franchises, and social scientists in fly-over America. Nor is Bishop totally lacking in thought-provoking insights. His contention that groups of like-minded individuals tend to become more extreme in their like-mindedness is well argued and not altogether obvious, and Bishop displays keen perception in noting similarities in the marketing of commercial products, religion, and ultimately political campaigns.

Bishop's problem, rather, is that he overreaches his evidence and has virtually no grasp of his historical context. Bishop writes as though the USA was once a harmonious land of brotherly neighbors standing in unshakable solidarity, whose occasional disagreements were nothing that couldn't be settled over a couple Budweisers and a handshake. Then out of nowhere fissures start to open in the mid-1960s, to then amplified in a nouveau "big sort." It might pass for board book history-- if you only count the white people.

Having announced that America was all like peas & carrots until 1965 fell from the sky, the balance of Bishop's text rings nostalgic for a return to those good `ole days, before political issues were anything to really get worked-up about, back when everyone just got along. As if. Bishop's big sort is happening, for sure, and its importance cannot be discounted. But his analysis is riddled with errors, and none bigger than a fictional point of origin. Sorting being nothing so new to America, Bishop really ought to brush up if he's going to write about politics. Maybe he can start by reading some board books.

The authors' thesis is intriguing. U.S. counties are becoming increasingly homogenous in their lifestyle and politics. As a result, they are becoming polarized. The authors state this phenomenon is more pronounced for Republican counties. They are concerned that our society has become increasingly fragmented with close by communities having radically different sets of values. The authors partly explain this clustering into homogenous communities over the past three decades resulting in polarizing differences between them.

Their main supporting observation is that the % of voters in Presidential election from counties with a 20 percentage point differential (in either direction) in close elections has steadily increased over the past 30 years (from 26.8% in 1976 to 48.3% in 2004). They also rely on Alan Abramowitz work who observed the same phenomenon at the State level. In 1976, the average Presidential election margin in the States was 8.9 percentage points. In 2004, it was 14.8 percentage points. But, it is unclear if the latter just picked two points. That's because when you look at the standard deviation of the Democrat's % at the State level minus the nation's Democrat's % for each Presidential election over the same period, you get pretty much trendless results. If polarization had really increased, the standard deviation as defined over the period should have increased.

The authors also observed that since the 70s, Democratic counties share of the college educated and foreign-born citizens has risen. Meanwhile, Republicans gained shares of the Church going and white population. This demographic shift explains why Republican counties have become more polarized as they are more religious, less ethnically diverse, and less moderate in their views.

The authors thesis is appealing. The rise of the religious right is common knowledge. Democrats, referred to as the rainbow coalition, being more ethnically diverse is well accepted too.

But, sometimes the authors contradict themselves. On page 50 they disclose a graph showing how counties have become increasingly more polarized in their Presidential voting; and it is clearly the Democratic counties that have become more so. This contradicts their narrative analysis. So, which one is correct? Their analysis or their graph?

Other leading social scientists completely contradict their theories. The latter suggest that to the contrary the U.S. population is not so polarized. And, that it is only the politicians that have become more so. Those are the themes presented by Morris Fiorina in Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America (Great Questions in Politics Series). The authors actually do agree with Fiorina about the politicians as they convey a graph on pg. 247 showing the rapid decline of moderates in Congress from near 50% of the membership (either Senate or the House) in 1950 down to 10% currently. But, Fiorina and the authors reach diametrically opposite conclusion regarding the general population. How can that be? The authors show polarization mainly at the county voting level. Fiorina instead shows moderation at the State level, as he shows that the majority of the State in the 2000 election did have less than a 10% differential between Bush and Gore (I suspect the updated edition shows the same phenomenon in 2004 between Bush and Kerry). He also conveys that people's opinions between Blue and Red States are not that different even on very controversial topics such as abortion and homosexuality. To the authors credit, they addressed Fiorina's work. But, they dismissed it too quickly. They suggest Fiorina was looking for moderation by phrasing the questions ambiguously. On abortion Fiorina asked whether people were for or against abortion in different terms of pregnancies and in different situations (health of the mother at risk, rape, confirmed malformation of fetus, etc...). Meanwhile, the authors asked simply are you for or against abortion? And they got different results. But, I think Fiorina's work is more sophisticated as it uncovered the nuances of people's values much better. Additionally, Fiorina develops a political model indicating that the Presidential candidate who gets closer to the Center on both fiscal and social dimensions typically wins the election. Karl Rove proved the opposite in 2000 and 2004 by rallying the base. Meanwhile, the authors support Karl Rove strategy and suggests that given our polarized electorate you have to rally your base first and foremost. The current election between Obama and McCain may swing the pendulum again in Fiorina's favor.

Another leading pollster who is on Fiorina's side is Mark Penn. In his interesting book Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow's Big Changes he indicates that the % of independent voters is steadily rising. Per studies from University of Michigan, the % of split-ticket voters (people who vote for a different party for President vs Congress) has increased by 42% since 1952.

Also counties presidential voting may have become more polarized because the candidates have become more polarized not the voters. In 1976, Ford and Carter was a far less contentious match than either Bush - Gore in 2000 or Bush - Kerry in 2004.

In terms of the sorting and clustering of communities economic implications, the authors work is simplistic vs the far more sophisticated and insightful work of Richard Florida in Who's Your City?: How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life.

Skip this book. It is one more liberal enclave self-love fest in the genre of Richard Florida. In fact, Florida is quoted quite a bit. Whenever these pop-regional science people need to put a book together, they follow the simple formula of stroking their neighbors in Boulder and Raleigh, and insulting a few cities - Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, etc.

For this thesis, it makes no sense. All of the latter cities are extremely democratic in their voting. So why aren't they attracting more left-leaning residents like Boston or DC? Because they are not state/national capitals with the power to tax the hinterland. They are not regional hubs like Chicago or NY. And they are not small enough to be carried by their universities.

Bishop makes an ignorant mistake on page 131. He lists Cleveland's college graduation rate as 14%. That's the rate for the central city with less than a quarter of the area's residents. Cleveland's college graduates live in the inner ring suburbs such as Cleveland Heights, Shaker, and Lakewood (with beautiful neighborhoods of century homes, and very democratic voting, btw). Depending on how you define the metro area, the percentage of college grads (over 25 yrs old) is 24 to 27. That's about average for the US. Pittsburgh's and Detroit's percentages are slightly higher. But how could he fill the pages of his book without recognizable cities to look down on? The Austin resident wouldn't bother looking down on El Paso or Victoria, TX, because readers don't even know where they are.

The "left-behind" cities have hundreds of thousands of residents who didn't make it through college. These people get by with whatever work is left for them in a post-industrial economy. All the liberals claim to care about the working class, but most of them take the first chance they get to move a thousand miles away. Fifty years ago, Madison, San Jose, Boulder, and Ithaca were just slightly more populated than the cornfields that were paved into suburbs. Its middle class flight on a national scale, and books like this just encourage it.