History Books

This book is well worth reading if you are interested in the subject matter. Perhaps most refreshing about this book, despite its rather provocative title, is that Ehrman is very objective in his review of early Christian writings. I read a lot of books on the topic of religion that have been written by atheists and, while I enjoy most of these books, I have to admit that many of these authors have a tendency to be sarcastic (some might even say smarmy) when referring to the faithful. Ehrman, a former fundamentalist Christian turned agnostic, appears to respect the religious convictions of others, even if his own research caused him to change his beliefs. His interest in the subject matter seems genuine to me. I didn't get the impression that he had an agenda, other than a genuine scholarly interest to discover, to the degree possible, the truth about early Christianity and the evolution of the New Testament.

It is because of Ehrman's objectivity that I was surprised (although I shouldn't be really) that there is a book called Misquoting Truth that disputes Ehrman's research. I guess this indicates that Ehrman, who has been writing books on early Christianity for years, has achieved a level of success that brings with it a degree of notoriety.

Because I've read a number of books on early Christianity, not everything in this book was new to me, but I found quite a bit of information that I hadn't heard before. It has a very logical flow, is accessible to a lay person, and is well researched and very objective.

It is unlikely that fundamentalist Christians will read this book with an open mind, but I think a lot of Christians could find it very enlightening to read. I know that as a child, attending Catechism, I was either taught (or just assumed) a lot of things that I suspect many Christians believe. I always assumed that the gospels were written by men who knew Jesus (or at least had first-hand knowledge of his life) shortly after his death. I assumed that the four gospels in the New Testament were the only gospels, that they were consistent with one another, that the gospels never changed, and that we had the originals somewhere. I assumed that all of the followers of Jesus had the same beliefs about his life, death, and resurrection.

I have come to learn that these assumptions are likely false. The gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus and its unlikely that they represent first-hand accounts of his life. There were many very different variations of early Christianity and numerous gospels and writings circulated at this time, reflecting a wide range of interpretations of who Jesus was. These writings reflect the different theological interests and competing agendas of early Christians. The four canonized gospels contradict each other (quite significantly at times) and no originals have been found. Most interesting (and the focus of this book) is how the gospels and other writings of the New Testament were altered by scribes over hundreds of years. Some changes were accidental, but many alterations were likely deliberate. Ehrman objectively analyses the probable motives behind many of these changes.

This is a very well written, well researched, discussion of this topic. I recommend this book to anyone interested in early Christian history.

Ehrman has masterfully succeeded in putting together a piece of academic scholarship on the writing and construction of the New Testament, which is easily accessible to the lay reader. I recommend it for those interested in a readable starting point in the field of "who (wrote) and how" the Bible was written. While Ehrman prefers the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, his book demonstrates that all Bibles are based upon an incomplete and often times erroneous interpretation of our earliest Biblical texts. We do not even have the original texts, as the Gospels themselves were written a generation or two after Christ's death. Ehrman suggests also, however, that all readers of the Bible need not despair for despite these changes many scholars believe that the meaning and intent of the Bible been preserved. What Ehrman challenges most squarely is the Fundamentalist reading of the Bible that asserts it is the Word of God without error. Ehrman himself believed this at one point, and went to the Moody Bible Institute, then proceeded on to Princeton Theological Seminary in pursuit of the deepest understanding of the Bible, so his credentials and ability in this field are well-established. He has concluded that, while the Bible's meaning may in many places be intact, there are some significant revisions and alterations to the text that have taken place, and that should give us great caution in making inflexibly dogmatic statements based upon it. Anyone wishing to understand the New Testament and the message of Christianity better would do well to read this book.

I really enjoyed this book. Many of the conclusions that Ehrman comes to about the textual accuracy of the Bible, were ones which I have pondered myself. He takes it one step further in this book and discusses the contradictions and textual inaccuracies in the Gospels, of which I was unaware, in some depth. It is a must read for anyone wavering on the issue of whether or not to accept the Christian Bible as inerrant.

I also appreciate the fact that Ehrman was a born again indoctrinated into the school of thought which says that the Bible IS the inerrant word of God and that he managed to overcome this belief to write this wonderful textual analysis and perhaps come to some personal gnosis himself.

I highly recommend it!

I'm not sure how I came across this title. Quite likely I was drawn by the controversy around "Misquoting Jesus: The story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why". The sub-title is very imporant, for it sets forth Ehrman's basic theme - the New Testament is the work of men, not of divine authorship. The contention has angered many.

I have no stake in the argument and, for that matter, no interest either. What does intrigue is the scope of Ehrman's research and his textual criticism. I cannot determine if Ehrman is accurate or not. I'm not about to do any research on the issues, so I take what Ehrman says as true.

The sheer number of scraps, remnants, partial and whole renderings of the evolving New Testament came as a surprises. Ehrman painstakingly analyzes the text and demonstrates how it has evolved over the centuries. In seven broad chapters, Ehrman covers the beginnings of Christian scripture, the earliest copiests and the changes they introduced, a review of the texts of the New Testament, the quest for origins, the originals that matter, theologically motivated alterationsa of the text and the social worlds of the text.

It will come as no surprise to the reader that Ehrman does not believe the New Testament is divinely inspired. In fact, Ehrman acknowledges that his journey has taken him from a form of fundamentalist Christianity to his current agnosticism.

"Misquoting Jesus" is a fascinating exercise in textual criticism. I doubt that believers will find it satisfying, for those of us coming from a secular perspective, it is indeed quite interesting.

Jerry

This review is of the three MISQUOTING BOOKS which I have purchsed as gifts to individuals who also enjoy reading which stimulates the brain.

This book allows a reader to listed to the religious bable on TV with a true understanding of the texts that these persons like to quote.

I have read my copy twice, and believe any objective thinking person would find the book extremely useful in their personal life and their true appreciation for the Bible.

It takes a lot of nerve for a novelist to revisit and deconstruct a major piece of art. The members of my book club had that reaction when we read Chris Bohjalian's The Double Bind, and I expect them to react the same way to Vreeland's take on Renoir, which we are reading now. Vreeland's book itself is anything but a work of art. But it helped me understand the painting better and appreciate more why Duncan Phillips and so many others consider it a masterpiece.

Let me start with the good news. Vreeland tells a good story; she offers a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. Somehow, being able to name all the characters in the painting and clearly parse their basic relationships with one another is more satisfying than many of the technical and historical details presented in the (excellent) 1996 Rathbone et al. Phillips Collection catalog, Impressionists on the Seine, that Vreeland cites as a major source. Vreeland brings Renoir's painting style to life, helping the reader understand, for example, the impossibility for Renoir of designing a painting with drawn lines of graphite or charcoal without considering what colors go where. She somehow places the reader between Renoir and his canvas, between him and the palette and brushes in his hands. She can describe his landscape and still life settings in language that evokes the feathery, sensuous strokes and contraposition of unblended colors that Renoir and Monet worked with--I can almost feel the color-forms that she describes on my body. She captures Renoir caressing the canvas voluptuously with his brushes as though he were physically touching his model.

But then human characters appear on the page, presumably with real personalities, real motivations and psychological experiences and, God help me, supposedly real dialogue and internal monologue. Arrrrrrgh! (as Aline might say) Show me, don't tell me! Put me in the moment that the Impressionists sought to live in rather than asking me to listen to an Acoustiguide curator tell me what he said, she said, he thought, she felt.... Put the footnotes out of sight; let the narrative grow organically from them rather than building it, fact on fact, like a paper-thin house of note cards. I feel like I am watching a biopic from the 1930s with a teenage Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney saying, "Let's put on a show!" Renoir hears Alphonsine suggest her terrace as the location for a painting and suddenly emotes, "Aha!! This is the answer to all my problems [which have conveniently just been laboriously laid out in outline form for the reader]. Let's make a masterpiece!"

This happens a lot. When Vreeland wants to acquaint us with Montmartre, she has Renoir and Paul Lhote wander from bar to bar, purportedly seeking Angèle to model in the painting, thereby giving us a Zagat's-eye guide to the bars. When she wants to acquaint us with "la vie moderne," while Renoir paints, she has one of the models, Circe, ask the other models, as true "flâneurs de Paris," what they have seen in the last week that embodies "la vie moderne" for them--this now a Zagat's-eye guide to Paris. When Caillebotte mopes around about the infighting among the founding members of the Impressionist group, we know he's hurting because he says repeatedly, in more or less the same words, "I'm hurting," and Renoir responds, again in more or less the same words, "Sorry, I'm moving on." And the agony of resolving the problems of the quatorzième and anchoring the painting, over and over and over.... Ugh! I'd rather get the Acoustiguide and let Eliza Rathbone herself just TELL me about Montmartre, TELL me about "la vie moderne," TELL me that Caillebotte was hurting as Renoir moved on.... This is not art.

And what about that rude, crude Angèle with a heart of gold, and that Jules, le très drôle Bardomatique? Yikes! In every scene in which they appear. They leave me embarrassed for the author.

Did you notice how I slipped in a few simple French phrases above? Vreeland taught me that. She inserts bits of French that allow a reader (like me) who vaguely recalls her high-school French to read them and experience the quick rush of "Ooooo, I speak French!" (Please, no one mention Thomas Dolby's "Air Head.") Sort of like peppy hooks in a pop song that you can't get out of your head--the simple frisson of them catches you unawares and you dance for a moment. Until you get tired of doing it, over and over and over. Is this story happening in French or English? Do these cute tourist phrases connote anything more than a doggie treat to reward an aspiring Anglophone reader (like me) trying to feel a bit closer to French culture?

So, fair warning. Don't ask too much of this book. It's not literature. It's not art. It is absolutely NOT, as USA Today apparently claimed "done with a flourish worthy of Renoir himself." Think teenage Judy Garland, not Émile Zola or Guy de Maupassant. As I got deeper into the book, Tom Wolfe came to mind--more journalism and travelogue than literature. But even taken as a journalist, Wolfe can give a scene a sense of depth and presence that Vreeland simply cannot. Take this book in the right spirit, as a simple, entertaining and informative, and often sensuous read. Vreeland taught me things I value about Renoir and his painting, and I thank her for that.

For readers seeking a more serious novel about the creation of visual art, let me recommend Joanna Scott's Arrogance (1990), in which beautifully written fragments slowly accumulate, like the lines in a drawing, into a multiple portrait of the master Viennese draftsman, Egon Schiele, and his friends.

This was one of the best books I've ever read. With all that France has had to endure, the French people are celebrated here through art, food and the love of the outdoors. Ms. Vreeland did an excellent job researching her subject. If you are not an avid art lover or Impressionist fan, you will be after reading this book. Renoir painted happiness and her book depicts this. Yes, the characters all brought their struggles to the table so to speak, but look at this painting - they are all having a good time. No matter how much hardship - people survive.

This was a great book club pick. Many in my club had no idea about art or this painting. They really enjoyed the trip into France and into a painter's life. It made for a great theme, too. It makes me want to go see the actual painting in Washington D.C.!

This fictionalized account of Renoir's creation of the signature Impressionist painting was a delicious diversion while driving to Lake Tahoe (I have the audio version). For me, it captured the essence of Renoir struggles at this turbulent time of his career. Around the process of creating this masterpiece, Vreeland offers up tantalizing, if somewhat non compelling fiction around the characters captured in the painting. Don't expect a lot of historical accuracy, as good storytelling seems to prevail. The tale of Aline Charigot's involvement and her predecessor in the painting seem especially factitious. However, my only real complaint is that in the audio version, the vocalist (forgot her name) makes all male dialog sound like macho declarations. This was a major distraction as I have never had this problem with other audio books.

As an artist, I have to say, I have fallen in love with this book. Ms. Vreeland has conceived a beautiful palette of color and harmony with her characterizations and her stories behind this painting.

I feel like I am right there with this group, posing for this painting. My hat is off to you Ms. Vreeland. You have achieved a masterpiece with this book. Your knowledge of the artistic process is exceptional. You capture the time period so well. How did you manage to get inside the head of Renoir so fully? Thank you. I am finding this book completely inspirational to my own creative process. It makes me feel not so alone when I also reach a moment when things are not quite right and I have to rework sections of paintings. You are brilliant and so is this book. I love it!

I have to admit I'm not a big fan of this author. But our book club chose this title, and I always finish what we read. This time, however, I couldn't. I just never got into it. The concept was good but the writing wasn't engaging.

I love the painting. I was psyched to read the book, and then go down to the Phillips Collection in DC where it hangs--I haven't been there in years. I'll still get there sometime, but now there isn't any urgency.

My husband & I have recently launched a ministry working with and through midlife-plus adults. This book came at a perfect time. We thoroughly appreciated the story. With the demographics of our nation shifting to an older population - Who Stole My Church? - shows the value of being intergenerational in ministry focus. And let's hear it for Pastors who are willing to listen to concerns & frustrations of older adults, and through prayer and love, link the generations! So grateful this book was recommended to us.

Gordon MacDonald used fiction to make sure that Christians understand that the church has to be constantly changing in order to stay relevant. Great book!

The first 20 pages hits the nail on the head on what my feelings are about my church. I do not like the new "praise music" with the praise band (7/11 songs~seven words sung over and over eleven times); the plaid shirt & Dockers my minister has now chosen to wear for Sunday worship; the enthusiastic traditional hymns I love are gone (occasionally a traditional song is sung but to a different tempo with guitar accompaniment); the choir sings to canned music while the big organ & grand piano sit silent; no longer do we have a Sunday evening service or a mid-week Bible Study/Prayer Meeting. All these things are clearly stated by the factious group of seniors in the book. Then the pastor gathers this small group of seniors together for a series of meetings to "solve" their concerns & frustrations. He kindly tells them they are "has beens", they will all be gone in about 15 years & it's time for the younger generations to assume responsibility~~get use to how things are~~times have changed. The needs of the older generation are of very little concern; they have been life long church leaders, prayer warriors, they have lived a full life walking with the Lord but now it's time for change at their expense. He gives excuses for the changes & attempts to lay a guilt trip on the hurting seniors for not joyously embracing the new changes. I want to leave church on Sunday feeling like I have contributed to the worship service plus feel like I have been fed/nourished/rejoiced but instead I feel empty/frustrated/hurt. I'm sure I'm not alone, this change is occuring all across America in just about every denomination. I know, "When we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be", but in the meantime I'm still here on earth feeling empty when I leave church on Sunday morning.

When I purchased this book, I did not fully read what I was purchasing. I thought I was reading a book dealing with a major problem in America's churchs of older groups of those attending church being left out in the worship service. I thought it was just me, but learned from many mature Christians that many were disappointed in new church music, and many stopped going to church. The book is fiction and presented an idealistic approached to the subject. I will give the author high marks for trying. But the best approach is to realize we need the youth for the future of the church, but the older people are paying the bills (doesn't sound spiritual) and have spiritual needs also. Paul said, "I become all things to all men." This could have easier been applied to this nation wide problem in having a bit of worship music for everyone and not having to issue ear plugs becasue the music is to loud. God can hear just fine. Good try Mr. McDonald!

Having come from a church wrecked by precisely the kind of change Gordon MacDonald describes in "Who Stole My Church?", what I found most insightful was the author's mindset, and in three ways. There's a fourth way -- how MacDonald unfairly frames the people opposed to change -- that other reviewers have cited. (And it's not just aging Baby Boomers who are concerned about what's happening in churches or who are adverse to forced change -- let's not forget the massive amount of change the Boomers brought to American society in the first place.)

First, the pastor discovers in his weekly meetings that he doesn't really know the people of his congregation, and while he doesn't explicitly make the point, what he learns is that people don't resist change. That's something only consultants, and unfortunately a lot of church consultants, believe and teach to unsuspecting pastors and elder boards.

What people resist is change being forced upon them, with no explanation, no communication, no understanding, and no opportunity to discuss, influence and pray about. "Don't tell the congregation what you're up to" was a church consulting tenet exposed in, all of places, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. It was also a tenet that was steadfastly followed at my own church, with ultimately disatrous consequences.

A second aspect of the author's thinking that bears consideration is church leaders embracing group-think: "We get it; the congregation doesn't." Convinced they're right ("We're the new Willow Creek for our city"), any question or concern is quashed. Group-think by leadership, particularly when it's accompanied by no communication, is what creates the conflict.

The third aspect MacDonald accidentally reveals is the influence corporate restructuring and the vast secular literature about business change has had on the church. Quoting Peter Drucker is only a tiny indication. Citing S-curves is straight out the business consultants' handbooks. No one asks whether the philosophy and practices of business is appropriate for the church, because so many church leaders occupy influential positions in business.

I'm glad I read "Who Stole My Church?". It helps me understand what is often going on the minds of many local church leaders when this kind of change is undertaken.

This is a great tutorial and reference for anyone considering writing a comic book for the first time (or perhaps someone more experienced who'd like to get a fresh perspective and/or deeper understanding of fundamental structure). Scott has taken all those elements that go into making a good comic book (that you've probably noticed subconsciously but couldn't put into words) and laid them bare with expert analysis.

The analyses and guidelines are presented in a light-hearted, comic book format that is both entertaining and enlightening. You won't find yourself getting sleepy or distracted while reading this book - and you will understand every concept with perfect clarity, even if you are a complete novice.

Get this book! I found it at my local library and read it twice (cover to cover). I plan to buy it so that I'll have it handy for reference as I plan and begin drafting my first comic book.

Highly recommended.

Scott McCloud's "Making Comics" is a must-read for all aspiring comic artists. This book is very different from other comic technique books. While most other books will teach you how to draw characters or backgrounds, this one teaches you how to tell stories. McCloud goes in depth into what makes a good story through pacing, image choice, layout, words, facial expressions, among many other factors. All of the instruction is given in comic form, so it is very easy to see how the techniques are implemented since he shows you right on the page. I particularly like the section on facial expressions. He has a very inventive method of using basic facial expressions and then mixing them to create totally new facial expressions. It has to be seen to be believed.

If you're thinking of starting to draw comics, or if you're on the edge of giving up comics because you just can't get it right, this will give you the inspiration to keep trying. If you're a great artist, then you'll come to a better understanding of the techniques that you use. I definitely recommend reading this book.

I've always found it fascinating to imagine how a comic book author/illustrator creates the stories and images that appeal so much. Having been a non-fiction book author for many years, I have a firm understanding of the writing process. I sometimes pick out a few illustrations to put into a book.

But building a story around the illustrations, that seems like a trip to the planet Neptune to me. I was very pleased to find that Scott McCloud is very good at explaining (and illustrating) the creative and production processes he uses. I was delighted when I realized that he had also described how an individual could make a few comics to share with friends.

With computer art getting to be easier to do, I can see that there's even hope for those of us who couldn't draw out way out of a paper bag.

Mr. McCloud has the kind of mind that sees everything in perspective, in this case as facets of an overall story-telling task. He always has the goal of engaging the reader in mind and relates his points well to that purpose.

The work is impressive at another level . . . it's a masterpiece of providing instruction. The book shows more than tells, as a book about comics should do.

If Mr. McCloud ever tires of making comic books and graphic novels, he should go into explaining non-fiction subjects. He would make a fortune!

Well thought out, well written, quality throughout. I like this book the best so far; the previous weren't as appealing as this but were still very well done. The author really practices what he preaches as far as his message and the book speaks for itself. You won't be disappointed. Looking forward to the new books!

When my grandparents got me this book, I didn't think it could help me. I was looking for a "How to Draw" not a "How to Write". This book proved me so wrong. I couldn't believe how much fun it was to read, and it helped me a lot too. Almost everything I thought I knew was proved wrong and after reading it I felt like I understood comics so much better. As well as making me better at writing comic books, it made me a better writer altogether. I strongly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in comics or in just plain writing or art.

It's frustrating to read books like this. Florida's insightful observations are undermined by the number of errors in this book.

Florida melds psychology, sociology, and economics to try to determine the importance of humanity's displacement from rural areas to cities and, now, megalopolises. Some of the ground he covers is well-trod, but he comes up with a number of ideas that I find insightful. I particularly liked his categorization of urban districts into such places as, e.g., strollervilles (wealthy neighborhoods full of two-year-olds being strolled around by nannies while Daddy is at the law firm and Mommy is either working or doing something else), designer digs (e.g., Aspen, La Jolla), ethnic enclaves (think Fremont, Calif.), preservation-burgs, and boho-burbs (chic neighborhoods, often on old streetcar lines, with lively shopping areas; e.g., the Sellwood district and N.W. 23rd Ave. in Portland, Ore.). The Rockridge neighborhood in Oakland, Calif., is both a strollerville and a boho-burb. Florida goes beyond the usual accolades one might expect to be conferred on such places to point out their drawbacks. It's very well done.

If only Florida and his publisher had taken better care to vet the manuscript before publishing it! I'd read only a few pages before I started noticing typos: paarticular, New "Dehli" (must have excellent pastrami sandwiches), São "Paolo," Brazil (must have changed its official language to Italian). Then I started noticing factual oddities: Seoul, Korea, described in two different and seemingly mutually exclusive categories; San Francisco described as a place in which single women predominate when the accompanying map shows just the opposite. By the end of the book, the number of glitches had made me suspicious of every empirical datum Florida was presenting--so that when I read his statistic that only 1 in 20 U.S. households contains someone living alone, I couldn't trust it. It sounded too low. I went to the Internet and found an Associated Press report that "About 27.2 million Americans lived alone in 2000, accounting for about 26 percent of all households . . . ." That sounds right. A Population Reference Bureau web page confirms that Florida's statistic is highly inaccurate.

In summary, the book is well worth reading for Florida's impressionistic observations, but I'd be careful about relying on any conclusion he draws that is based on empirical data.

I find the book interesting and very helpful in my quest to decide where to retire. I still haven't reached a conclusion, but at least I know what homework I haven't done. Gail

Excellent book! From personal experience I agree that choice of where to live is the most important factor in one's personal happiness.

I grew up in Canada in a Rocky Mountain town called Calgary (home of the Calgary Stampede) north of the Montana border. When I was 16 I skipped town and ran off to Toronto. I fell in love with the city at first sight because I felt welcome in its multicultural inclusive atmosphere. I spent well over a decade of my life in the urban metropolis before family obligation took me back to Calgary in the spring of 2008. My initial impression of Toronto was that for for everything I was told was weird about me as an ethnic kid in Calgary ... it didn't seem to matter there. For example, I had to remind people I was a minoroty many times because they just saw me and not my skin color or ethnic origin. In Toronto I met people who could speak Japanese and French but were of British descent. The city had a global perspective that was really attractive. People were actually interested in other cultures and religions and weren't afraid of them or called them derogatory names. Toronto taught me that it was OK to pursue what one wanted regardless of where they came from. While Toronto has been accussed of thinking itself the center of the universe and being "cold" .... to its credit it is a tolerant city.

To be honest, Toronto and its citizens healed my heartbreak of a childhood experiencing racial slurs in the school playground and being called "brown girl" instead of my name into high school. That is why location, location, location matters number one in determining quality of life.

Being the most multicultural city in the world (by the United Nations) is a real treat. I love the diversity of people, sectors, and the hustle bustle vibrancy of it all. Most of the last several years I lived in Yorkville in the heart of the city and enjoyed the film festivals, easy public transit, Harbourfront and Toronto Island, and just the variety of life one can live in Toronto. The years in Toronto intertwined with sojourns in New York and San Francisco with a foray into London for a time but I always came home to Toronto.

Toronto is very intellectual in that Eastern way and my career has really benefited from the polished style of business there. What I enjoy most about Toronto is that its like New York but livable and still safe compared to other US cities. Its a hub so travel in and out of Canada is easy and hey, Toronto is on the map internationally.

Toronto truly taught me that being colour blind was a good thing. The Calgary of my childhood gave me, as a minority, a different and far less kind experience back then. It could have been my imagination or just adolescence because kids do act different from adults. Nonetheless, I felt something back then that may or may not have been true. The Calgary I came back to now has a bit of Toronto 's cosmo flavor so my experience here as an adult has been as positive as my childhood memories were negative. I have met people who are well-travelled, friendly, and down to earth with a very grounded perspective of life. The city has the most sunshine in Canada and the Rockies are really nearby. Though if you're not an outdoors person it may not matter but once you get used to the physical beauty of Alberta you may be lured to explore more. The main difference to me is that Toronto is at 5.5 million people compared to a mere 1 million and change so I feel like I am in a small town and worried I will get bored.

Who's your City? has a great conceptual framework and makes you think about the personality of different cities.

In the first section, Why Place Matters, shows some nice black and white 3D maps about economic development. It highlights developing regions around the world and why people with certain talents would tend to congregate together.

However, sometimes opportunities are better for creatives in small towns outside of the most competitive cities. It can be better to be a big fish in a little pond than a little fish in a big pond.

Many of the assumptions could be challenged that provide the basis for his research. Little is said about the business regions outside the large cities.

Creative can be business savvy in rural areas whereas the elites can
be happy with just doing business as usual and afraid to challenge the existing business norms in large cities.

Sometimes business people in rural areas have to be the most creative just to survive. Small time business owners and farmers have made some of the most productive use of the internet of any sector in America.

Many small business owners directly feel the impact of their business decisions, whereas many business elites do not directly feel the impact of their business decisions and can afford to make mistakes and write off billions of dollars of losses and continue to function as a business.

Just studying the areas where patents and scientists are most prevalent does not accurately measure business savvy and creativity. Many patents are filed just for marketing and lawsuit intimidation purposes and have very little business or creative merit.

The second section of the book, the wealth of place, discusses jobs, mobility, superstar cities and where the brain power is.

This section provides a broad theoretical framework with which to think about the issues, but there are so many exceptions to these rules that the suggestions and conclusions appear to be simplistic.

For example, there are outposts of technology all over the country. Silicon Valley is not the only place for high tech computer people. There is Silicon Alley in NYC, Silicon Beach, Silicon Dominion, and many other high tech areas where opportunity might be greater. Many in Silicon Valley are being priced out of the market and are rushing back to the DC area to work for Government contractors that provide excellent opportunities and new cutting edge technology.

Informal business networks in each city around the country have their unique set of knowledge and opportunities for entrepreneurs.

While LA maybe the entertainment capitol of the world, the competition is so tough that many never make it, yet many other cities have a thriving entertainment industry where many people do very well because opportunities abound and competition is low.

Many times innovation happens in small local communities and filters up to the large cities.

The third section, geography of happiness, provides broad guidelines to think about. There is a ten point guide to help with decisions. This can be helpful, but people would do well to do further research on their own when deciding where to move.

An interesting look at why place matters more and more despite the increasing trend towards global talent markets and location-free jobs. Florida's analysis is well-written and easily accessible, but I wonder if the data he presents is overly dumbed-down to be accessible to the general public. It's an interesting set of insights, and I recommend it to any and everyone considering a location switch, but don't expect a thorough sociological or anthropological analysis.

This book is a good read, but to many would appear to be just a very long version of many an article Mr. Krugman has written for the New York Times. If you like his op-eds, you will likely be a fan of the book. If you are less enthused by his writings, this is probably not the book for you.

Economist Paul Krugman offers an 8 chapter history of the New Deal with the remaining chapters amounting to a "to do" list for a coming progressive majority in Congress and the White House.

I certainly enjoyed his stories of growing up with the relative income equality of the 50s and 60s. Interestingly, the New Deal was a product of global economic recession, and - with no global economic shock appearing on the horizon - I'm not sure that his dream of a liberal renaissance can be realized.

Krugman prefers to isolate racism and not religious conservatism as the reason for America's reluctance to go as far as other advanced countries in its adoption of a social safety net. To some extent, the next few national elections will either substantiate or refute this premise.

Krugman also tends to demonize those he calls "Movement Conservatives" a bit. But, if you enjoy politics and economics, I think you will enjoy this book.

I pretty much read only non-fiction, which is usually very informative but highly depressing. Krugman somehow manages to cover the modern American political state of affairs without depressing me. In fact this book is very hopeful in specific ways and overall quite uplifting.

In modern American political discourse, it seems common for any statistic that supports an ideological position to be used to further that point of view. Krugman takes the opposite tack: citing relevant and logically coherent information to describe in context where we are and how we got here. He then uses the same reasonable approach to outline achievable solutions to the problems of inequality that we face. It's nice to see the fixes as well as the problems.

I just hope Barak read this too.

I recommend this book to liberals. For conservatives, I recommend the info on income distribution, particularly pages 124-136, and the chapter on health care. To be critical, and hopefully useful, I lament the following: 1) saying hyperinflation just kind of happened from 1965 to the `80's isn't good enough for an economist. Were higher wages a factor? Please explain. 2) Married couples are working about 1,000 hours more today than in 1976. Why isn't this mentioned? 3) Are we more in debt today than in 1973? This info would have been interesting. 4) Why begin the recent period in 1973, if arguing that conservative politics changed the economy for the worse? Isn't 1980 a genuine (not convenient or reverse engineered) starting point? 5) The author capitulates to conservatives by using the term "welfare state" Has welfare ever been more than 4% of GDP (not including Social Security)? "The welfare state" is propaganda and plays into the hands of Reagan Republicans. 6) Perhaps ten times, Mr. Krugman says general negative statements about conservatives. This is both preaching to the choir and the pot (liberal establishment) calling the kettle black, and harms our chances of gaining support from independents and moderate conservatives.

Overall, a very useful and readable book. I could say a hundred positive things. Better the book should be read.

I'm a political moderate who's eyes caught the title of this book, in a bookstore. Thinking this might be the liberal version of "Conscience of a Conservative", I bought this book. After reading this, I've got to say, that Barry Goldwater did a much better of describing conservatism in the first 10 pages of his book, then Krugman did in almost 300 pages of this book.

There doesn't seem to be much about the "Liberal Conscience" in here, but more of a listing of stereotypes about conservatives, which, to the author anyway, are a monolithic group of elites, consistently conspiring to keep little man down, particularly the black ones. If you're a die hard liberal, then this book will reinforce every misconception you have about conservatives.

Krugman and Ann Coulter are pretty much two peas in a pod, but Krugman seems a lot nicer.

It's too bad there aren't more reviews to back my opinion, because this book easily beats out the Kaplan and Cliffs Notes versions, both of which I became familiar with while studying. The summaries and simple language were key in helping me remember and learn things that weren't in my textbook.

The practice tests are also better than any other competitor, and the opening section on how to take the test itself is crucial. There's a lot more to the test than the "eliminate and guess" technique, and the strategies are outlined well.

I owe my 5 to this book, and would recommend the series (always written by the same person so far) to anyone over the outdated Cliffs version and the often-confusing Kaplan editions.

Though very interesting, the writing itself lacks the immediacy of "An Army At Dawn." It does, however, whet the appetite for the third volume of the trilogy.

This is the first book I have read by the author Rick Atkinson it will not be the last. A very compressive look at the Italian campaign of World War Two a bloody mindless war of grueling conflict; that if you are unfamiliar with the Italian campaign reads more like an account of the Vietnam War. From the Rapido to Monte Cassino you will not be able to put the book down.

A masterful job the author is clear in his denunciation of the Nazi hierarchy but goes far to show that the individual solider on the American or German side had little influence or choice in overall policy. This does not forgive or erase various atrocities committed but it does make the people committing them seem more human.

My favorite part of the book was defiantly the brief description of the exploits of Wojtek a bear from Iran embedded with a Polish unit whose job it was to hurl artillery shells.

Another wow from Rick Atkinson. Loved this book as much as an Army at Dawn. Can hardly wait for #3 in the liberation trilogy.

Rick has followed the first volume of his WWII trilogy with another winner. The first book "An Army at Dawn" captures the amatuer performance of a great Army learning to fight. This book captures the beginning of the Army's maturity as a fighting force and the growth of it's leadership.The tragic Airborne operation is painful to read. The unending battle of egos between Patton and Mongomery is tragic. Rick captures the story of the Sicily and Italian campaign with the great skill.

Well worth any WWII History Buffs time.

Makes every Allied Commander a complete DUNDERHEAD. Atkinson has evidently joined the "Blame America First" crowd! I would think he could find some positive snippet in the data he reviewed (173 pages of notes & selected sources). In his exaustive research,
it seems he fails to realize that we did infact win the war.

Theater: The Lively Art
This book I need for my Literary Studies. It gives sufficient information on theater through the past 20 ages, from the Greek till today's Theater. All the photographs make it a book you'll always keep in your library.

The book was in great condition and arrived within a reasonable amount of time.

As textbooks go this is a light overview of Western Theatre Tradition. It includes a CD ROM with very little additional information. The book fails to go in depth into the historical influences that helped shape world and the theatrical tradition. It does however include landmark events in the theatre world of western europe and how it evolved into what we know today.

I had to read this class for a WWII 300 level History class. I'm not a History major, but decided to take my elective in this. From that perspective, I found the book to be interesting, but dull. Very dull. Getting through the pages was a struggle for me. Concepts were valuable as well as Dower's analysis of propaganda on both Japanese and American sides. The included comics and cartoons was great--it really gave an idea of feelings at the time and what people were seeing. Book is very long winded, but does provoke deep thought.

There are many other excellent reviews, so I'll keep this brief. I'm a grad student in Japanese Lit, and I focus heavily on history and historical works - Kobayashi Takiji, for instance, or Kurihara Sadako. I've been blessed with a great history professor and the opportunity to read a number of books and articles, particularly on this period in time. Dower's War Without Mercy is one of the best I've ever read, in any time period for any country. It is amazing. I also recommend that readers buy Embracing Defeat, which is Dower's post-war book. Both are fantastic.

Among the many flaws which significantly discredit his thesis, Dower fails to provide a serious look at how the war in the Pacific was fought as compared to the war in Europe, or really any other wars for that matter. Worth the read if only to discover errors in his analysis, and should not be taken as a definitive account of how the US fought the Japanese in WWII.

This is a thought-provoking treatise about the hate and racism found in all peoples of the world. It causes one to take stock of what is, and what was in a very violent and trying time. Both the Japanese and the Americans, among others, propagandized their populations to get them to hate "the enemy." This book looks at the techniques and substance used by both sides in the Pacific War of 1931 to 1945 and how it affected the attitudes of each toward the other.

I recommend this as a good read for anyone who is interested in the Pacific conflict and what was used to fan the antagonists into the fury that brough about, fought, and ended the bloody Pacific War.

War Without Mercy is not a comprehensive history of the Pacific War; if that's what you want, look elsewhere. Neither is it an "apologist's" account of the American conduct of the war, as some reviewers have suggested. If your mindset is "the Japanese deserved to suffer," don't read this book. If, however, you are interested in how racial stereotypes--views of the enemy as subhuman, primitive, childlike, animalistic, and so on--play a role in wartime, then read Dower's scholarly, engaging account of how the Americans thought about the Japanese and how the Japanese thought about the Americans. Dower never minimizes the atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese as they set about conquering other Asian countries and building their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, but he provides a brand new perspective on why the Allies despised the Japanese as a people far more than they did the Germans. Not only will this book help you to understand how the dehumanization of the enemy makes possible the devastation of civilian populations, it will also make you think about the stereotypes of the enemy we encounter every day as the U.S. continues to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.