Westerns Books

I'm aware that Ian is regarded as one of the greatest writers, if not the greatest female writer's ever known, but I found it very difficult to get through her book. However, I did enjoy reading it and I did gain some insight for my efforts. It's been some time since I read her book and I still find myself thinking about many of the things she talked about: That's not true with most books I read. My advice is to have a dictionary by your side while reading Ian's book.

I found the book a brilliantly conceived, but ultimately flawed exploration of a philosophy of art. While I enjoyed the book, I suspect Ms. Rand was too overclouded by her own philosophical predispositions to realize the limitations of her assertions - and they are assertions, quite bald in their judgments, as many here have said.

A couple will serve:

Given her problem with art that is "foggy" in its conclusions or metaphysical genesis she is wrongfully led, I believe, to conclude that music, for one, cannot convey anything "concrete" from its experience, only an emotional response "by whom in the name of what, it is for each individual listener to supply." This is false. By way of personal example - bear with me - a journal entry from years ago: On first hearing Beethoven's Ninth, I was moved to write a paean to universal humanity - and in that piece, I talked of "starred canopies, such a profusion of white stars piercing the black canvas of impenetrable night...to belong to that canvas, those heavens..." I only later, much later, came to read the text of Schiller's Ode to Joy. Coincidence? Perhaps. Or perhaps Beethoven's genius in eliciting the concrete, the metaphorical rush of images and scenes, which accompanies all great music.

More, music isn't alone here. If music requires an auditor "by whom in the name of what, it is for each individual listener to supply," then so does all else, with the possible exception of the visual, figurative arts. Art is an engagement, not a drug; a line in a book: "...the black paint, dripping down the sodden planks" is an invite, not a prescription. It requires the individual mind reading to create the concrete form of the scene. As such, it is relational, alive. As with music.

Ms. Rand appears to give no credence to experiments in technique that are very much born out of modern life; she either dismisses them as sheer frippery or woeful ineptitude at best, or some "immoral" metaphysic at worst, even if ably applied. For example, she describes the advent of the "narrator" in the stage play as a "breach of dramatic principle...an encroachment by incompetence," and not an innovation worthy of the form. I cannot agree. The advent of meta-technique, such as the Narrator, skillfully employed, can make artifice more real than reality; impulse, inner life, phenomena more keenly observed. And by her own stand, this is the essence of art - to concretize the abstract in order to provide a realized, personal meaning.

Just a couple, and there are many others.

Still, the above said, I think it's an important book, with tremendous value. For anyone who would make art, or enjoy it; or who would gain by one thinker's look at the relation of art to a guiding moral philosophy, this is a worthy work. I'd also recommend, with others, Jacques Barzun's Classic, Romantic and Modern, as well as John Gardner's controversial On Moral Fiction.

The Romantic Manifesto is a collection of essays connecting Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy to the aesthetic concepts of "romanticism" in visual art, literature, music, etc. For those like me who live by the philosophy presented in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and just can't get enough of Ayn Rand's emphatically reasonable point of view, this book is another shady spot of respite, though not for the idealogically-challeneged. Her non-fiction plays out mostly as pure philosophical reading in a much more wordy, less tangible sphere, and readers may find themselves hunting around the text for key points and word definitions, and re-reading paragraphs over and over again in order to stay on track. While Rand does briefly step back from the "higher-level" discourse, I found myself craving more frequent concrete examples and more frank discussion of the real-life implications of her ideas (although the few demonstrations in the book from her own novels are perfectly presented). However, the message underlying all the metaphysics and psycho-epistemology (my new favorite, and in this book, possibly even Rand's favorite, word), beneath the musings about Pollock as a quack and the inherent doom of popular music, is a truly inspiring look at the reasons why man is uniquely master of his domain, why man's existence is of utmost importance, and why the future of humanity depends on understanding the indisputable difference between right and wrong. As things in the world continue to spin out of control, in this book lives one of Rand's most determined and motivating statements of purpose: "Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today." (Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto)

This is a compelling work on the nature and meaning of art. Besides containing Rand's manifesto, it is also a highly entertaining piece of criticism and analysis of art, culture and psychology.

In the introductory chapter: The Psycho-Epistemology Of Art, Rand defines art as a selective recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value judgements. Art brings one's concepts to the perceptual level of conscience and enables one to grasp them directly as if they were precepts.

Chapter 2, Philosophy And Sense Of Life, deals with the "merciless recorder" that is the integrating mechanism of the subconscious mind. The next chapter, Art And Sense Of Life, opens with a fascinating observation on a hypothetical painting. Here Rand further explains the concept of a sense of life as it manifests in art. She argues that the emotion involved in art is automatically immediate and that it holds a deeply personal value-significance to the person experiencing it.

Art And Cognition is devoted to the question: What are the valid forms of art, and why? Here the author explores literature, painting, sculpture, music and architecture in turn. I find her speculations on music particularly thought-provoking.

Rand refers to Aristotle in discussing the attributes of the novel in Basic Principles Of Literature: theme, plot, characterization and style. Chapter 6 provides a definition of Romanticism, which recognizes volition, as opposed to Naturalism which denies it. She identifies determinism as the basic premise of naturalism in The Aesthetic Vacuum Of Our Age and hails the appearance of the novel in the 19th century as the vehicle of Romanticism.

Other essays include discussions on bootleg romanticism and moral treason in art, whilst the actual manifesto appears in chapter 11: The Goal Of My Writing and chapter 10: Introduction To Ninety-Three. This essay is an abbreviated version of the introduction she wrote for a 1962 edition of the book by Victor Hugo. The Romantic Manifesto concludes with The Simplest Thing In The World, a short story that illustrates the nature of the creative process.

Throughout this fascinating book, Rand provides examples of different manifestations of art plus informed criticism of personalities and a wide variety of works like Anna Karenina, Thomas Aquinas, The Avengers, Balzac, Dostoevsky, Lord Byron, Camille, Günter Grass, Salvador Dali, Don Carlos, Dumas, Flaubert, Ian Fleming, Gone With The Wind, Goya, O Henry, Alfred Hitchcock, Victor Hugo, Boris Karloff, Fritz Lang, Ira Levin, Michelangelo, Edgar Allan Poe, Friedrich Schiller, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Jan Vermeer, HG Wells, Thomas Wolfe and Emile Zola. Both high and popular culture is covered.

One does not need to agree with Rand's analyses and manifesto to find this a most stimulating and highly entertaining read. Many of her insights are valid and quite relevant to the state of culture and civilization today.

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement

When discussing the theory of art in Outdoor Monuments of Manhattan: A Historical Guide, I cited only Ayn Rand's esthetics. An early reader suggested I "balance" the presentation by mentioning other writers on esthetics.

But here's the problem: no one surpasses or even equals Ayn Rand in the field of esthetics. Rand treats art with the same rigor she applies to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics. She begins her discussion by stating what art is and what purpose it serves for human beings. Her definition, "a selective re-creation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value-judgments," indicates that an artist chooses his subject and style based on what he considers important, and creates something recognizable so that others will see it and grasp his message: "THIS matters - pay attention to THIS."

Rand lays out the fundamentals of the field of esthetics. Using her definition of art plus her theory of knowledge (see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition), one can determine what is and is not art: driftwood, paint splattered on a canvas, the Parthenon frieze? One can determine the esthetic requirements for good art: Is a portrait by Rembrandt better than one by Picasso in his Cubist phase? One can even explain why people often react so violently to works of art: "It repulses me but I can't turn away!"

I have read hundreds of books by art critics and historians, many of whom have an encyclopedic grasp of their subject and descriptive abilities that make me wildly jealous. Not one of them offers a proper definition of art. The fifth edition of Janson's widely used Janson's History of Art: Western Tradition (7th Edition), for example, says a work of art is "an esthetic object" and that "esthetic" means "that which concerns the beautiful." The term is, he promptly admits, unsatisfactory, but "will have to do for lack of a better one."

When I'm visiting a gallery or reading a novel, I can and do revel in art without first subjecting it to rigorous esthetic analysis. I've found, though, that I can extend my enjoyment if I THINK about a particular work as well. For purposes of thinking about art and conveying my ideas to others, a proper definition is indispensable. In that respect, I have found Ayn Rand's essays on esthetics in Romantic Manifesto, The Art of Fiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, The Art of Nonfiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, and Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A(the esthetics section) invaluable and irreplaceable.

a book of 3 stories relating to jacobsville
a great read for any diana fan!

I LOVED ALL THREE OF THE STORIES
DIANA PALMER AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED IS ONE OF THE BEST WRITERS THAT I HAVE EVER READ
ALL THE STORIES THAT SHE WRITES ARE WONDERFUL AND I CAN HARDLY WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT ONE COMES OUT
I LAUGHED THROUGH ALL THREE STORIES

Each story in Long Tall Texan Summer was a little too short to reach the full potential that Ms. Palmer usually reaches. The romantic tension between the characters barely starts before it is over. Most Diana Palmer's novels are fantastic but I would reccomend passing on this book and choosing another by her.

I was so excited to get this trilogy. To say I was disappointed is a gross understatement. I've heard that sometime publishers will publish books written by other authors under a well-known writer's name to generate sales. After reading this lastest effort by Ms. Palmer, I believe it may be true. Where are the rough, arrogant, hard-as-nails, angst-ridden, passionate cowboys I've come to expect from the Long, Tall Texan series?? When those guys fell, they fought tooth and nail, and they fell hard. There was no passion, which is very untypical of Diana Palmer, no depth to the stories, and the character development was weak. If I truly believed Ms. Palmer wrote this trilogy, I would never say these things because she really is a fabulous writer and the only one whom I will even read in the genre. Ms. Palmer, if you did write these stories, and the change is so dramatic because someone told you this is what women want in men these days, don't believe it. I want the men back

This has been my favorite Feng Shui book for years now. I had bought 2 copies for lending out and such. It really works! It's easy too. I even did these techniques to my office and ended up with record sales that year in that workplace (that was over 5 years ago and I have moved on since). When my life seems a bit out of whack, and I need to change the status quo, I jump right back in to this book and things always get better. Go for it!

Good for beginners and those who don't want to delve into the theory of Feng Shui. It is written for reader on the Western Continent (America) and is well described to meet our specific needs. Worth while.

I bought this book for myself over ten years ago and have been buying it as a gift for friends interested in Feng Shui ever since. This is the 6th copy I've bought, 2 in Spanish! I have many books on the subject but this was my first and is still my favorite. It is easy to understand and fun to read. I love learning by example and this book is full of useful anecdotes to explain a very complex theory. I've done many of Ms. Collins suggestions and my life has been full of love and good luck.

I purchased this book for a friend because I already had a copy. Its a straightforward compilation of the Feng Shui Bagwa map. I have several other books and they are complicated and confusing. This book lays out the theory and shares some stories of changing the decor according to the feng shui principles. I enjoyed reading it and I have enjoyed moving things around in my house.

Feng Shui may not change your life, but if by taking the time to balance your surroundings, you also balance your life, isn't that something special? I am having fun with this just making my home more pleasant.

A. Schopenhauer and Ralph W. Emerson deserve to be read together. I remember reading these two at roughly the same time and they blew my mind open, splattering it on whatever was behind me. Schopenhauer writes beautifully, with great wit, humor and massive quantities of vitrol all at once. R. J. Hollingdale, famous for his superlative translations of Friedrich Nietzsche's writings, does justice to this collection; it's only a shame that he never translated the rest of his writings, or at least the World as Will and Representation.

A brief passage for those who might be otherwise daunted:

"Dilettantes! Dilettantes! -- this is the derogatory cry those who apply themselves to art or science for the sake of gain raise against those who pursue it for love of it and pleasure in it. THis derogation rests on their vulgar conviction that no one would take up a thing seriously unless prompted to it by want, hunger, or some other kind of greediness. The public has the same outlook and consequently holds the same opinion, which is the origin of its universal respect for 'the professional' and its mistrust of the dilettante. the truth, however, is that to the dilettante the thing is the end, while to the professional as such it is the means; and only he who is directly interested in a thing, and occupies himself with it form love of it, will pursue it with entire seriousness. It is from such as these, and not from wage earners, that the greatest things have always come." pg. 227

My copy is showing age and serious wear; I'd recommend picking up two, you'll be reading this into the dust.
If you enjoy the 'gallant' misogeny and self-sure egoism in passages like those from his essay "On Women" I'd reccomend Max Stirner's "Ego and its Own"--a must for rampant individualists. Another plus: caustic enough to rile the ire of a young K. Marx. Thoreau minus patience.

I came to Schopenhauer's work reluctantly, having been put off by two things: first, his well-known belligerent attitude towards women (misogyny is an understatement); and second by Nietzsche, who - despite an early infatuation with Schopenhauer - later turned against his "mentor" (of sorts), claiming his work lacked any ethical applicability.

Yet, as an avid reader of philosophy in general, I found myself repeatedly drawn towards Schopenhauer through various resources. After putting my prejudices aside, then, I have to say that I consumed this volume with great enthusiasm and found Schopenhauer to be one of the clearest, most articulate philosophers in the Western tradition. He was, in a word, a genius.

Sure, the "Buddha of Frankfurt" (his nickname) was not saint, but Schopenhauer himself would have been the first to admit it. That said, I think the chapter on women and Nietzsche's complaints should be kept in mind, but not used to disallow the rest of his brilliant methaphysical writing.

I want to mention here, too, that the introduction by R.J. Hollingdale is outstanding and helpful. I have read Kant, but I still found his summary of philosophy leading up to Schopenhauer to be a refreshing and lively review (compared, say, with the dull, unhelpful introduction by Dave Berman in Everyman's edition of The World as Will and Idea). It is hard to sum up Kant's thought in a few pages, but Hollingdale does a great job, I think.

Finally, I don't think you need to have read Kant to understand most of the ideas presented in this text. Also, I have to concur with Schopenhauer's university philosophy professor, G.E. Schulze, who told the young thinker to stick with ONLY Plato and Kant - but to that small list I would now add the name Schopenhauer.

I highly recommend this text for both beginners and experts in the field -it is THAT good...and it just might change your whole perspective, if not your way of life. Amazing!

What shall I say of Schopenhauer? I've read much of his "The World as Will and Idea," but I like his "Essays and Aphorisms" better. The "Essays" state all of his major ideas but in a more enjoyable and palatable form. His magnum opus explicates his philosophy more completely, but I was bogged down by his incessant treatment of Kantian transcendentalism, which contextualized his work and gave it legitimacy within his time period.

But I would argue that Schopenhauer is known for his pessimistic interpretation of existence, and his intellectual and artistic reworkings of Vedantic and Buddhistic philosophy. He was able to enmesh Kantian and Eastern idealism within a conernful way of life within the world.

One delights in Schopenhauer's verbal abuse of life, Christian metaphysics (not Christianity itself), and optimisms of every kind. He has a way of reducing cherished sentiments and ideals to the absurd mechanisms of control and torture: the systems of human existence.

Read the "Essays" if you want to be challenged, if you want to have some wicked fun, and if you wish to consider your own existence within a definite and different (but not necessarily definitive) framework.

This is a brief compendium and collection of Schopenhauer's expository writing, suitable for a quick introduction to many of his ideas and most famous sayings. Few philosophers were as clear and concise in their writing as he was, and this little book contains many of most quotable and trenchant passages. The Schopenhauer neophyte as well as the more experienced reader will find much to reflect on and to entertain here.

Personally, I like Schopenhauer despite his overall downer message, although his philosophy and metaphysics, which is which is called absolute voluntaristic idealism, hasn't faired that well in the last 100 years, although when I was in college 30 years ago he seemed to be popular among the students I knew who were studying philosophy.

There are several reasons why Schopenhauer's thought is still important. An idealist like Kant, he kept Kant's distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal, between the mental and external representations of reality. Kant's defense of idealism, that some ideas or at least mental processes are innate, is still relevant in modern brain science and neurobiology and in Chomsky's theories in linguistics, especially in regard to Chomsky's ideas about language learning and acquisition, in which there is support from brain science for a built-in facility in humans for language, and possibly an innate syntactical generator component to language ability.

Although innate ideas probably don't exist in the way that Kant envisioned them, modern brain science has supported his theory that the mind or brain is actively involved in the organizing and structuring of the data from the senses, and that we couldn't make sense of reality if we didn't have inborn aptitudes and capabilities to do that.

Schopenhauer emphasized the importance of Eastern philosophy and the validity of its introspective methods, while maintaining his overall empirical approach. His moral and ethical philosophy is based on compassion rather than on practical and reasonable considerations like Kant's. He was probably the first important western philosopher to give credit to Zen and Buddhist thought, while remaining faithful to the empirical principles of science.

Outside of philosophy his thoughts have had a major impact on psychology and the arts. He was the most important influence on both Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, and he also had a great influence on Freud and Jung, and on writers and composers from Wagner to Tolstoy. During the 20th century, Schopenhauer's reputation faded and the importance of his work has been to a great extent overlooked, but recent books show that his importance is being rediscovered and reappraised.

I have to include this brief passage on his thought, since it's excellent, which I obtained from the biographies section of Bluepete website.

"Schopenhauer's system of philosophy, as previously mentioned, was based on that of Kant's. Schopenhauer did not believe that people had individual wills but were rather simply part of a vast and single will that pervades the universe: that the feeling of separateness that each of has is but an illusion. So far this sounds much like the Spinozistic view or the Naturalistic School of philosophy. The problem with Schopenhauer, and certainly unlike Spinoza, is that, in his view, "the cosmic will is wicked ... and the source of all endless suffering."

I have a personal anecdote to recount. My college roommates and I used to read Schopenhauer at night to each other over a couple of beers, and we found his acerbic, trenchant style and sharp wit a delight to read, and this book is perhaps the best example of his prose in that regard. One Schopenhauer quote I still remember after 30 years is: "Intellect comes from the mother; character from the father," which might say a lot about his family life and how he grew up.

Schopenhauer is also famous for quotes such as:

"The two foes of human happiness are pain and boredom."
(from his Essays, Personality; or What a Man Is).

"I have long held the opinion that the amount of noise that anyone can bear undisturbed stands in inverse proportion to his mental capacity and therefore be regarded as pretty fair measure of it."

"To marry is to halve your rights and double your duties."

I have to include my favorite quote on marriage here, although it isn't Schopenhauer's, and I don't know where it came from, although it echoes his sentiments: "Marriage is the institution where the woman loses her the name and the man his solvency."

His dyspeptic view of life might have been fostered by his delicate digestive system. He would spent many minutes poring over the menu before ordering his food in the cafes where he usually dined, because a wrong choice "could send his nerves ringing for days," according to one comment I read about him. Whatever the source of his pessimism, Schopenhauer seemed almost embarrassed and ashamed to be in a human body, because he did not seem to find much good in humans or human society. No doubt he would have preferred to be a higher, more intelligent species than humans, if such exists somewhere else in the universe. But Schopenauer didn't seem to think that intelligent life existed here. :-)

Whatever the current fate of his reputation, Schopenhauer was a uniquely gloomy intellect who contributed much to several areas of philosophy. And not the least of his virtues is that he was a true cynic and pessimist--surely the most accurate view of life, after all. :-)

Schopenhauer's father committed suicide. Son Arthur had been very devoted to his father Heinrich Floris. The high-sensitive son could not deal with the fact, that his mother Johanna had preferred to talk with Goethe in her Weimar Literary Salon instead of helping her husband, getting more and more depressed as a salesman in Hamburg. A typical, later on dialogue between mother (at that time a famous novelist) and son, fresh university lecturer: "One still will read my writings, at a time, when your books are out of stock and only one copy can be found in a lumber-room." Mother thereupon sneering: "The whole, complete edition of your writings, my son, still will be waiting to get an order to be shipped..." (the reviewer fears that his own frizztext-book might have to suffer the same fate). "The World as Will", as too much inconsiderate will-to-live - in such a way Schopenhauer (February 22, 1788 - September 21, 1860) experienced the whole human being. With persistance and arrogance, with brain and bile, suffering and bitterly, but with sensitivity and empathy as well he wrote - trying not to get overwhelmed by disgust. He had a deep neurotic aversion against women (surely involved by his mother). Once he pushed in anger his charwoman down the stairs backwards. But this female individual offered resistance very intellectually: She successful called a judge and Schopenhauer was sentenced, to pay a pension to her - all her life long. But exactly this evil bile encouraged him, on the other hand, to fight against mother Johanna and Goethe, against Hegel and diverse money-lenders. However just opposite to his choleric, hot-tempered way of life, his philosophical theory proclaimed to be calm as a Buddha. He adored Eastern Vedic (Buddhist) Scriptures. He adored enjoying art as a way out of the more mediocre and less passionate masses. The summary of his philosophy finally is the reference to the noblesse to demand nothing; this German philosopher's hope is, that "willing" might be silenced. 150 years and some wars later we all should agree. "To be vulgar is nothing else than giving the leading role in our consciousness to the will and not to the cognition." This tiny book is still able to help today's readers to climb not a meditative, but a thoughtful level. And still it is not out of stock in the most nations ...

this story is better than mckettrick's luck. really enjoyed this story, can't wait to read the next one. am on the fence with linda lael miller. most of the stories i love, but i think the sex is a little raunchy. i tend to glaze over those parts. she is definitely one of the smut-ier romance writers i read. if you like linda lael i do suggest jodi thomas and lorraine heath, they're two of my fav's.

Good book- enjoyed the references to the McKettrick cowboys, the sons of Angus, and their descendants who are very similar in character.The modern MCkettrick men are just as lovable!

I picked this book up because every now and then I need to fuel my inner Marlborough Man fantasies, and I love a good contemporary western for that. I had not read the first book in the trilogy, or any of this author's other books. This book stands on its own, and I was not the least bit confused in getting caught up with who was who. Both characters were sympathetic, and there was a nice smattering of extended family members and a surprisingly good subplot involving a dog (and I am NOT an animal lover, but this storyline was actually quite important to illuminating the heroine's journey and character.)

What I really didn't like was the COUNTLESS references to this author's earlier books.... She seems to have included a reference to at least 6 or 8 earlier couples.... people who had lived hundreds of years ago. Every time the current hero & heroine pass a school house, we get a reference to "that was where my great-great granddaddy built his bride a school" Or shop. Or house. Or swimming hole. It went on and on and on. I actually found it a little sad. I don't like to think of H&H's being long-dead, although the author solved this problem by suggesting that they were all ghosts and had been seen riding on the range or laughing in the bedrooms. Puleease. Maybe I would not have minded if I'd read all those books, but the references interferred with my ability to enjoy this story and seemed very contrived.

Aside from that, it was a nice, average story...more about lust than love. The author did a terrific job exploring the hero's torment about his dead-wife and the emotional grappling he had to do to emerge from it. I especially liked the way the hero freely admits his initial attraction to Echo was just lust. The problem was that I never really saw any reason for that to evolve into love. At one point, the hero simply decides he loves her.... but I never really sensed any chemistry between them other than hot sex.

It's really a toss up for me which of the McKettrick stories I liked the best. I loved them all. Rance McKettrick is a widower with two small girls and a meddling mother-in-law. He's all business in his three piece suits, no fun, no sense of humor and travels all over the world leaving his daughters behind, troubled by how his marriage was less than perfect when his wife died. Then Echo Wells, a hippy from Chicago whizzes into town in her little pink bug and nearly runs him down. Completely mismatched, it's both compelling and touching how Miller brings these two together. You won't want to miss any of these books. They're all so good they're hard to put down. I loved the dialogue, the humor, the witty way these stories were put together. Excellent reads!

Since the death of his wife, Rance McKettrick has thrown himself into his work with a passion. At least these transglobal flights and business deals hold down the overwhelming grief even if his two daughters suffer from his absence. Julie's mother Cora is there to pick up the pieces... and stir things up as well with the love potion she bought before Echo's move to Indian Rock.

When her fiance Justin leaves her at the altar, Echo Wells packs up and moves her bookstore and online business to Indian Rock, Arizona. From the very beginning, the residents are drawn to her including the mangy, wet, muddy lost dog that she names Avalon and shelters in her newly detailed VW Bug and names Avalon. When she runs smack into a handsome businessman who has parked his gas-guzzling SUV just a little too close to her Pepto-Bismal pink Volkswagen bug, the sparks fly. Can electricity turn into real love between a spooked skittish woman and a handsome man with a heart just as wounded as hers?

The first half or three-quarters of this book is one of the most moving romances I have read. The reader feels the pain of the characters as well as the electric energy between them. Even the hurt of Rance's two little daughters and their innocent exuberance for Echo Wells and pink Volkswagen bug grab the reader's heart throughout the story. Other than the animal abusers, every single character enchants the reader and creates a longing for a world like Miller's where lost souls no longer ring out like an echo in their emptiness but instead find their heart and family.

The ending of this romance disappoints and suffers from being the middle book in a terrific series. Miller tries to tie too many threads in too short a space and without enough preparation for the minor characters. Despite the slight stylistic imperfections, this second book grabbed deeply and put Linda Lael Miller on my favorite author list. A must read book!

Ms Anderson has an amazing talent for making her heroes lovable. She proves it again here by making this preachy, bible spouting hypocrite seem tolerable. He was no worse than most romance novel heroes except that he spent the first 2/3 of the book ranting about the sin of pre-marital sex. The heroine,albiet a 31 year old virgin, did not join his rant but listened to it. Still, she jumped right in and joined him at the drop of his stetson. I never thought of Catholics as Holy Rollers. Apparently, the author does. I agree with other reviewers that the story would have been much improved by editing out the majority of the preaching. Like real life preaching, it wins a lot less converts than good examples do. I gather the Harrigans are to provide a new family saga like the Kendricks and Coulters. Good. She was running out of siblings in those families. Soon she'll need a more complex family tree to keep them all straight.

This book is excellent reading! Couldn't have enjoyed this book more. I'm new to Catherine Anderson's books having only read 3 thus far. This is the book that grabbed me and has me seeking out all Mrs. Anderson's other books. I am hoping they are written with the same 'religious zeal' I saw with "Morning Light"... just a touch in all the right places.

I enjoyed being able to read a book without being overwhelmed with 'sex here... sex there... sex everywhere'! I skip these pages in other books, not because I'm a prude but because the sex usually has little to do with the story line! If you don't like the 'religious scenes'... skip them. Personally, I found it refreshing to read these scenes and I really would like to see more books depicting less sex in every chapter and verse. Besides, saying grace at a meal is hardly 'overzealous' religion.

They take advantage. I don't like it when an author starts weaving in her/his actual beliefs (religious or political) within storylines. I don't care what they believe in real life - just write a good story, OK? Without proselytizing or jumping on the soapbox. I would venture to say that most of Ms. Anderson's fans are 30ish and up, and we pretty much have our belief system in place by this time...

Mixing psychic abilities with the Catholic faith angle didn't work for me. And the deep, profound love found by these two within a few short days was just stupid. There were so many holes in this story that I had to laugh.

The Kendrick and Coulter men were awesome. I found this author with Baby Love, loved it, and have read everything of hers since. Hopefully, the rest of the Harrigan mens' stories will not follow the same path as Clint's. But I will not buy this author again - I will check her future books out of the library. I do have to say though that I bought this book at my library's book sale for $2.00. And tucked inside was a very small note from the original owner that said "this book sucks, you can have it".

First off I want to say that up until this book I was an avid Catherine Anderson fan (even bought this in hardback!)She was until now one of my "keeper" authors. Second off let me say if I wanted a sermon I would go to church. Third! If I wanted to read inspirational books I would of bought one that was stated as such not wasted my money on a book that isn't what its stated to be. Book is all about Catholic's and God and VERY POORLY DONE!! You get page after page that is nothing but Catholic & God ranting in every paragraph then get a couple of pages where you think you might get to what is supposed to be the story but NOOOO right back to the Catholic and God rants! ABSOLUTLY HORRIBLE! Prior book was bad enough with the Catholic stuff but this one is way overdone and will be the last Catherine Anderson book I buy new and if this is what her writing has become also last one I read. I won't even buy the next one used if its the same religious ranting much less new.
Do yourself a favor and don't buy it new, go to library or buy it used that way you won't feel so ripped off by author and publisher. If you like inspirational books you might enjoy it but for those of us wanting what was a typical Catherine Anderson book AVOID and re read an old one you'll get more out of it!

I really enjoyed this book. This is the first Catherine Anderson book I've read. I didn't feel the religion was stuffed down my throat as mentioned in other reviews. I enjoyed the religious aspect. The fact that they talked marriage after a couple of days is a little unrealistic but, I truely believe when you know, you know. If you've read all of Catherine Anderson's books in the past, maybe you won't enjoy this one, but if you're a newbie to her novels like I am I think it's definitely worth the read. And who wouldn't want their dream cowboy to come after them when they ran??

This is a demanding high school (or undemanding college) introductory textbook on the subject. Only the most rudimentary algebra is required, and honestly one could easily get through the book without even that.

The edition is handsomely printed, with a font that's easy on the eye and plenty of colorful and helpfully-glossed graphs. The chapters themselves are not too long, which helps with a student's morale, believe me.

Recently I was put into a situation where I had to go, in the space of about 4 months, from knowing jack-squat about economics to being able to teach college-level macroeconomics!

Well, I frantically collected a ton of textbooks and articles about macroeconomics, ranging from the elementary to the abstruse and got to work.

And I gotta say: when something befuddled me and I found myself threshing about from text to text for the best explanation, it was nearly always Mankiw who came through with the critical phrasing that made the idea click and got me saying: "Ohhhhhh! I get it!" most often.

Not that this was always the case. There were times when I found better explanations elsewhere (e.g., Chapter 19, on the foreign currency market, is exasperatingly elliptical and could use a major dummying-down), but more often than not, Mr. Mankiw had the goods: the clearest and most easy-to-follow way of wording or graphing a slippery or counter-intuitive concept.

Of course, it's easy to hate Mr. Mankiw: he's young, he's handsome, he's brilliant (one of the youngest full professors ever at Harvard), and he's rich (his textbooks are now standard in AP courses nationwide). Jerk!

Because of these reasons, I would love to trash his book, showing how it "ain't all that."

Well, it is. Gulp.

Only one note: If you're planning on getting this book to study macroeconomics independently, you will find one irritating drawback: there are exercises at the end of each chapter, but no answers in the back. Essentially, therefore, it's a book for schoolchildren, not mature learners.

But its explanations -- believe me -- can't be beat.

the last episode, the one you waiting for to unveil the end - still in Stephens fashion - nobody will be dissapointed

Stephen King the author of the Dark Tower series is of course the Gunslinger: from the first volume to the seventh. In one of the most amazing symbolic epics ever written Stephen King has documented the loneliness and creative efforts of an author in his quest (the trials and tribulations) to create and finish a new novel.

The Man in Black is none other then his yet undefined creative genius who sets out the plot at the end of the first volume via the Tarot Cards by prophecizing the drawing of the three. To chase the Man in Black across the desert (mind) is essential to the beginning of any creative effort. This is why the Man in Black dies at the end of the first volume because his roll is complete in defining the limits and boundries of the new creative work.

Modred or should it be read 'MORE DREAD' as in the author's fear of not completing his task, which is a demon child always lurking in the background of any author's mind.

Ed Dean is the addict turned gunslinger, which is Roland or should it be read 'Roll On' or 'dragon = drag on' that can not stop creating until completion come, which is addiction in exclusion to the existence of all other aspects of creation: family, friends and society at large. This is the reason that Roland twirls his fingers as if to say 'get on with it' or 'roll on'. Keep the narrative going to get the work finished.

Susannah is symbolically the psyche of King, which has a one track mind: hence the wheel chair. This is why Ed Dean and Susannah fell in love with each other: two sides of the same coin (addiction and obsession).

Jake represents symbolically the 'youthful spirit' of the new creative idea of the new volume to be written whether it be King's first creative effort CARRIE or the last book he ever writes. Remember that it was Jake that was first pulled into Roland's world.

Oy seems to represent 'literary licence', which is the perogative of every author.

The Crimson King is 'Stephen King' incarnate locked out of what goes on in the tower because the book being written, regardless of its title, is the DARK TOWER, which takes on a life of its own. The book therefore writes itself and the author is helpless to do other then to fling spite and hate (slings and arrows) at the genius, which Roland represents but to no avail. The author forever dreams of writing his book (ruling the universe) unfettered by those seemingly unnecessary appendages: Ed, Susannah, Jake and Oy but the laws of creative writing locked Stephen King out on the balcony of his own genius preventing him from inserting his input. The book has taken on a life of its own and the author is powerless to prevent its journey to completion and he can only look on as his work completes itself.

As Roland: Stephen King, is snatched once again into that final room at the top of the DARK TOWER as if he is in an eternal time-loop he dreads the future of yet reliving the creative juices that flows through a writer as he journeys to the end of yet another book. Stephen King has written more then forty books and each time he had to relive this time-loop: the birth and completion of yet another book. He can not stop or retire from writing, for his mind will not allow it, for it is after all who he is: the last gunslinger.

Damn. I've been pondering what to write about this for days. Ok, lets git to it! (Jazz reference will be explained :P )

Here's your first clue that the Dark Tower is not going to please everyone (actually the clue is at the very end). He cautions the reader to not read the Coda chapter beause they might dislike it. As if, after reading 1000+ pages of the book, the reader wouldn't read right through!

Second clue is in the Author's note at the end, when King says in advance not to email him to whine, and that he was a little bummed out himself with the end. To be cynical here, does King sound a tad defensive? Sure, ANY final book in a series can't please everyone. But could King's (just slightly) apologist afterword not be a bad sign that something here's gone a little `todash'?

DT is King's `sandbox', where the story can - and does - go anywhere it likes. It's his KILL BILL. It's everything AND the kitchen sink. He's grabbed everything in his mind (Doken) that's been kicking around for his entire life and put it onto paper. In this sense, the book is critic proof for the most part. If one is to point out something in the book that wasn't pulled off satisfactory, where is the context? To what other story can we compare it and say `this is the kind of book it should have been'?

What I'm saying, longwindedly, is that I could see any 2 given people feeling different about the series. To those who gave it 5 stars, cool. 1 star? I can dig. For me, I mostly accepted the conclusion, but what I would have wanted much more was to close it and say 'wow! I want to read it again. Now!' I did not get that feeling. And as fair as it is for people to completely enjoy it, it's not without it's flaws.

One of the things that annoyed me the most was how countless phrases spoken by people (or thought) are something someone else has said. Eddie is constantly thinking about what his brother would have thought of something. Susannah is always thinking about what her Dad would have said. Roland is frequently reminded of a phrase Cort would say, Etc. This was an overused technique. It was in meltdown mode here. He just would not stop.

Chapters constantly overlap, enabling the reader to see the lead up to the same event from a different participant. This is a useful tool, but it is so frequent that the result is that the reader is constantly being halted from finding out what happens next to backtrack, and in this, the final book, it the plot and pacing should be in overdrive. One imagines Roland gesturing his `get on with it' finger twirl. New characters who are introduced do not always need to have a large backstory. Sometimes it's just fine for a person to show up and help out, or get a bullet thrugh the eye. I thought this was one of the major contributors to the excessive length of the book. I don't flinch at doorstopper books, but please maximize your space and keep the gears shifting up in the plot, not down (see PILLARS OF THE EARTH for a massive but always focused story).

And now my last issue has to do with Stephen King being perhaps out of his depth in a 'fantasy' type of epic story. I have read over half of King's fiction, plus Danse Macabre and On Writing. He's a `Jazz' writer. He just goes with the flow, and thats been an asset of his for many of his other books. He's an intuitive freestyler. An improv rapper. The problem with this approach is the longer you try and 'freestyle it', the more chance you have of tripping over something as your mind races to keep track of what you're doing. He's been playing the worlds longest Jazz solo, and while he succeeded in many ways, he's hit plenty of off-notes on the way and it got a little sloppy there at the end.

King has become so entrenched in `antiplotting' that he willfully will NOT plot out anything (he says he did so with Insomnia and wasn't too hot on the result so hasn't tried it again much since). There's always an exception, but from my reading experience, you just cannot tackly a multi-volume epic in this fashion. You have to sit down and outline a little bit or else the whole thing comes off uneven.

Dark Tower readers have pretty much got the biggest imaginations out there. We've seen people walking though doors into alternate earths. We've seen Blood and Mind vampires feasting with Low Men in colorful suits wearing fake human masks. We've seen a politically-incorrect black woman with no legs who throws deadly plates. Robots who wear Dr. Doom capes, wield light sabers, and throw flying balls that are one part Harry Potter Sneetches and one part metal spheres from the movie Phantasm. We've even taken it in stride when a half Human spider gets diarrhea from eating a leprous horse. So having the story zig and zag to this ending, and have many people unsatisfied, is pause for thought. DT readers can handle anything King can throw their way in the Bizarre department, but just can't get behind this fizzled out resolution.

I think that's saying something.

I don't have the time to write a full review with synopsis and such, even if I did I don't think the book deserves it. It wasn't a terrible work of fiction, but it was not the grand epic finale I so patiently waited for. Steven introduced plot twists that lasted for 2-3 subchapters at best, that just makes me think he was desperately searching his tired (and lazy) imagination for more interesting things to happen. Roland had a cough and it went away after eating a deer kidney... Seriously Steven you can do better than that.

* Spoilers*

I had a negative first impression after reading DT7. I happened across this site and was surprised at the high number of five star reviews the book received. I saw a lot of "Brilliant Ending" and "Masterpiece" descriptions so I figured that all these people can't be wrong. Maybe I just missed some of the finer points of the book. Maybe my initial impression was off base. So I read the book again. Turns out it wasn't any better the second time. The same glaring flaws I noticed from my first reading were still there after the second. From the hastily written demise of Flagg to the numerous instances of deus ex machina, this book screams "rush job."

I honestly don't see how any true fan of SK can feel anything but cheated after reading the confrontation or lack thereof between Roland and Flagg. I mean this guy is featured in a number of SK's books. The mere mention of his name had been known to cause death and insanity. The Dark Tower series even spends six books painting Flagg as Roland's arch nemesis. Based upon all this build up, one would expect an epic battle for the ages between Flagg and Roland right? Well think again. Flagg is easily killed by a newly born spider boy who is a-hungry. This is like Darth Vader getting killed by an Ewok before his epic battle with Luke. Then there is the Crimson King, the most powerful being in the world, one would expect that his death would be difficult right? Nope, he gets erased. How about Susan? She endures all these hardships, from physical pain to mental anguish, to reach the Dark Tower. Even the death of her lover cannot not deter her from reaching her goal. Then when she can actually see the Dark Tower she decides, " You know what its not worth it anymore, I am going home." Uh okay. I wont even go into the parts where SK writes himself into the story.

Maybe I expected too much after reading the first four books. SK piqued my interest with hints here and there of a world that had moved on. A world that was linked to ours but one that was different and dying. A world where paper and glass were considered luxuries. I remember the first time I read about the Rose in the vacant lot and the little suns it contained and thinking that King would have some way of tying all this together and it would be magnificent. To build suspense King even tells us that not everyone, including Roland, will make it all the way to the Dark Tower. After, reading DT4, I was also hoping to learn why or how the world moved on and the fate of his childhood friends. Back then, the possibilities were limitless.

Well, I guess the joke was on me, the constant reader. Turns out the whole series was about Roland forgeting to pick up a horn. I guess I mistakenly thought the series would be about the Rose, the Beams, the Tower and the different levels of existence. I guess SK changed it up in the middle.

To be fair, taken by itself DT7 is not a bad book. But when taken in the context of the series, the new ideas just don't mesh very well. Major charcters get killed by minor characters, the ka-tet jumps back and forth between different worlds and time periods, its all rushed. If you read the first four books you will notice that SK used to take his time to develop his characters and ideas. After the accident, SK relented to those who wanted him to hurry up and finish the book. It took him forteen some years to write the first four books and two years to write the last three. Its not too hard to notice the drop off in quality.

I am giving this book one star because it pretty much ruins all of King's books that came before it. Books like Insomnia and Rose Madder are pretty much worthless. Now that we know Flagg is a scrub, the Stand loses its most of its luster. This stinker just killed King's entire body of work. I can only hope he redeems himself and decides to rewrite the last three DT books, at least last two, like he did with The Stand.