This is an excellent biography of one of the greatest lawmen in U.S. history. I've heard a lot of rants from misguided Bonnie and Clyde fans about the book's alleged inaccuracies. Well, there hasn't been a book on Bonnie and Clyde or Depression outlaws published to date (including my own!) that hasn't had some drastic errors in it, one reason being that most of the books, including I'm Frank Hamer, draw heavily from the Fugitives, the ghosted 1934 memoirs of Bonnie's mother and Clyde's sister. I'm not one of these people who presume to know who killed the two highway patrolmen at Grapevine. It may have been Henry Methvin, Clyde Barrow, Bonnie Parker, or all three for that matter (ballistics evidence indicated three guns were fired). Nor am I one of those misguided worshippers of Bonnie and Clyde, who were really nothing more than a pair of two-bit, scatter-brained, trigger-happy psychos. But all that is neither here nor there, as this is not simply a "Bonnie & Clyde book." This is a biography, and a damn good one, of the man who tracked them down--Frank Hamer, who captured or killed dozens of other criminals and carried with him the scars, and much of the lead, from many gunfights with maggots of the Clyde Barrow sort. Hamer came out of retirement to run down the Barrow gang. The ambush of Clyde and Bonnie was the perfect closing of Hamer's career and a great service to America as well. It was the job he was made to do and one that had to be done. Forget Hollywood. The real Bonnie and Clyde were murderous criminals who deserved just what they got. And Frank Hamer was just the man to give it to them.

It has been many years since I first read this book and I found it very informative. I am sure there are bound to be some errors but on the most part it is historically accurate. It is not only about ending Bonnie and Clyde's murderous spree but about the man that did it and how he became a Texas Police Officer and came up through the ranks to become one of the greatest Texas Rangers who ever lived. The review written by anomie@mail.com, is total bull written buy someone who evidently prefers to believe the glamorized version of the Bonnie & Clyde movie. I have been a Texas State Police officer for 23 years and have read some of the actual reports of Bonnie and Clydes exploits and to contradict anomie@mail.com, Bonnie and Clyde deserve no respect as stated by anomie. Anomie needs to be better informed of the facts before making reviews. Sorry for the rant but I hate for anyone to bad mouth a great man and take up for a couple of cold blooded illiterate killers who were glamorized by Hollywood as a cute loving couple out for a Sunday drive.

ITS BEEN THIRTEEN YEARS SINCE I INITIALY READ THIS BOOK. I HAVE BEEN DYING TO READ IT AGAIN BUT CANT FIND A COPY TO PURCHASE. BEING AN AMETUER HISTORIAN ON LATE NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY LAWMEN AND OUTLAWS I FOUND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS TEXT TO BE ACCURATE AND AUTHORATATIVE. A LOT OF MY INTEREST COMES FROM BEING A TEXAS PEACE OFFICER AND AN AFFICIIANADO OF FIREARMS BOTH MODERN AND HISTORICAL. THIS BOOK IS PREDOMINANTLY WRITTEN IN THE INFORMAL AND WESTERN COLOCIAL WHICH FITS THE SUBJECT MATTER. IT IS A WELL VERSED BIOGRAPHY ON ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING AND COLORFUL FIGURES IN WESTERN HISTORY. IT IS A SHAME THAT MORE WRITERS AND OR MOVIE PRODUCERS HAVE NOT TAKEN INTEREST IN THIS UNIQUE AND POTENT FIGURE. THIS WOULD BE A GOOD SUBJECT FOR A DIRECTOR OF THE ILK OF SAY JOHN MILIUS. BEYOND THAT LET ME SAY IF THAT IF YOU ARE TIRED OF THE TRUMPED UP BONNIE AND CLYDE FLUFF AND WOULD LIKE TO GET A REALISTIC AND HEROIC ACCOUNT OF THE GENTLEMAN LAWMAN THAT ASSISTED IN RIDDING SCOCIETY OF THESE AND OTHER NO ACCOUNTS, THIS IS THE BOOK FOR YOU. THE GOOD GUYS STORY, FOR A CHANGE.

What we have here are three short stories and a previously published novel, THE GIANT RAT OF SUMATRA, from 1975.
There are a surprising number of grammatical and punctuation errors, considering Boyer is a regularly-published novelist. There are also a large number of misprints, but not an overwhelming number.

But about the contents. The first story, "Zolnay the Aerialist," is by far the worst--- if you know anything about Victorian England you will have figured out the plot in the first few pages, and then as you read you will hope against hope that that isn't really going to be the plot... but, alas, it is. That the author himself is aware of something wrong here is indicated by his frantic waving to friends in the audience.

Things get much better with "Bell Rock Light," concerning a murder on a Stevenson Lighthouse--- fascinating detail, and given the
lighthouse, any student of the Canon will be looking for the P and the TC, and they arrive in due course.

Also good is "Eyrie Cliff," in which Holmes and Watson uncover a bevy of German Secret Agents, who plan to do away with a young genius of antisubmarine tactics. There are a number of nice twists here to divert the reader's attention.

Finally we have a reprint of GIANT RAT OF SUMATRA. It has been so long since I read this (25 years!) that I had forgotten everything except the identity of the villain. Reading it again, I find many too many echoes of HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (and why don't Watson and the villain therefore recognize Holmes' ploy instantly?) but otherwise a pretty good outing for the two old friends, and more than a touch of genuine, effective terror.

All in all, this is worthy of your attention and your money, if you can't get enough of the gaslit fogs of Baker Street and the doings of its immortal residents.

Richard Boyer has been writing mysteries for some years now, but Sherlockians/Holmesians will probably know him best as the author of _The Giant Rat of Sumatra_, a pastiche published in 1976 and long out of print. (I have a very well-worn paperback copy.)

Well, _Rat_ is back in print as of the present volume; it's one of the four stories that make up the "quartet" of the title. The others were added when a publisher approached Boyer about republishing _Rat_ and learned that he'd written three more Holmes stories.

The volume doesn't even pretend to be written by Watson; in fact a rather silly preface allegedly written by Watson's great-grandson ascribes the tales to Boyer, taking the line that Holmes was fictional although Watson was not. (The preface also casts Sir Arthur in an unkind light; I believe it was written by the book's publisher.) So when I write, as I do here, of Boyer as the author, I won't be undermining any of the usual illusions.

I don't think Boyer quite has the style down; he omits too many commas, he overuses italics and the ellipsis, and in his attempt to capture Watson's Victorian/Edwardian style he occasionally takes some quaint grammatical directions. (For example, at one point Watson says he "was smote," rather than "smitten," by a strong wind. Again, Holmes refers at one point to two earlier cases, "the latter from which we scarcely escaped with our lives and reason." Of course it should be "from the latter of which.") I say these things not merely because I am picayune -- although I am -- but because these little grammatical nuances are important in recreating the atmosphere and tone of the canonical tales.

But Boyer can plot. And for _that_, we can forgive him a great many minor lapses.

The highlight of the collection, undoubtedly, is _Rat_ itself. I won't summarize it here, since anyone who hasn't read it won't want me to spoil it and anyone who _has_ read it will simply want to know that it's included in this book.

But the other three cases are pretty good too. Oh, the first two telegraph their solutions so completely that it would be impossible to miss them. The first -- the case of Zolnay the Aerialist -- gives itself away (in principle) fairly early on to pretty much any reader; as for the second -- the case of Bell Rock Light -- all Sherlockians/Holmesians, the moment they learn that it's set in a lighthouse, will recognize (although Boyer never mentions it) the unrecorded case on which the story is based and start watching for the (oops, can't say it) and his (oops, can't say that either). (Especially when they read the note left by the dead man.) But the details of the narrative more than make up for it; the stories are enjoyable all the same. "Bell Rock Light," in particular, is notable for its fine (and surprisingly fascinating) description of lighthouse operation.

The third piece -- the case of the Eyrie Cliff -- brings Holmes out of retirement during the First World War and reunites the sterling pair with Holmes's brother Mycroft. Among other things, we get to see a leather-clad Holmes whizzing along on a motorcycle with Watson in the sidecar.

What will probably be of most interest to most readers, though, will be _Rat_ itself. So, if you're wondering whether it will ever be reprinted, wonder no more; here it is.

Most of us who have purchased this book have probably read the origional stories many times over. Enjoying the origionals, I have purchased later "Sherlockian" releases that now number over twenty books - each filled with authors attempting to mimic the writing style of the origionals - some with more success than others.

I think these four stories were some of the best I have read. The author has the "voice" of Watson perfected well, and the plots were very interesting. Unlike a number of recent attempts, I found this book extremely hard to put down! Each story is a little better than the one that proceeds it. All are very good!

I would love to see the author release Quartet book number two. I would gladly pay for an advance copy !

THE WILD SWANS is an adaptation of the classic fairy tale by the same name, where a princess must knit twelve (or seven, depending on which version one is reading) shirts out of nettles for her twelve brothers, turned into swans. The catch is that she can't speak a word until she's finished, or her little bros will be swans forever.

THE WILD SWANS is not laugh-out-loud funny, but it is light-hearted and a nice read if one needs a diversion. However, the story drags in a lot of places, the author so caught up in the details of a scene or situation that the plot grinds to screeching halt, and it takes a while for it to start back up again. The book could have stood to loose a hundred pages or so. Also, there are very few surprises in the book, mainly because one already knows the course of events from the fairy tale, and Holmes never veers off that path. The climax was much too short, especially in comparison with some other scenes in the story, and not particularly intense or suspenseful.

That being said, Holmes is a good writer, and her strong point in THE WILD SWANS is her characterizations. King Richard is the most well-drawn character, and even the minor characters, such as Richard's best friend, Harry, and his valet, Thurgood, are strong on the page.

All in all, THE WILD SWANS was a nice read and one that I would recommend to fans of Cinderella, Snow White, etc.; but it wasn't a "keeper," and I wouldn't read it more than once.

This is the funniest romance novel I have read this year. It's an exceptionally well-written twisted fairy tale, but so much more. I highly recommend it. A keeper!

It's the first book that I've read by Kate Holmes and I truly enjoyed it. The only regret that I have is when I finally finished reading it.

The title is quite clever, although a little misleading. There isn't a lot of Christmas involved -- of course, with Holmes, there wouldn't be. Some stories are, as usual, better than others. Some are downright bad. A few have the distressing tendency that some Holmes "fans" have to glorify, or at least "redeem" Watson. Let's face it, true Holmes fans don't read the stories to hear about Watson! Despite a few clinkers, this is a pretty good book -- but I wish it had been available in paperback!

My comments are organized by author, rather than in order of appearance. For some of the best stories, I haven't said much, since they're hard to praise without giving away pieces of the plot.

Two of the stories tackle the same theme: the person who inherited the firm of Scrooge & Marley begins having ghostly visitations and consults Holmes. (A priori, they're not ghosts but something else, so that Holmes works out how the trick was done.) Crider's version of the story strikes me as being the stronger of the two.

Breen, Jon L. "The Adventure of the Canine Ventriloquist" - A VERY long-winded client (a professional writer customarily paid by the word) is the victim of either supernatural events, or a tortuous scheme of persecution. Unfortunately, the client blathers on SO long when engaging Holmes that I lost interest, despite Watson's (unspoken and derogatory) opinions of professional vs. amateur writers.

Crider, Bill "The Adventure of the Christmas Ghosts" - One of two variations on a theme; this one seems the stronger of the two. Franklin Scrooge, who inherited the firm of Scrooge & Marley, has begun having experiences like those of his uncle 40 years before. His description of Scrooge's meeting with Marley for the skeptic Holmes and Watson deliberately mimics Dickens' setting of the early scene. S: "Marley was dead. There can be no doubt about that." H: "And how did he die?" (Interesting line of thought, that.) There is a continuity error - Scrooge's great-nephew, as his *sister's* grandson, would not have the same surname - but other than that, the story is well-handled.

DeAndrea, William L. "The Adventure of the Christmas Tree" - Why did someone steal, then return, the tree being shipped from the Duke's Scottish estate while in transit? (The client isn't the Duke, but his forester, who can't rest until the matter is cleared up.)

Douglas, Carole Nelson "The Thief of Twelfth Night" - I recommend this to any fan of Douglas' Irene Adler novels.

Estleman, Loren D. "The Adventure of the Three Ghosts" - Lord Chislehurst (born "Tiny" Tim Cratchit) acquired Scrooge's old firm a decade ago, when Scrooge's generosity brought it to the brink of ruin. (His business acumen grew as Scrooge's declined, buying him into the Peerage.) Now ghostly visitations have begun appearing to *him*. Weaker than Crider's version; the characters, for one thing, seem less realistic.

Hill, Reginald "The Italian Sherlock Holmes" - At the conclusion of a case in Italy, Holmes suffers a nervous collapse, which keeps him and Watson in Rome over Christmas. A would-be imitator, scraping acquaintance with him, is taught a lesson.

Hoch, Edward D. "The Christmas Client" - Charles Dodgson (a.k.a. Lewis Carroll) is being blackmailed by a fellow mathematics professor - one James Moriarty. Enough to interest Holmes even on Christmas Day...

Linscott, Gillian "A Scandal in Winter" - The only story not narrated by Watson. After a sudden death at the ski resort the previous year, rumor condemned the widow of murder - one Irene MacAvoy. Upon her defiant reappearance this year, two older gentlemen at the resort seek to find out what really happened, by questioning the only witness - the narrator, a child. Stylistically, of course, it isn't like the Holmes canon, but if one doesn't insist on that, it's a rather good story.

Moffat, Gwen "The Adventure in Border Country" Clement Daw's neighbour, Mrs. Aubrey, seeks Holmes' help in discovering what happened to her husband, who went out to the stables on a snowy night and hasn't been seen since. Some of Watson's commentary regarding Mrs. Aubrey's family may seem rather disturbing, incidentally.

Paul, Barbara "The Sleuth of Christmas Past" At first, this story may remind the reader of 'The Solitary Cyclist': high praise, to sound like Doyle's original. The death of Amy Stoddard's father, a spice importer, has left her an heiress, in a modest way, but she hasn't come to Holmes about that; she's familiar with the business, having served as her father's transcriber due to his horrible handwriting. Now some of his old friends are behaving suspiciously, and her fiance may be no better. But who is lying to whom?

Perry, Anne "The Watch Night Bell" - This doesn't have the usual trappings that accompany Perry's Victorian-era detective stories; she's adapted her tone to fit Doyle's work. On this occasion, poor Holmes has to cope with the worst type of female client: a fluffbrained, pretty young woman who can't seem to think straight long enough to get to the point. She fears that her sister may be plotting to murder their father. Some very clever plot twists in this one.

Stroessel, John "The Yuletide Affair" - Lestrade and his merry men, seeking Watson's medical help while Holmes is out on another case, give him a chance to shine on his own. Holmes has only a bit part in this, at the end.

Wheat, Carolyn "The Adventure of the Angel's Trumpet" - A barrister who once persuaded a jury to disregard Holmes' evidence now seeks his help for a client on trial for poisoning her grandfather. Since Holmes appears so long after the event, there's a lot of "tell" as opposed to "show".

Williamson, J. N. "The Adventure of the Man Who Never Laughed" (Contains an entertaining digression about Holmes' proposed image of Father Christmas for the artist Thomas Nast, and another about Charles Fort.) The sister of the title character seeks Holmes' services to find out what's wrong.

Most of these pastiches range from good to very good. And I personally loved "The Yuletide Affair," which is a Watson case. Most of the others were enjoyable also. Unfortunately, two writers decided to incorporate "A Christmas Carol" into their stories which got redundant quickly. "A Scandal in Winter" was also a demerit to this book. If not for those three stories, I would have given five stars instead of four.

I am going to return this book, it doesn't worth anything,
I don't want it even for free.

This is one of my favourite Ernest Holmes books besides "This Thing Called You" and "Living The Science Of Mind".

It is considerably thinner book compared to the 'Science Of Mind', and it is concise, easy to understand, and it drives home the solutions to your everyday challenges. On the left pages are the Challenges or 'problems' people face, and the right page will show you the solution- how to adjust your attitude and mind to respond to such a challenge, and bring results.

it is amazing how such a thin book can be so inspiring. THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS BOOK. No rituals, no dogma. Only wisdoms of the ages that works.
Ernest Holmes' philosophy are derived from Christian and Eastern (ancient Hindu, Taoist, etc) thought. His view on religion is wise, a deeply spiritual man. In fact, unlike most religious/wpiritual writers, he is one of the very few authors that can talk about religion and philosophy without any dogma, rituals, nor bias against any other religion/philosophy.

Thoughts Are Things is a little (about 100 pages if you include the index) masterwork. If you haven't ever read any of Ernest Holmes' writings on his landmark Science of Mind philosophy, this is for you -- a perfect, easy-to-understand introduction to this "affirmative prayer" philosophy, divided into various categories. If you're into theology, and a fan of Holmes writings, this has to be his most understandable, enjoyable, and easiest-to-wear-out-by-multiple-readings book.

Why? It's because of the top-notch organization, editing and brilliance of the selected Holmes passages coupled with additional material by Willis Kinnear. The book's four main parts are The World Around You, The Life You Live, Your Mental and Spiritual Health, and the Future Is Yours. Each Challenge is on the left page of the book and written in one easy-to-understand page by Kinnear. Each one-page (spiritual) Solution is on the book's right page, next to the Challenge, and it is culled from Holmes' extensive writings with an explanation plus an affirmation.

How is this useful? Thoughts Are Things not only outlines a problem but gives you the answer -- and a superb affirmation/prayer for immediate use. If you use it as prayer, there are a wide variety of topics. If you're not into prayer but are into affirmations, this book is also for you.

Holme's basic philosophy is that "there is a God-Power at the center of everyone's being, a Power that knows neither lack, limitation, nor fear, sickness, disquiet nor imperfection." But bad experiences, negative thinking and fear can checkmate a person's greater good....in other words, Thoughts Are Things so when negative thinking arises "you must of necessity change the basic pattern of your thought." The reason: negative thinking has mental, physical and spiritual consequences: it can lead to a downward, negative spiral, while focusing instead on the reality (that positive God-center and its total power) can generate many good things.

Thoughts Are Things is a manual to combat negative thinking, an antidote for hopelessness, and a roadmap for hope and fulfilling goals. PERSONAL NOTE: I'm not a member of the Church of Religious Science (but admire what it does). I started reading Holmes' more complex works in a time of crisis -- and this book was recommended to me by someone during a more recent crisis where I almost lost hope. I have read it, underlined it...and each day I refer to it.

And it TRULY helps. Believe me: Thoughts ARE Things.

The book is quite good, and I learned quite a lot (I don't know much anyway) about geology and planetology. But, the story of Mr. Holmes is not that interesting. Especially the 50 pages about his trip in Africa! Puh-leez! I love reading about the history of scientific discoveries, and I would have prefered more pages on the rejection of the continental drift theory.

This is a fine read, well-written and researched. Holmes is a personal hero of mine and I was thrilled to see a biography about him. I learned a lot of things about him that I never knew, including where he got his fascination with E. Africa, his time with an oil company, and how he struggled to get an academic post (the vignette about his curio shop should provide inspiration to all young geologists struggling for their first academic job. Ms. Lewis does a good job of presenting Holmes, warts and all, including his somewhat unsavory dalliance with Doris Reynolds (nepotism is always with us). The author does a great job of capturing the excitement of young Holmes learning about the unfolding mysteries of radioactivity and his efforts to apply this revolution to understanding earth processes and history. There are lots of photos, I wish there were more. The only bone that I have to pick with the author is that Kelvin's true motivation for concluding the earth must be young is not presented early enough. Yes, evolution called for lots of time, but the sun screamed louder to the physicists that little time could have had elapsed. How could the sun have remained so brilliantly hot if it were as ancient as Darwin thought the earth must be? No one could imagine that the sun could produce its energy by nuclear fusion, a concept that wasn't dreamed of until well into the 20th century. Its heat must come from burning something and this combustion could not go on for long. Kelvin was right to conclude that because the sun must be young, so must the earth.

I read this book on my way from London to Edinburgh (and the return) trip. Although such a read might add to the cost of the book, I highly recommend doing the same thing since you can trace some of Holme's history as well! The book discusses the struggles of Arthur Holmes to establish geochronology as a legitimate science and to establish the age of the Earth. The scientific struggles are intertwined with a discussion of Holme's personal struggles and the reader truly gets a sense of scientific history throughout the book. It is interesting for other reasons as well. The book helps explain the source of many young earth creationist arguments against radiometric dating. These 'modern' creationists are merely recycling old arguments that Holmes and colleagues scientifically dismissed during the establishment of modern mass spectrometry. If you never understood the rigors and challenges of modern science this book will enlighten you as well. Cherry Lewis does a wonderful job explaining the rigors of peer-review and the difficulty in establishing a new paradigm.

A book comprised of short stories from various authors.

Some were so intriguing while others were like WHAT????

Some should have been eliminated because they were too short and you couldn't grasp the purpose.

Some of these would make excellent stories if the authors worked on them a lot more.

this book was a good collection of short stories. Some were to short, they left you hangin on the edge. This is a perfect book for people who cant sit thru long novel.

I read this book in one day.

This book consisted of short stories that were off the hook.

If you are looking for a fast read, then this is the book for you.

It seems clear that the author knows his subject matter and the issues surrounding evolution and genetics as well as philosophy and ethics. It's much less clear that he has anything useful to add to the discussion. Instead, he devotes much of the book to quoting other scientists and writers, then criticizing their terminology and logic as being misleading or incomplete. Often it seems that he's missing the point of what those authors were trying to say; other times he's simply refuting an obvious misinterpretation.

The first 100 pages or so are spent in arriving at the following conclusions:
1. Life becomes more complex.
2. The word "selfish" should not be used about genes, because someone might mistakenly take it literally. Likewise the word "blind".

Regarding 1: Okay, I realize there is some debate about the reason for this and whether this is inevitable, but it seems clear that this has happened in our case, so why belabor the point?

Regarding 2: Well, if the intended audience for this book is those who might take it literally, I guess this was worthwhile. But then Rolston is doing a disservice to those of us who were never in danger of thinking that genes could be literally selfish. And, even worse, after firmly denouncing this terminology and taking shots at Dawkins for using it, he proceeds to infuse the entire remainder of the book with statements that genes are anything but selfish, rather they are "sharing". And far from being blind, genes are "smart". The author needs to read his own argument about mistakenly assigning human values to genes and apply it to this book.

On p. 141, Rolston asks "What is happening when a developed nation sends food to those underfed in a developing nation?" And responds with "...it no longer seems plausible to hold that the principal determinant is producing more offspring in the next generation." Again, does anyone actually think that? In a similar question on p. 267: "But then just where is Wilson getting these oughts that cannot be derived from biology, unless from the insights of ethicists (or theologians) that transcend biology?" The answer should be clear: all humans including scientists get their oughts from our genetic heritage. In the ancestral environment, it was an advantage to have these "moral" tendencies, and now we try to use logic to apply it to the whole world, even though it only evolved among small groups. Nothing more to it than that.

On pp. 192-211, Rolston contends that human minds evolved to use science, then argues that science is the result of "evolution transcending itself". But human minds did not evolve to use science. They evolved to help humans survive in the ancestral environment. Now we use them for other things, such as science, and again, I don't think the reader should ever have been in danger of thinking that this is the best way to use our minds in order to maximize our offspring. So what is the point of refuting this?

I'm afraid that much of this book falls into this pattern of quoting others, musing about possible failings in their logic, then moving on to the next subject as if the conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what the conclusion of this book is. If I had to guess, it would be "science is not sufficient to address moral questions". While that may be true in some sense, the criticism in this book leveled at scientific writings on the subject is not convincing, nor even particularly relevant to that issue. Science does have something to tell us about morality - though Rolston, and indeed many of us, might not comfortable with what it's telling us.

This work is well worth reading as a challenge to sociobiological thinking on values, ethics, and religion. One need not agree to the author's conclusions entirely to feel a breath of fresh air, and some common sense, applied to the Darwin debate, and the hopeless venture of deriving a genetic explanation for the religious evolutionary emergentism visible in world history and corresponding very little to the current regime of explanations. It is also true that challenging sociobiology is not so hard, and that by comparison almost any religious viewpoint looks superior! We still end back at square one, needing to find some resolution of the dilemma of naturalism, ethics, and evolution! That is, unless we abandon the scientific perspective and grant the exception of values altogether to any naturalistic account. Part of the problem is seen in the term 'naturalistic fallacy'. This is a fallacy in our own minds, but it would seem nature has few difficulties here for it does not honor this misnomer. Thus, the dilemma remains here of the boundaries of the natural and the transcendent, so-called. This is a point much clearer in a religion such as Buddhism, where no nonsense about man's 'spirit' is allowed to intrude on the 'self' whose phenomenology is assumed to be entirely natural. But this work cannot be faulted for not resolving the arcana of religion and does superbly as a challenge to the completely baffling oversimplifications of much ultra-Darwinian pontification of the subject of consciousness and ethics.

Rolston's 1997 Gifford Lectures and now book challenge the sociobiological orthodoxy. He interprets genetics and evolutionary biology to present the possibility of transcendent values operating in nature and culture. Unlike many other works of science, philosophy, and theology, Rolston's book is also well-crafted with powerful prose and provocative turn of phrases reminiscent of Loren Eisley. Whatever you think you know about the troubling interface between religion and evolutionary biology, prepare to be challenged. This book is a must read.

You can listen to Rolston discuss his book on the Internet as a RealAudio broadcast at http://www.pc4rs.org . Rolston is also "appearing" on the Meta List on Science and Religion to discuss the book in May of 1999 http://www.meta-list.org . On the Meta List in the archives, you will also find a lengthy review written by Michael Ruse (see Meta 073:1999).

If you are a dedicated follower of Holmes'adventures you will want to own this pastiche....just because. The plot is as acceptable as any; the bad guy is very bad and Holmes' manages to neutralize him with customary aplomb. The very real resonance with events throughout the world today is another strong plus. There are, however, two items disturbing enough that they are worthy of note. The first is a less than complete command of Watson's narrative voice. There are a number of sections wherein the voice has the ring of the late twentieth century rather than the late nineteenth. I noticed this trait more in this imitation than in any of the others which I have read thus far. More disturbing for this reader were some errors in proofreading/spelling which disturb the mood of urbane intellect which is a hallmark of Doyle's creation. Use of the substandard "alright" in this context in not acceptable; how could no one have caught it? Similarly, use of "taught" when "taut" is meant is hard to understand.

"The Giant Rat of Sumatra" is a delightful little book suitable for a quick dose of Holmes. Why not have some fun with the concept of Doyle's "lost" manuscripts? I found the author's treatment of this idea entertaining and thought provoking. The presentation of Holmes' brother is particularly refreshing and I was amused by his assistance to Holmes throughout the tale.

It would be a mistake to approach this clever little adventure with a Holmesian purist's zeal looking to pounce on any perceived lack of faithfulness to the originals; I say relax and enjoy a timely tale of hatred of civilization with authentic renderings of some of our most beloved companions.

The attractive cover matches the exotic sense of adventure suggested in the title, while the subdued "period" illustrations appropriately punctuate and supplement the text.

As a gift from a friend, it was a fine companion for a short bit of post-holiday relaxation by the fire.

This book features Mycroft quite a bit, which I like. The story's title, "The Giant Rat Of Sumatra" comes from one of the many cases that Doyle mentioned in passing. These always drove his readers nuts, because we always wanted more stories about Holmes. The adventure keeps moving toward a confrontation between Sherlock Holmes and a young nemesis that Moriarty had once wanted as a protégé. The author has also taken a cue from Doyle's mention of Sumatra and worked a volcanic fact into his story. In actual history (the 1880s), a volcano called Krakatoa, which lies a few miles off Sumatra, blew up in a massive explosion, affecting worldwide weather for about a year. There is, admittedly, a little Jules Verne science fiction here, but I personally prefer this format over having a Holmes that rings false; i.e. a Holmes convenient enough to be embroiled in the kind of sex-infused tales that some authors know drive today's fiction market, or that subject him to the kind of impossible domestic situations that Doyle (despite his occasional graphicness, or even the morality implied in "The Cardboard Box"), would hardly have imagined.
I'm also glad the villain isn't overly psychologized so that I 'understand' him. Doyle never bothered a lot with overexplaning his characters, and this makes his stories appealing. With Doyle, good guys are good guys, and bad guys are bad guys. And when a good guy like Holmes has a bad fault, it isn't explained away. Holmes is an addict because he's bored, not because of some submerged lingering childhood psychosis that needs explaining so that I excuse his addition. Similarly, the best villains in Doyle are not excused, and do not excite sympathy; consequently we have a lot of fun loathing nasty guys like Charles Augustus Milverton, Baron Gruner, and Rodger Baskerville. So I'm relieved to find the characters in "The Giant Rat" (this title proves to be a double entendre for Moriarty), pigeonholed so that I can relax, and react to them faithfully. All in all, the author has made a definite attempt at keeping Doyle's Holmes intact, helped partly by the author's occasional humor, but mostly by the eerily-close imitation of cadence and phrase so identified with the original Doyle stories. If the villain is more thinly veiled than I would have liked, it's apparently because the tale is more of an adventure than a mystery. Four-and-a-half stars, then, for this fault, but given a choice between four and 5, I'll take the latter.

As a Holmes fan of long standing who enjoys a good pastiche I had high hopes for this hard to find book (and BTW what's with this USEW thing Amazon have going on? The book is called 'Sherlock Holmes' War of the Worlds'). And while there is certainly a flavour of H.G. Wells here there's very little of Sherlock Holmes.

Drawing from Wells' novel 'War of the Worlds' and the short story 'The Crystal Egg' the Wellmans have reworked five of their previously published short stories into a loosely constructed novel. The premise is intriguing - what if Sherlock Holmes and Conan Doyle's other great adventurer Professor Challenger were in London during the Martian invasion? But the fact is that do a lot of theorising, much speculating, a bit of running back and forth avoiding capture...and that's all. They spend almost the whole book away from the main action. For instance the heroes visit the scene of the first cylinder landing and the first deaths from the heat ray, then they move on without actually doing anything constructive. And this was my problem with the whole book. The heroes don't really DO anything that significantly alters events.

It's a tricky proposition given that the invaders were eventually destroyed by bacteria, not human intervention. It means that Holmes and Challenger can only suggest what might happen (eg the Martians are coming, they might be susceptible to bacteria) then congratulate themselves for being correct. Heroes, and certainly Holmes and Challenger, should being active and propel events along. Certainly the Holmes of Conan Doyle does. The versions in this story, however, do nothing but think and talk. It was frustrating to be constantly reading, willing them to DO something constructive.

Holmes' affair with Mrs Hudson is of course ludicrous to any Sherlockian and adds only a pointless romance and a reason for Holmes to see her safely out of London thus AGAIN taking him away from the action to a place where he merely receives reports of what the Martians are doing back in London. It's poor plotting and a waste of a great characters and a great idea.

For some genuinely fun and exciting Holmes pastiches in a similar vein read Loren Estleman's wonderful 'Sherlock Holmes vs Dracula' and 'Doctor Jekyll and Mr Holmes'. Particularly in the Dracula novel Estleman (a terrific writer across several genres) really solves the problem of having Holmes offstage from the main Stroker narrative yet furiously working behind the scenes to solve the case. I only wish the Wellmans had been equally creative.

Manly W. Wellman, author of the wonderful Silver John Novels and his son Wade Wellmann have written a really fun book. Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes comes across a mysterious crystal egg from the H. G. Wells short story "The Crystal Egg". He takes it to Doyle's other famous character, Professor George Challenger, best known in the novel "the lost world". The two discover that earth is about to be visited by the Martians from Wells's War of the World. The Novel follows both Holmes and Challenger as they fight to survive and even captured a Martian. There are lot of guests from the Sherlock Holmes stories including Victor Trevor,from "The Gloria Scott", and the book even continue a plot from " The Adventure of the Empty House." Parts of the Book are written by Watson and parts by Edward Malone. The only thing I did not like was the authors have Holmes having a relationship with Mrs Hudson, his Housekeeper. Over all the book is great fun and a must read for fan of both Doyle and Wells' books.

This is the best Sherlock Holmes after Sir Arthur Conan Doyle book I've ever read.It explains everything that H.G.Wells had left behind in his "War Of The Worlds" novel. Anyone who is frustrated over the latter author's loose ends must read this book!